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: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 09:22:56 PM

Title: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 09:22:56 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 09:30:31 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

In spite of ongoing investigations ? Do we know the nature of those investigations ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 02, 2019, 09:32:51 PM
Do we know the outcome of the investigations?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 09:45:17 PM
In spite of ongoing investigations ? Do we know the nature of those investigations ?

No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 02, 2019, 10:42:27 PM
No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?

Investigating isn't solving. When they tell us what happened and who did it nothing is impossible. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:43:37 PM
Investigating isn't solving. When they tell us what happened and who did it nothing is impossible.
Nothing?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 10:43:49 PM
No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?

There’s been no indication of anything and judicial secrecy has made sure of that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 10:51:51 PM
There’s been no indication of anything and judicial secrecy has made sure of that.

But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:54:31 PM
But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?
Too much face to lose after 12 years to start voicing any doubts that they may have got it all wrong, IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2019, 10:54:42 PM
No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?

12 million spent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?

And neither have either pointed to any other particular perpetrator being involved....and ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:56:36 PM
And neither have either pointed to any other particular perpetrator being involved....and ?
They’ve pointed to quite a few actually, even made some of them arguidios which you have conveniently forgotten.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:57:30 PM
12 million spent.
Are you suggesting that the amount of money spent is evidence that they think the McCanns dunnit?  Oh my days.  (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:01:27 PM
And neither have either pointed to any other particular perpetrator being involved....and ?

And what?
You really do believe that an investigation by NSY and the ongoing Portuguese investigation are still looking at Madeleine's parents as being suspects in her disappearance?
Really?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2019, 11:02:42 PM
Are you suggesting that the amount of money spent is evidence that they think the McCanns dunnit?  Oh my days.  (&^&

I think it's obvious they have been eliminating all possibilities. A large chunk was spent on an operation to find a body so that suggests what they think!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:05:45 PM
12 million spent.

Royal weddings cost much more than that.
I'm more  than happy to spend my tiny fraction of my tax to find a missing child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 11:08:44 PM
And what?
You really do believe that an investigation by NSY and the ongoing Portuguese investigation are still looking at Madeleine's parents as being suspects in her disappearance?
Really?

Why is that so ridiculous.....ah I know, the investigating forces have answered direct questions from a journalists with the least contentious answer. Okaaaay.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:15:47 PM
Why is that so ridiculous.....ah I know, the investigating forces have answered direct questions from a journalists with the least contentious answer. Okaaaay.

Not answering my original question?
Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 11:22:17 PM
Each claim from a police spokesman that the parents are not suspects , be it in the U.K. or Portugal, has been in reply to a direct question from a journalist. No police spokesman has ever in an interview proferred this information spontaneously. If I’m wrong perhaps someone could provide the evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 11:24:03 PM
Not answering my original question?
Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Has there been any tangible evidence against anyone else ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2019, 11:26:17 PM
Royal weddings cost much more than that.
I'm more  than happy to spend my tiny fraction of my tax to find a missing child.

Name another missing child the UK government have spent 12 million to find?

In preparation for today’s announcement, senior officers from Operation Grange made 16 visits to Portugal in order to ensure that any potential difficulties were ironed out.

If a British suspect is ever charged with abduction or murder in the case, the law allows them to be tried at the Old Bailey in London, even if the alleged crime took place overseas.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10159992/Madeleine-McCann-How-the-British-led-investigation-will-operate-overseas.html

Less than a year later they were searching for a body.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 11:30:20 PM
Each claim from a police spokesman that the parents are not suspects , be it in the U.K. or Portugal, has been in reply to a direct question from a journalist. No police spokesman has ever in an interview proferred this information spontaneously. If I’m wrong perhaps someone could provide the evidence?
Redwood’s statement.  He wasn’t asked if the polwere investigating the McCanns, he gave this information freely iirc.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2019, 11:30:54 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

There are a myriad of 'beliefs' surrounding Madeleine's case very many of which emanate from the dark days when the Judicial police were scandalously feeding the Portuguese press and media systematically with one calumny hard on the heels of another. 
Resulting in what must surely rank as the character assassination of the century directed against the parents of a missing child and by association anyone with the slightest connection to them.

I think there has been a general desensitisation as a result which allows so called sceptics free rein to get the boot in whenever and wherever they can thinking they have the high ground; the indecency of it all is that the current police investigations into Madeleine's case don't seem to have had the slightest effect in giving them pause for thought.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:33:20 PM
I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Has there been any tangible evidence against anyone else ?

It's ok Faith Lilly, as expected no sceptic has explained why after many years of both  NSY  and the Portuguese police investigating Madeleine's disappearance  Sceptics still cling to the belief that her parents are involved in her disappearance.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
I think it's obvious they have been eliminating all possibilities. A large chunk was spent on an operation to find a body so that suggests what they think!
This is totally illogical.  Police do not start by investigating the least likely so as to eliminate them to work up to the most likely, nor does looking for a body in PdL mean they think the McCanns did it.  You may be much in demand for your opinion in another case but in this one your reasoning is painfully flawed imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:35:32 PM
Name another missing child the UK government have spent 12 million to find?

In preparation for today’s announcement, senior officers from Operation Grange made 16 visits to Portugal in order to ensure that any potential difficulties were ironed out.

If a British suspect is ever charged with abduction or murder in the case, the law allows them to be tried at the Old Bailey in London, even if the alleged crime took place overseas.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10159992/Madeleine-McCann-How-the-British-led-investigation-will-operate-overseas.html

Less than a year later they were searching for a body.


But yet after all the years of investigation by both  NSy and the Portuguese you do still be!ieve Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 02, 2019, 11:39:39 PM
But yet after all the years of investigation by both  NSy and the Portuguese you do still be!ieve Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.
Why?
Three words Erngarth:

Dogs Don’t Lie

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2019, 11:45:58 PM
But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?
The current investigations by the Judicial police and Scotland Yard are undoubtedly taking place solely as a result of Madeleine's parent's unceasing efforts and lobbying of the powers that be on her behalf.
I think it is illogical to suppose that they agitated as hard as they did or as long as they did for Madeleine's case to be investigated if they were guilty of any involvement in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:46:45 PM
Three words Erngarth:

Dogs Don’t Lie

 @)(++(*

God help us all if a dog's sense of smell becomes the arbiter of guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
The current investigations by the Judicial police and Scotland Yard are undoubtedly taking place solely as a result of Madeleine's parent's unceasing efforts and lobbying of the powers that be on her behalf.
I think it is illogical to suppose that they agitated as hard as they did or as long as they did for Madeleine's case to be investigated if they were guilty of any involvement in her disappearance.

Undoubtedly true but the usual sceptic response is along the lines of  and fill in any missing words grab a tiger by the tail.
And why on earth would her parents iniate and continue a campaign to ask our government to  open and continue the investigation into her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 12:10:23 AM
But yet after all the years of investigation by both  NSy and the Portuguese you do still be!ieve Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.
Why?

Both countries are still co-operating on this case to get it solved.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 03:14:03 AM
Both countries are still co-operating on this case to get it solved.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
Diplomatic gossip ?? which like the sceptic shibboleths means nothing with the passage of time as a fuller picture of events becomes apparent.
Wasn't Amaral sacked for saying the exact opposite on the occasion when he badmouthed the British cops saying they were hand in glove with the McCanns?

Snip
The cable does not specify what evidence British police are alleged to have gathered, or whether UK investigators were involved in the decision to formally name the McCanns as suspects.

They remained under official suspicion until July 2008 when Portuguese police shelved the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance and lifted the McCann's status as arguidos.

The three-year-old went missing from an apartment in the Algarve on May 3, 2007 while her parents dined with friends in a nearby restaurant.

Speaking at the time the suspect status was lifted, Mrs McCann said: "It is hard to describe how utterly despairing it was to be named arguidos and subsequently portrayed in the media as suspects in our own daughter's abduction."

A spokesman for the McCanns said: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/uk-built-evidence-against-mccanns-wikileaks
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 08:52:58 AM
This is truly the most pointless thread I have ever read on this board.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 09:09:15 AM
In my opinion there is more reliance on belief amongst those who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent. They believe that Madeleine was anducted by a stranger, but that's not a proven fact. Like the McCanns they quoted the archiving despatch for years to 'prove' they were cleared by the first investigation, but the Supreme Court Judges dispelled that belief.

I don't believe in the McCann's guilt or innocence, but I do think there are many aspects of their evidence and behaviour which require explanation. It may be that there are good reasons  for the things that puzzle me, but until I hear them one reason could be guilt.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out that there are questions because those who believe the McCanns are innocent often ignore them.  .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
This is truly the most pointless thread I have ever read on this board.

 *%87
Not liking this thread?
Don't participate then .
Easily sorted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:14:13 AM
In my opinion there is more reliance on belief amongst those who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent. They believe that Madeleine was anducted by a stranger, but that's not a proven fact. Like the McCanns they quoted the archiving despatch for years to 'prove' they were cleared by the first investigation, but the Supreme Court Judges dispelled that belief.

I don't believe in the McCann's guilt or innocence, but I do think there are many aspects of their evidence and behaviour which require explanation. It may be that there are good reasons  for the things that puzzle me, but until I hear them one reason could be guilt.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out that there are questions because those who believe the McCanns are innocent often ignore them.  .

You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 09:15:01 AM
*%87
Not liking this thread?
Don't participate then .
Easily sorted.

It’s not that I don’t like it I just don’t see the point. Can I ask what you are trying to achieve?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 09:17:25 AM
You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true

Until, or if, Madeleine turns up alive the alerts cannot be discounted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:22:47 AM
In my opinion there is more reliance on belief amongst those who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent. They believe that Madeleine was anducted by a stranger, but that's not a proven fact. Like the McCanns they quoted the archiving despatch for years to 'prove' they were cleared by the first investigation, but the Supreme Court Judges dispelled that belief.

I don't believe in the McCann's guilt or innocence, but I do think there are many aspects of their evidence and behaviour which require explanation. It may be that there are good reasons  for the things that puzzle me, but until I hear them one reason could be guilt.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out that there are questions because those who believe the McCanns are innocent often ignore them.  .

You miss the point completely.
It is a fact that after many years of investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese Police that Madeleine's parents are not suspects in her disappearance.
You may continue to express your doubts and concerns but it doesn't alter the above fact one iota.
I started the thread because from time to time I do wonder what sceptics are waiting for?
As you have liked Faiths post, you obviously agree that this is thee most pointless thread ever!
Don't contribute then, let it sink into oblivion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:24:48 AM
It’s not that I don’t like it I just don’t see the point. Can I ask what you are trying to achieve?

Has every thread to achieve anything?
Is there a purpose to every thread?
As I said don't contribute!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:28:08 AM
Until, or if, Madeleine turns up alive the alerts cannot be discounted.

I think you are totally wrong... The alerts can be discounted until corobborated
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:29:48 AM
Then ee have the sceptic belief that the non verbatim twice translated statements can be taken as an exact account of what the McCann's said and there is no room fir error
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:44:25 AM
Both countries are still co-operating on this case to get it solved.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police


That article is nine years old!
Still working cooperatively?
Nine years and  still and as yet  no evidence against the McCanns.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 09:46:57 AM
Then ee have the sceptic belief that the non verbatim twice translated statements can be taken as an exact account of what the McCann's said and there is no room fir error
Yip, for blatantly obvious reasons, I'm one of those sceptics. Count me in on the that one. 
Count me in when your posting your proof that I'm wrong. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:50:44 AM

There is evidence against the McCanns.

Witness statements are evidence.

A witness said they saw Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:54:19 AM
Yip, for blatantly obvious reasons, I'm one of those sceptics. Count me in on the that one. 
Count me in when your posting your proof that I'm wrong. 8(0(*
There was enough evidence against Barry George to convict him... That's why I always, say no real evidence against the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:55:37 AM
Yip, for blatantly obvious reasons, I'm one of those sceptics. Count me in on the that one. 
Count me in when your posting your proof that I'm wrong. 8(0(*

If you are going to use them against the McCann's let me know when you have proof they are, accurate... We don't know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:57:23 AM
There is evidence against the McCanns.

Witness statements are evidence.

A witness said they saw Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

Of course witness statements are evidence... Katecsaid the window was open and Maddie had been abducted... So there is evidence of abduction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:00:40 AM
There is also a witness who allegedly told police, Gerry knew at 11 pm on May 3rd that pedo gangs were operating in PDL and had nabbed his child. Despite this knowledge he left his three children all alone in an unlocked apartment for 5 nights in a row. There is no record in the files where and when he got this knowledge from, so it's reasonable to assume he had it before 10 pm on May 3rd imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 10:08:51 AM
You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true
Almost every belief held and promulgated by the sceptics for the past twelve years is based on the false information given to the Portuguese press by the investigators of the time.

Each as damaging as the next as they built on the narrative ... but none I think as clammy as the misrepresentation of the Grime dogs (despite the owner's factual synopsis  at the time) which gave the 'justification' to have Madeleine's parents declared as formal suspects.

Snip
The incomplete DNA information found its way into the press and, before long, unsubstantiated allegations started to circulate.

Tabloids splashed accusations against the McCanns across their front pages and the media frenzy became relentless. One particular newspaper, featured in the documentary, ran a front-page headline with the words: "We have found her blood in the boot of your hire car… Did you kill her by accident?"

There was no evidence to show that Madeleine was the source of the DNA. ~ Netflix Documentary 2019
___________________________________________________________________________________
Snip
"There never did emerge one single identical match for the DNA of Madeleine McCann," investigative reporter and researcher Robbyn Swan explains.

Expert dog handler Martin Grime says that an alert from the cadaver dogs was not enough on its own; it was only ever intended as an indicator for the investigators to look for possible corroborating evidence – which, in this case, they did not find. ~ Netflix Documentary 2019

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a26852825/disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-theories-speculation-fake-facts/

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 10:32:54 AM
You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true

The  dog alerts aren't something I rely on, they're just one of the many puzzling features of the case. They seem to be one of your main interests though; they get dragged into every thread, relevant or not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:35:22 AM
Of course witness statements are evidence... Katecsaid the window was open and Maddie had been abducted... So there is evidence of abduction
Is that the same Kate that wrote in her book, "We'd never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice..."
How do we know they weren't in a tricky situation and lied about the window and whooshing curtain as well?
We don't is the answer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 10:37:40 AM
Then there was the huge pool of suspicion made out of Kate's request to speak to a priest on the night Madeleine went missing.  Where did that nonsense come from?
But it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:42:39 AM
Then there was the huge pool of suspicion made out of Kate's request to speak to a priest on the night Madeleine went missing.  Where did that nonsense come from?
But it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs.
I'm not one of those many people who find the request that important but the fact that priests preach about reincarnation may have been seen as relevant to some people.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:16:48 AM
You miss the point completely.
It is a fact that after many years of investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese Police that Madeleine's parents are not suspects in her disappearance.
You may continue to express your doubts and concerns but it doesn't alter the above fact one iota.
I started the thread because from time to time I do wonder what sceptics are waiting for?
As you have liked Faiths post, you obviously agree that this is thee most pointless thread ever!
Don't contribute then, let it sink into oblivion.

The only way to find out what the police are thinking is when they act. The Portuguese police have taken no actions afaik. Op Grange have done appeals, interviews and some digging. The appeals seemed to be attempts to identify certain people, the interviews were to gather more information or rule people out and the digging suggests they are open to the possibility that there was a death and disposal.

They have said the McCanns aren't suspects but not why. If they were relying on the archiving despatch they should have listened to the Supreme Court Judges who pointed out that it didn't 'clear' the McCanns. If they investigated them and found no evidence against them they remain in the same position as the first investigation; they don't know what the crime was or who committed it.

In my opinion the fact that there are continuing investigations doesn't allow conclusions to be drawn about the final outcome; if any.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 11:27:12 AM
The only way to find out what the police are thinking is when they act. The Portuguese police have taken no actions afaik. Op Grange have done appeals, interviews and some digging. The appeals seemed to be attempts to identify certain people, the interviews were to gather more information or rule people out and the digging suggests they are open to the possibility that there was a death and disposal.

They have said the McCanns aren't suspects but not why. If they were relying on the archiving despatch they should have listened to the Supreme Court Judges who pointed out that it didn't 'clear' the McCanns. If they investigated them and found no evidence against them they remain in the same position as the first investigation; they don't know what the crime was or who committed it.

In my opinion the fact that there are continuing investigations doesn't allow conclusions to be drawn about the final outcome; if any.

But the over riding conclusion at this time is that the McCanns are not suspects and all the perceivd evidence which sceptics believe to be important and incriminating has surely been discounted so far by two police investigations.
I'm intrigued as to why sceptics seem to ignore this fact!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:27:34 AM
Then there was the huge pool of suspicion made out of Kate's request to speak to a priest on the night Madeleine went missing.  Where did that nonsense come from?
But it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs.

Please note that 'it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs' in your opinion. I'm one of those you have named a sceptic and I accept that some people turn to religopn in times of trouble so it's definitely not a sifnificant matter in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 11:31:51 AM
I'm not one of those many people who find the request that important but the fact that priests preach about reincarnation may have been seen as relevant to some people.

Which is exactly what this thread is all about ... the eclectic nature of the system which sustains sceptic beliefs.  Which I think are of the Pick-and-Mix variety ... and all highly pejorative of absolutely everything McCann.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 11:33:52 AM

That article is nine years old!
Still working cooperatively?
Nine years and  still and as yet  no evidence against the McCanns.

That you know of.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:36:30 AM
But the over riding conclusion at this time is that the McCanns are not suspects and all the perceivd evidence which sceptics believe to be important and incriminating has surely been discounted so far by two police investigations.
I'm intrigued as to why sceptics seem to ignore this fact!

That conclusion isn't over riding though. If it was there would be nothing to discuss.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 11:41:51 AM
Which is exactly what this thread is all about ... the eclectic nature of the system which sustains sceptic beliefs.  Which I think are of the Pick-and-Mix variety ... and all highly pejorative of absolutely everything McCann.
I'd have adopted the same system for anyone thrusting themselves into public life and who adopted a similar approach to having an evidence less based theory stuffed down my throat, at a cost to the public (me being one) of £12 million. Until they started spending my money, I didn't have a system.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 11:43:28 AM
That you know of.

If there is, why are the police not acting on this evidence?
And as the years and years of police investigation continues without any indication that the McCanns are suspects, what does keep you and other sceptics so convinced that there is such evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 11:45:08 AM
That conclusion isn't over riding though. If it was there would be nothing to discuss.

It at the moment as far as the police are concerned.
Unless you know otherwise.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 11:45:37 AM
The  dog alerts aren't something I rely on, they're just one of the many puzzling features of the case. They seem to be one of your main interests though; they get dragged into every thread, relevant or not.
I never used the word rely....i think sceptics such as yourself put too much emphasis on them...the reason i see belief in the alerts being important is that according to Almeida ..at the libel trial...they were the main reason the mccanns were made arguidos...the MAIN reason...thats not me attaching importance to them its teh initial investigation. You yourself misquoted grime when you posted  Grime had said in his opinion the dog alerts were to cadaver.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 11:48:20 AM
There is evidence against the McCanns.

Witness statements are evidence.

A witness said they saw Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.
@)(++(*  Several witnesses saw Murat acting suspiciously on the night of the abduction.  Evidence against him too.  I guess he is not cleared then, and is still a suspect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 11:48:47 AM
Please note that 'it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs' in your opinion. I'm one of those you have named a sceptic and I accept that some people turn to religopn in times of trouble so it's definitely not a sifnificant matter in my opinion.
When not liking something ... for example, the subject of this thread ... the old deflection card is played as your post illustrates.

I don't recall 'naming' you as anything ... so that definitely requires a cite.

Even had I done so ... why would you object being called a sceptic?
_____________________________________________________________________

To the topic ...
Nothing which isn't true is of itself of any significance ... it is the sum of the whole which gives the lie significance enough to feature in a police interrogation.

Question 24: Did you ask for a priest?

Which suggests the the Portuguese police did indeed find it of significance as have a legion of sceptic believers in the twelve years since.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
I'd have adopted the same system for anyone thrusting themselves into public life and who adopted a similar approach to having an evidence less based theory stuffed down my throat, at a cost to the public (me being one) of £12 million. Until they started spending my money, I didn't have a system. I didn't give a shit about them then.
I'm not entirely sure if you are aware of it but I think your posts illustrate in concise detail many of the shibboleths held dear in the sceptic belief system.

I also think it illustrates the belief that Madeleine isn't really worth looking for if it has and is costing the British taxpayer money.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
@)(++(*  Several witnesses saw Murat acting suspiciously on the night of the abduction.  Evidence against him too.  I guess he is not cleared then, and is still a suspect.
The difference is that those witnesses appear in the files ... I think Amaral's book and documentary are polluted with those who are nought but a figment of his imagination.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
I'm not entirely sure if you are aware of it but I think your posts illustrate in concise detail many of the shibboleths held dear in the sceptic belief system.

I also think it illustrates the belief that Madeleine isn't really worth looking for if it has and is costing the British taxpayer money.


There is no evidence to support an abduction, it really is that simple.
If you have some I'll be more happy to consider it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 12:10:03 PM
there's lots of evidence that supports abduction....those with a closed mind cant see it....Redwood actually said ..based on teh evidence when he talked of abduction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 12:17:13 PM
thers lots of evidence that supports abduction....those with a closed mind cant see it....Redwood actually said ..based on teh evidence when he talked of abduction
How can you be certain Smithman is evidence of an abduction? And how can you be certain he wasn't in fact Gerry like Mr Smith and his wife believe? Redwood said a lot of things and he showed us a lot of things too.
He showed us a photograph of an abductor who he claims never existed. Not exactly evidence for an abduction, is it now?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 12:21:32 PM
If there is, why are the police not acting on this evidence?
And as the years and years of police investigation continues without any indication that the McCanns are suspects, what does keep you and other sceptics so convinced that there is such evidence?

I’m sorry but how do you know what they are acting on ? An answer to a question put to Rowley two years ago, an question that could not be answered in any other way if details of the investigation were to be kept confidential.

Do you agree that if the parents were being investigated that we wouldn’t be told about it until they were arrested or charged ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 12:26:32 PM
I’m sorry but how do you know what they are acting on ? An answer to a question put to Rowley two years ago, an question that could not be answered in any other way if details of the investigation were to be kept confidential.

Do you agree that if the parents were being investigated that we wouldn’t be told about it until they were arrested or charged ?

Well they've not acted so far!
I'm fairly sure that if the McCanns were being investigated, it would be very difficult to carry out that investigation without a hint of such a sensational move being leaked.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
It at the moment as far as the police are concerned.
Unless you know otherwise.

You seem to believe that the police tell the public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is evidence that they don't even do that in a court of law. I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that things can change. What is true at one moment isn't necessarily true for evermore.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 12:47:26 PM
According to some Believers the McCanns have been under investigation for nigh on 9 years.  What aspects of the McCanns have the police been investigating in those 9 years I wonder...?  *%6^
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 12:50:05 PM
I really wasn't interested in them before the investigation began, that's the truth. It's was only when they began to use my money I decided to look at the case at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 12:53:25 PM
You seem to believe that the police tell the public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is evidence that they don't even do that in a court of law. I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that things can change. What is true at one moment isn't necessarily true for evermore.

No, I don't believe that the Police tell the public the truth at all times.
Why would the police conceal the truth about the McCanns?
Of course things can change!
I assume that is the thought which keeps sceptics hopeful?
It's taking a while to change though, in spite of both police Investigations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 12:56:40 PM
I really wasn't interested in them before the investigation began, that's the truth. It's was only when they began to use my money I decided to look at the case at all.

Do the McCanns have access to your bank account now too?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:05:28 PM
When not liking something ... for example, the subject of this thread ... the old deflection card is played as your post illustrates.

I don't recall 'naming' you as anything ... so that definitely requires a cite.

Even had I done so ... why would you object being called a sceptic?
_____________________________________________________________________

To the topic ...
Nothing which isn't true is of itself of any significance ... it is the sum of the whole which gives the lie significance enough to feature in a police interrogation.

Question 24: Did you ask for a priest?

Which suggests the the Portuguese police did indeed find it of significance as have a legion of sceptic believers in the twelve years since.

How can you accuse me of deflecton when I replied to your post? You posted your opinion of 'sceptic' beliefs as if it was a fact. I pointed out that as one of those percieved as a sceptic that wasn't true of me.

(The 'you' referred to supporters in general, not you in particular btw. I appreciate it that you've refrained from labelling me as others have)

The reason for my dislike of labels is that they tend to group people together and ignore their differences. Then, as on this thread, they are all accused of holding similar opinions.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:07:46 PM
How can you accuse me of deflecton when I replied to your post? You posted your opinion of 'sceptic' beliefs as if it was a fact. I pointed out that as one of those percieved as a sceptic that wasn't true of me.

(The 'you' referred to supporters in general, not you in particular btw. I appreciate it that you've refrained from labelling me as others have)

The reason for my dislike of labels is that they tend to group people together and ignore their differences. Then, as on this thread, they are all accused of holding similar opinions.
Sceptics DO all hold the same position.  They are all sceptical of the McCanns' version of events and think they are hiding something. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 01:11:45 PM
When the government spends £12 million of our money on one missing person and ignores all the other missing people. You reckon I should be ashamed or apologise for that anger? Dream on, but I'm glad you took the time to reflect on your use of the term hate in the interests of accuracy. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:12:44 PM
I simply don't understand why some people are so determined to believe that The McCanns are guilty when two Police Forces have failed to do so.

This has to involve mindless hatred that is completely beyond me.  It totally lacks logic of any kind and only ever relies upon conspiracy theories, all absolutely unproven.  Where is the justice in this?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 01:15:10 PM
Do the McCanns have access to your bank account now too?
The old taxman does, that makes the McCann affair everyone's business whether people like it or not.
I don't even hate paying tax on the whole, but it does make me angry spending it to promote inequality in missing person's cases.
 &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:15:41 PM
No, I don't believe that the Police tell the public the truth at all times.
Why would the police conceal the truth about the McCanns?
Of course things can change!
I assume that is the thought which keeps sceptics hopeful?
It's taking a while to change though, in spite of both police Investigations.

Thank you. Hopefully your future posts will acknowledge that what the police say can't be quoted as if it was evidence. I don't think I suggested that the police are concealing the truth about the McCanns, but if they were investigating them you can be sure they wouldn't tell them or the general public.

The only reason anyone remains interested in this case is to see if it ever reaches any conclusions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:18:10 PM
The old taxman does, that makes the McCann affair everyone's business whether people like it or not.
I don't even hate paying tax on the whole, but it does make me angry spending it to promote inequality in missing person's cases.
 &^&*%

If only.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 03, 2019, 01:20:38 PM
Thank you. Hopefully your future posts will acknowledge that what the police say can't be quoted as if it was evidence. I don't think I suggested that the police are concealing the truth about the McCanns, but if they were investigating them you can be sure they wouldn't tell them or the general public.

The only reason anyone remains interested in this case is to see if it ever reaches any conclusions.

And if it does, you won't see some people for dust  ?{)(**
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
And if it does, you won't see some people for dust  ?{)(**

You will be here admitting that you were wrong, will you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:29:45 PM
Sceptics DO all hold the same position.  They are all sceptical of the McCanns' version of events and think they are hiding something.

In general terms perhaps, but not in every particular detail, which is what is being suggested.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 03, 2019, 01:30:49 PM
You will be here admitting that you were wrong, will you?

Unlikely that I'll find myself in that position. I expect no resolution.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 01:32:01 PM
I simply don't understand why some people are so determined to believe that The McCanns are guilty when two Police Forces have failed to do so.

This has to involve mindless hatred that is completely beyond me.  It totally lacks logic of any kind and only ever relies upon conspiracy theories, all absolutely unproven.  Where is the justice in this?

Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 01:38:41 PM
I think the expensive police action being taken on Madeleine's behalf which is the object of much sceptic criticism confirms that those with access to the bigger picture of up-to-date information and evidence are pursuing the abduction theory.
Which is one reason why sceptics have taken such a dislike to it and criticise it at every possible opportunity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:39:55 PM
And if it does, you won't see some people for dust  ?{)(**
Too right. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:40:18 PM
In general terms perhaps, but not in every particular detail, which is what is being suggested.
Cite?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:41:28 PM
Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.
Oh dear, if we followed your logic we’d be heading down the rabbit hole to Wonderland.  IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 01:42:20 PM
How can you be certain Smithman is evidence of an abduction? And how can you be certain he wasn't in fact Gerry like Mr Smith and his wife believe? Redwood said a lot of things and he showed us a lot of things too.
He showed us a photograph of an abductor who he claims never existed. Not exactly evidence for an abduction, is it now?
Cite for what Mr Smith and his wife believe, thank you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:42:59 PM
Unlikely that I'll find myself in that position. I expect no resolution.

Me neither but if there is and it doesn't involve the parents the fact remains that people found them unconvincing before the PJ moved against them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:44:57 PM
Can anyone seriously envisage a day when they wake up and the first words on the radio aren’t about Brexit but are “McCanns arrested for hiding a body?”. Does anyone actually believe this is on the cards? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 01:46:07 PM
When the government spends £12 million of our money on one missing person and ignores all the other missing people. You reckon I should be ashamed or apologise for that anger? Dream on, but I'm glad you took the time to reflect on your use of the term hate in the interests of accuracy.

I find anger such a negative,  non productive emotion.
But whatever floats your boat!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:46:38 PM
Did I say you did?

I think the expensive police action being taken on Madeleine's behalf which is the object of much sceptic criticism confirms that those with access to the bigger picture of up-to-date information and evidence are pursuing the abduction theory.
Which is one reason why sceptics have taken such a dislike to it and criticise it at every possible opportunity.

It's not connected to their remit then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 01:53:35 PM
Cite for what Mr Smith and his wife believe, thank you.

(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4136.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:53:49 PM
Unlikely that I'll find myself in that position. I expect no resolution.

By far the easiest option.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 01:54:04 PM
Can anyone seriously envisage a day when they wake up and the first words on the radio aren’t about Brexit but are “McCanns arrested for hiding a body?”. Does anyone actually believe this is on the cards?

No!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:55:04 PM
Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.

Fortunately, I find most of your comments to be innocuous.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 01:56:26 PM
Ah well, it's not evidence of hate, it's evidence of the reader using terms to further their own agenda imo.
I really didn't give a shit about them before the investigation began, that's the truth. It's was only when they begun to use my money I decided to look at the case at all.
You perhaps may wish to revise your opinion of hatred in the interest of accuracy.
Anyhows, I'm out of here for today.

Discussion of "Sceptic Beliefs" apparently isn't easy.  Is that because it brings them under scrutiny?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:58:46 PM
Fortunately, I find most of your comments to be innocuous.
That's putting it kindly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 03, 2019, 02:06:43 PM
Is that the same Kate that wrote in her book, "We'd never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice..."
How do we know they weren't in a tricky situation and lied about the window and whooshing curtain as well?
We don't is the answer.


The tricky situation was that the dogs were going to search their apartment,  as they weren't allowed to talk about the investigation they had to say that Gerry had a stomach bug,  which wasn't really a lie as he did have an upset stomach.


Now talking about lying,  Amaral lied about the DNA,   then lied that he didn't mention it to Sandra.   He also lied in court committing perjury.   So I wouldn't mention lying if I were you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 02:12:54 PM
When the government spends £12 million of our money on one missing person and ignores all the other missing people. You reckon I should be ashamed or apologise for that anger? Dream on, but I'm glad you took the time to reflect on your use of the term hate in the interests of accuracy.

Again this is a classic component of the sceptic mantra.  Why do people insist that "all the other missing people" are denied funding in favour of Madeleine?
That is really one which has been on the go for a while ... possibly even predating the present official search for Madeleine ... where is the justification for the claim?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 02:23:43 PM
Me neither but if there is and it doesn't involve the parents the fact remains that people found them unconvincing before the PJ moved against them.

Why would 'people' hold such an opinion in the very early and early stages of a police investigation?  They had no information of the ongoing investigation for a missing little girl.
Why was it therefore necessary to 'soften up' public opinion by working on spreading lies about the missing child's parents at the expense of investigating what had happened to the child?

Your post justifies and condones the PJ using that unprofessional and illegal tactic ... why would you do that?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 03:16:04 PM
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4136.jpg)
Your post epitomises the sceptic propensity to dwell in the comfort zone of past belief while totally ignoring any evidence which proves the contrary.

The final police report records that Mr Smith's statement was mistaken because it was impossible for the man he saw to be Gerry McCann ... and considering that Mr Smith asserts in his statement to the police that he would be unable to identify the man he saw anyway ... don't you think it odd you are repeating a misidentification which was proved to be false?
Proving sceptic belief defies evidence which contradicts it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 03, 2019, 03:50:11 PM
There have been a number of complaints about the language being used by some posters so kindly moderate your responses and above all keep replies civil.

I have removed or edited a number of previous posts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 04:03:19 PM
The only way to find out what the police are thinking is when they act. The Portuguese police have taken no actions afaik. Op Grange have done appeals, interviews and some digging. The appeals seemed to be attempts to identify certain people, the interviews were to gather more information or rule people out and the digging suggests they are open to the possibility that there was a death and disposal.

They have said the McCanns aren't suspects but not why. If they were relying on the archiving despatch they should have listened to the Supreme Court Judges who pointed out that it didn't 'clear' the McCanns. If they investigated them and found no evidence against them they remain in the same position as the first investigation; they don't know what the crime was or who committed it.

In my opinion the fact that there are continuing investigations doesn't allow conclusions to be drawn about the final outcome; if any.

The Portuguese police have said there is no evidence against the McCann's.. That explains why they are not suspects
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.

You refer to the alerts... Uncorroborated.... No evidential value.. The timeline statements... No confirmation of accuracy.... Precisely why sceptics have reached the wrong conclusions.. Imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 03, 2019, 04:57:16 PM
You refer to the alerts... Uncorroborated.... No evidential value.. The timeline statements... No confirmation of accuracy.... Precisely why sceptics have reached the wrong conclusions.. Imo

Is there any refuteble evidence either the SY or more importantly the PJ have reached a different conclusion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 04:58:13 PM
The  dog alerts aren't something I rely on, they're just one of the many puzzling features of the case. They seem to be one of your main interests though; they get dragged into every thread, relevant or not.

I don't see anything  puzzling about the alerts... Particularly the one to cuddlecat
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 05:11:29 PM
Why would 'people' hold such an opinion in the very early and early stages of a police investigation?  They had no information of the ongoing investigation for a missing little girl.
Why was it therefore necessary to 'soften up' public opinion by working on spreading lies about the missing child's parents at the expense of investigating what had happened to the child?

Your post justifies and condones the PJ using that unprofessional and illegal tactic ... why would you do that?

It's nothing to do with the PJ at all. Sometimes a story just doesn't ring true. Were people really expected to believe that that a couple wemt out and left their kids home alone five nights in succession? That they didn't even lock the doors? How on earth are they going to live with the guilt and sorrow? Quite well, apparently.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K-G/4thbirthdaypdl%20(2).jpg)

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 05:21:37 PM
Is there any refuteble evidence either the SY or more importantly the PJ have reached a different conclusion.

I believe both have said Maddie may still be alive... So that doesn't say much Re the alerts.. The PJ have said no evidence against the McCann's so again that negatesboth of the above as being evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 05:27:26 PM
It's nothing to do with the PJ at all. Sometimes a story just doesn't ring true. Were people really expected to believe that that a couple wemt out and left their kids home alone five nights in succession? That they didn't even lock the doors? How on earth are they going to live with the guilt and sorrow? Quite well, apparently.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K-G/4thbirthdaypdl%20(2).jpg)
Oh For God’s Sake.  This is a perfect example of hateful propaganda.  Well done for illustrating the point perfectly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 03, 2019, 05:40:05 PM
I believe both have said Maddie may still be alive... So that doesn't say much Re the alerts.. The PJ have said no evidence against the McCann's so again that negatesboth of the above as being evidence

There again they have both said they have no evidence she may be alive,so that may say a lot about the alerts.
The most important person to offer a comment recently and that was in 2017.

Pedro Do Carmo:We don't know what happened and have to be prepared for different scenarios.




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 06:32:44 PM
Oh For God’s Sake.  This is a perfect example of hateful propaganda.  Well done for illustrating the point perfectly.

My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 07:07:48 PM
My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.
What is quite wrong and hateful (IMO) about the photo is not the McCanns smiling broadly in it but the fact that it represents one fleeting moment of probably no more than 2 seconds of their time outside that church that has been used by people like you trying to make out that the McCanns were happy an completely carefree in the face of their child's disappearance.  How else could you describe the actions of those (like yourself) who keep using this picture as evidence when it shows nothing more than a second in time taken completely out of context?  Why do you do it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 07:28:36 PM
It's nothing to do with the PJ at all. Sometimes a story just doesn't ring true. Were people really expected to believe that that a couple wemt out and left their kids home alone five nights in succession? That they didn't even lock the doors? How on earth are they going to live with the guilt and sorrow? Quite well, apparently.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K-G/4thbirthdaypdl%20(2).jpg)

If this makes you disbelieve the McCann's I think your logic is poor.  I posted two photos a year a two ago of a young lady.. Teenager I think.... At her family's funeral.  Bothe her parents and three siblings had been murdered the week before... One photo showed her smiling broadly and another showed her in absolute bits... The McCann's being captured smiling is nothing unusual in the circumstances


cassidy stay........     www.google.com/search?q=cassidy+stay+funeral&oq=cassidy+stay+funeral&aqs=chrome..69i57.7935j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

have  alook at the images...does your explanation for her smiling broadly mean we should doubt her account of the murder

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 07:43:32 PM
cassidy at her families funeral
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 07:49:39 PM
My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.
I doubt very much if there could be a clearer example of belief propped up of necessity by propaganda as sceptics leapt on a frame from a video and promoted it.  Very much as it continues to be promoted twelve years down the line.

It is a perfect example showing the actual fragility of the sceptic beliefs that they exist and work only through avid proselyting however meaningless and trivial.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 07:53:37 PM
Your post epitomises the sceptic propensity to dwell in the comfort zone of past belief while totally ignoring any evidence which proves the contrary.

The final police report records that Mr Smith's statement was mistaken because it was impossible for the man he saw to be Gerry McCann ... and considering that Mr Smith asserts in his statement to the police that he would be unable to identify the man he saw anyway ... don't you think it odd you are repeating a misidentification which was proved to be false?
Proving sceptic belief defies evidence which contradicts it.

Things have moved on since 2008.

"The last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance."

Smith family left Kelly's bar at 22:00

What was impossible?

(https://i.ibb.co/dMFfc75/2151.png)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 07:59:42 PM
Things have moved on since 2008.

"The last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance."

Smith family left Kelly's bar at 22:00

What was impossible?

If you haven't already ... allow me to recommend you read the PJ Final Report and the Archiving Dispatch.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 08:06:15 PM
Things have moved on since 2008.

DCI Redwood said: “The timeline we have now established has given new significance to sightings and movements of people in and around Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance.

“Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-reconstruction-police-2368670
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 08:51:37 PM
What is quite wrong and hateful (IMO) about the photo is not the McCanns smiling broadly in it but the fact that it represents one fleeting moment of probably no more than 2 seconds of their time outside that church that has been used by people like you trying to make out that the McCanns were happy an completely carefree in the face of their child's disappearance.  How else could you describe the actions of those (like yourself) who keep using this picture as evidence when it shows nothing more than a second in time taken completely out of context?  Why do you do it?

I'm attempting to demonstrate why people began to wonder about the McCanns without any input by the PJ. I'm doing it because some people seem to believe that no-one would have doubted them if ir wasn't for the PJ. That isn't true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
I'm attempting to demonstrate why people began to wonder about the McCanns without any input by the PJ. I'm doing it because some people seem to believe that no-one would have doubted them if ir wasn't for the PJ. That isn't true.
Are you attempting to demonstrate how blatant anti McCann propaganda influenced people’s attitudes towards the McCanns, because if so you’ve certainly been successful doing that but that is all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:10:35 PM
I'm attempting to demonstrate why people began to wonder about the McCanns without any input by the PJ. I'm doing it because some people seem to believe that no-one would have doubted them if ir wasn't for the PJ. That isn't true.

I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 09:20:28 PM
Are you attempting to demonstrate how blatant anti McCann propaganda influenced people’s attitudes towards the McCanns, because if so you’ve certainly been successful doing that but that is all.

Why do you see what I have posted as propaganda? By whom? Those reporting on the disappearance in the first 12 days after Madeleine's disappearance? People watched, listened and drew their own conclusions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:21:27 PM
I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.
It took you that long?   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:25:04 PM
It took you that long?   @)(++(*

I remember vividly the news was on & I was saying to the TV, as one does, 'investigate the parents'.
Of course, that didn't happen straight away thanks to John Buck.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:26:21 PM
Why do you see what I have posted as propaganda? By whom? Those reporting on the disappearance in the first 12 days after Madeleine's disappearance? People watched, listened and drew their own conclusions.
I have made it clear why I see it as propaganda.  That picture does not show the McCanns typical behaviour after Madeleine disappeared.  They did not walk around PdL hand in hand laughing and smiling all day long.  That picture shows a brief moment of levity no longer than a second or two yet has become ubiquitous on anti McCann forums as evidence of the McCanns apparent lack of concern and their happiness in the face of their daughter’s disappearance.  There is nothing suspicious about smiling briefly in the face of terrible grief or adversity but you seem to think it’s significant enough to post this picture yet again for us to pore over.  Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:27:23 PM
I remember vividly the news was on & I was saying to the TV, as one does, 'investigate the parents'.
Of course, that didn't happen straight away thanks to John Buck.
Well aren’t you special.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 09:27:49 PM
I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.

Shocking  8(0(*

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xVoeOPRNOVw/WEctuiLaihI/AAAAAAAAMY8/Hoxel_ohnWEU5jhxgnPPHr7x0rSmhp_MACLcB/s1600/image003.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:37:44 PM
Shocking  8(0(*

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xVoeOPRNOVw/WEctuiLaihI/AAAAAAAAMY8/Hoxel_ohnWEU5jhxgnPPHr7x0rSmhp_MACLcB/s1600/image003.jpg)
Gosh don’t they look happy and carefree in that one.  What does this picture prove?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 09:41:33 PM
Shocking  8(0(*

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xVoeOPRNOVw/WEctuiLaihI/AAAAAAAAMY8/Hoxel_ohnWEU5jhxgnPPHr7x0rSmhp_MACLcB/s1600/image003.jpg)
With raw grief writ large across their faces, the mum and dad of three stood side by side in the glare of television cameras as Gerry slowly read out a prepared statement.

They both looked devastated, according to journalists there.

Kate seemed to struggle to hold back tears.

And while public feeling was initially in support of the parents, it wasn't long before trolls started picking apart their body language, facial expressions and outfits.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/kate-gerry-mccanns-first-raw-14140776
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:49:20 PM
Si now we have

Look a bit iffy
Have smiled on camera
Alerts.. No evidential reliability
Changed stories about checking the chalet
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
Si now we have

Look a bit iffy
Have smiled on camera
Alerts.. No evidential reliability
Changed stories about checking the chalet

Seen carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously
Knew of paedophile gangs operating in the area
The abductor resembled Gerry
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 09:56:58 PM
I find anger such a negative,  non productive emotion.
But whatever floats your boat!
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 09:58:20 PM
Seen carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously
Knew of paedophile gangs operating in the area
The abductor resembled Gerry

Going jogging
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 09:59:42 PM
I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.

I wonder why this myth has been promoted that it was the PJ who mislead people into doubting the McCanns?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 10:00:42 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.

Anger is certainly a destructive emotion.. Saturday being an example
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:01:08 PM
For me one of the most telling questions I've ever heard came from Peter Hyatt.
I ask the viewer who are they concerned about? Are they concerned about Madeleine or are they concerned about themselves.
Examples of their ongoing concern for Madeleine please?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 03, 2019, 10:01:55 PM
I wonder why this myth has been promoted that it was the PJ who mislead people into doubting the McCanns?
It's no myth... It's a fact... Ask sandra
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:02:55 PM
Going jogging
Don’t forget Kate’s earrings.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:03:28 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.

Save your sermonising for someone who needs it.
I don't!

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 10:03:40 PM
Poor Kate, she was punching & kicking walls in anger. (Propensity to violence)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:05:12 PM
Anger is certainly a destructive emotion.. Saturday being an example
Honestly Davel, it was Sunday, and it's never anger, it's absolute hatred between Rangers and Celtic mate.
Your correct about it's destructive, but with Rangers and Celtic it's hatred, absolute hatred. I'm not capable of that and take offence to being accused of it.
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:06:45 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.
Why are you so angry about the police investigation into a little girl’s disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:07:25 PM
Si now we have

Look a bit iffy
Have smiled on camera
Alerts.. No evidential reliability
Changed stories about checking the chalet

Such overwhelming evidence of guilt.!
I hope both Investigations are aware of this evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 10:07:47 PM
For me one of the most telling questions I've ever heard came from Peter Hyatt.
I ask the viewer who are they concerned about? Are they concerned about Madeleine or are they concerned about themselves.
Examples of their ongoing concern for Madeleine please?

KM: “We’re not the ones that has done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

Distancing language.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:08:04 PM
Save your sermonising for someone who needs it.
I don't!
Save your baseless accussations for someone who deserves them.
Your on the permanent rubber ear list... Here endith the lesson. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:10:11 PM
Save your baseless accussations for someone who deserves them.
Your on the permanent rubber ear list... Here endith the lesson.

 &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:11:15 PM
KM: “We’re not the ones that has done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

Distancing language.

Oh yes, of course !
Body language and speech analysis. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:11:59 PM
Why are you so angry about the police investigation into a little girl’s disappearance?
I'm not so angry about the police investigation. I was angry about being accused of posting hate by people who clearly haven't got a clue what hatred is. That won't happen again, I'm learning. They just aren't worth the bother IMHO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:13:03 PM
Don’t forget Kate’s earrings.

The drivel that has been touted as evidence.
I'd forgotten that one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:15:11 PM
I'm not so angry about the police investigation. I was angry about being accused of posting hate by people who clearly haven't got a clue what hatred is. That won't happen again, I'm learning. They just aren't worth the bother IMHO.
You presume to know everyone else’s personal experience of hatred in their lives do you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:35:03 PM
You presume to know everyone else’s personal experience of hatred in their lives do you?
I find it difficult to believe personally that anyone who has experienced real hatred could accuse me of posting hatred because I said in slightly different terms that I didn't give a toss about the McCanns until they reopened the investigation. That's not hatred in anyone's book unless their deluded imo. That is the truth, it was so saturated in the papers I restricted myself to reading the headlines and listening briefly to the news bulletins.  I even believed they had been cleared until 2014.  I can cite examples of innocent young men having their throats slit and murdered merely for wearing the wrong colours on Old Firm day. That's hatred, something anyone who knows me, knows I'm not capable of.
But I've learnt my lesson, know those who to avoid at all costs and it's time to put it firmly behind me.
That's concludes all I have to say on that subject.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:39:47 PM
I find it difficult to believe personally that anyone who has experienced real hatred could accuse me of posting hatred because I said in slightly different terms that I didn't give a toss about the McCanns until they reopened the investigation. That's not hatred in anyone's book unless their deluded imo. That is the truth, it was so saturated in the papers I restricted myself to reading the headlines and listening briefly to the news bulletins.  I even believed they had been cleared until 2014.  I can cite examples of innocent young men having their throats slit and murdered merely for wearing the wrong colours on Old Firm day. That's hatred, something anyone who knows me, knows I'm not capable of.
But I've learnt my lesson, know those who to avoid at all costs and it's time to put it firmly behind me.
That's concludes all I have to say on that subject.
I wouldn’t call that hate, just common or garden contempt.  Hope you agree  that’s a more accurate reflection of your feelings vis-a-vis the McCanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 10:47:45 PM
I wouldn’t call that hate, just common or garden contempt.  Hope you agree  that’s a more accurate reflection of your feelings vis-a-vis the McCanns
I would certainly agree that's a more accurate reflection. There are even a couple of interviews were I sensed a weak and broken women in Kate were I feel some empathy for her in a weird way when I see them. There was a bit in the Piers Morgan interview, but there is another I can't remember which one that leaves me with the same sense. I can't say that about Gerry and I'll leave it at that. I'm perfectly capable of not liking someone without resorting to hating anyone. 
Hate is for losers imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 10:50:18 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.

I knew that there were football teams in Glasgow which represented two different religions, but until I joined this forum I didn't know that sectarian hatred was rife there. I saw it in England as a child, but that was 60 years ago. It died out as relifgion lost it's importance and influence.

I was amazed to learn that some people suspected that those doubting the McCanns really just hated them because of their religion. As a non-religious person that idea had never crossed my mind. Siddenly the vitriol aimed at those who didn't accept the McCann's innocence made a bit more sense.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 10:53:22 PM
Going jogging

Deleting call records within hours of their daughter's disappearance and not informing the police when handing over their mobiles.

27 April then nothing until 4 May  @)(++(* Gerry had no call records until 4 May. Not functioning  *%87

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_83.jpg)

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_84.jpg)

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_85.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 11:00:18 PM
I knew that there were football teams in Glasgow which represented two different religions, but until I joined this forum I didn't know that sectarian hatred was rife there. I saw it in England as a child, but that was 60 years ago. It died out as relifgion lost it's importance and influence.

I was amazed to learn that some people suspected that those doubting the McCanns really just hated them because of their religion. As a non-religious person that idea had never crossed my mind. Siddenly the vitriol aimed at those who didn't accept the McCann's innocence made a bit more sense.
That's what happens when your the doctor for Celtic, it would have been the exact same if he had worked for Rangers. Just the other side would have thrown the vitriol. The Old Firm can teach us all we need to know about hatred. On match day, it's absolutely poisonous.
I head for the hills on Old Firm day, it can be so bad.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:04:47 PM
I would certainly agree that's a more accurate reflection. There are even a couple of interviews were I sensed a weak and broken women in Kate were I feel some empathy for her in a weird way when I see them. There was a bit in the Piers Morgan interview, but there is another I can't remember which one that leaves me with the same sense. I can't say that about Gerry and I'll leave it at that. I'm perfectly capable of not liking someone without resorting to hating anyone. 
Hate is for losers imo

Whether the McCanns were involved or not the whole affair was bound to be devastating.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:09:41 PM
That's what happens when your the doctor for Celtic, it would have been the exact same if he had worked for Rangers. Just the other side would have thrown the vitriol. The Old Firm can teach us all we need to know about hatred. On match day, it's absolutely poisonous.
I head for the hills on Old Firm day, it can be so bad.

Who was the doctor for Celtic?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 11:17:10 PM
Who was the doctor for Celtic?
I'm pretty sure Gerry worked as their physio during the nineties.

Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve. Her father, Gerry, had worked for Celtic before moving to England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6649319.stm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:36:11 PM
I'm pretty sure Gerry worked as their physio during the nineties.

Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve. Her father, Gerry, had worked for Celtic before moving to England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6649319.stm

I asked because I looked at it a while back and couldn't find a clear answer for some reason. Goodnight, CM,
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 11:39:33 PM
KM: “We’re not the ones that has done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

Distancing language.
GM; "We don't know whose taken her and what HER motive is"

An indication that Gerry knows a woman has taken her.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 03, 2019, 11:41:42 PM
I asked because I looked at it a while back and couldn't find a clear answer for some reason. Goodnight, CM,
Always happy to help if I can. Goodnight.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 12:25:14 AM
Cite for what Mr Smith and his wife believe, thank you.
Very bottom of the page.
"I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me WAS MY WIFE."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 01:22:29 AM
Very bottom of the page.
"I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me WAS MY WIFE."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

I haven't found a direct quote from Martin Smith.

ST:

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0


However, there is this from Mary Smith (MoS):
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.

He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.

''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.

''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.

"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346

There is also a tweet exchange between Xklamation and Jason Farrell from Sky:

Joana Morais
‏@JoanaAMorais
@JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …

Jason Farrell ‏@JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
@xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
0 retweets 0 likes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:21:28 AM
There’s that word hatred again. Have you apologists really got so little imagination?
Why don’t you hate the McCanns?  According to you they abandoned their kids, let one of them die, chucked her body in a bin, lied about it, decided to go on a publicity tour to make themselves famous,  raked in millions, made the lives of many a misery especially the hard-working cop Amaral who was only doing his job, they live in a horrible house, speak with contemptible accents, have appallng dress sense, ingratiate themselves with the genuine parents of missing kids,  have supporters who cause dear old ladies to commit suicide, I mean are you some sort of saint for not hating them??!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 07:53:04 AM
Why don’t you hate the McCanns?  According to you they abandoned their kids, let one of them die, chucked her body in a bin, lied about it, decided to go on a publicity tour to make themselves famous,  raked in millions, made the lives of many a misery especially the hard-working cop Amaral who was only doing his job, they live in a horrible house, speak with contemptible accents, have appallng dress sense, ingratiate themselves with the genuine parents of missing kids,  have supporters who cause dear old ladies to commit suicide, I mean are you some sort of saint for not hating them??!

Are you sure those are not your words? Accents and dress sense?  8)-)))
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 07:56:02 AM
I haven't found a direct quote from Martin Smith.

ST:

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0


However, there is this from Mary Smith (MoS):
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.

He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.

''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.

''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.

"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346

There is also a tweet exchange between Xklamation and Jason Farrell from Sky:

Joana Morais
‏@JoanaAMorais
@JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …

Jason Farrell ‏@JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
@xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
0 retweets 0 likes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346

The BBC said Smith changed his mind didn't they? Then they had to change their programme because it wasn't true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:59:46 AM
Are you sure those are not your words? Accents and dress sense?  8)-)))
Are you not aware that Kate’s accent and clothes are mocked mercilessly?  No doubt Saint Faithlilly will deny it but I have been ineracting with her for long enough to know that she finds both beneath contempt.   Funny those were the only two aspects in my post you questioned though... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 08:05:54 AM
Its ironic...another characteristic of sceptics...they object to  what other posters say about them but continue by making endless vile comments towards the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 08:16:03 AM
Are you not aware that Kate’s accent and clothes are mocked mercilessly?  No doubt Saint Faithlilly will deny it but I have been ineracting with her for long enough to know that she finds both beneath contempt.   Funny those were the only two aspects in my post you questioned though... @)(++(*

I'd never seen them mentioned on here or anywhere else, that's why. Do you have a cite?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 08:19:03 AM
I'd never seen them mentioned on here or anywhere else, that's why. Do you have a cite?
Not without upsetting the rules of the forum.  Tell you what to make you happy I will concede that Faithlilly has never once on this forum (to the best of my knowledge and brcause I can’t be bothered to go through all her thousands of barbed posts) criticised Kate’s accent or clothes.  The rest stands though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:25:17 AM
Not without upsetting the rules of the forum.  Tell you what to make you happy I will concede that Faithlilly has never once on this forum (to the best of my knowledge and brcause I can’t be bothered to go through all her thousands of barbed posts) criticised Kate’s accent or clothes.  The rest stands though.

Just another example of your fondness for hyperbole then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 09:31:16 AM

I am finding this all a bit more difficult to cope with today than I normally do.  So please beware.  I will be implementing Forum Rules In Full.  So don't waste your time writing things that will be deleted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 10:12:24 AM
The BBC said Smith changed his mind didn't they? Then they had to change their programme because it wasn't true.
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:15:15 AM
I am finding this all a bit more difficult to cope with today than I normally do.  So please beware.  I will be implementing Forum Rules In Full.  So don't waste your time writing things that will be deleted.

I hope you are OK Eleanor x
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 10:17:11 AM
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/

Depends what he means by... Stands by everthing he said..
What he said was that based on the way the man held the child he was 60 to 80 % sure it was Gerry...

He may well stand by the fact he made that statement... In good faith... Doesn't mean he still believes the man he saw was Gerry... In fact as he has been so supportive of the McCann's I'm sure he doesnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 10:26:26 AM
Depends what he means by... Stands by everthing he said..
What he said was that based on the way the man held the child he was 60 to 80 % sure it was Gerry...

He may well stand by the fact he made that statement... In good faith... Doesn't mean he still believes the man he saw was Gerry... In fact as he has been so supportive of the McCann's I'm sure he doesnt
Everything depends on something Davel. The entire abduction narrative depends on the bedroom door slamming, and Kate seeing the curtain go whoooooosh, imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/

I wonder why Redwood opened the can of worms that was the Smith sighting? He must have known Smith's opinion of who it was.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 10:42:32 AM
Everything depends on something Davel. The entire abduction narrative depends on the bedroom door slamming, and Kate seeing the curtain go whoooooosh, imo.

Based on all the evidence I see no reason to doubt Kate
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 10:43:04 AM
I hope you are OK Eleanor x

Thank You, G.  Yes, I am fine.  Sometimes I find it hard and sometimes I find it more easy to deal with.  Phases of The Moon I suspect.  I am a Lunar Person.

I don't really like being in charge, but someone has to do it.  And I am inordinately fond of this Forum.  It is the only decent one left.  And Oh My God, I have seen a few.

So please all help me, all of you.  It isn't that difficult to cut the snide remarks, which only ever detract from what are mostly perfectly acceptable comments, even if I don't personally agree with some of them.



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:44:38 AM
Depends what he means by... Stands by everthing he said..
What he said was that based on the way the man held the child he was 60 to 80 % sure it was Gerry...

He may well stand by the fact he made that statement... In good faith... Doesn't mean he still believes the man he saw was Gerry... In fact as he has been so supportive of the McCann's I'm sure he doesnt

There never was any evidence that Smith had changed his mind; someone made that up in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
The BBC said Smith changed his mind didn't they? Then they had to change their programme because it wasn't true.

Just as Mr Smith spoke on behalf of his wife ... Mrs Smith spoke on behalf of her husband.  One has to puzzle about why one is acceptable to sceptics while the other is studiously ignored.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 10:52:53 AM
Everything depends on something Davel. The entire abduction narrative depends on the bedroom door slamming, and Kate seeing the curtain go whoooooosh, imo.

That is a sceptic mantra I would say believed by them all.

I think the disappearance of a little girl from her bed in conjunction with the witness sighting of a man carrying a child away from the apartment block is of far more relevance.

Just because Goncalo had a theory doesn't mean it has to be followed hook line and sinker ... particularly as it lent nothing to the search for a missing child.  When you think about it ... make that X2 failures.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:55:39 AM
I wonder why Redwood opened the can of worms that was the Smith sighting? He must have known Smith's opinion of who it was.

Was that opinion shared by the other witnesses?
Perhaps Redwood took note of their opinions!

Back to my original point of this thread.

In spite of two ongoing investigations which have been lengthy and so far have resulted in no action against Madeleine's parents, and in spite of them being described as not suspects, and in spite of the Netflix documentary which in my opinion was generally supportive of the fact that Madeleine was abducted, do sceptics still believe the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
I've read the thread so far and see nothing new in your arguments.
What keeps you so steadfast in your beliefs?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Just as Mr Smith spoke on behalf of his wife ... Mrs Smith spoke on behalf of her husband.  One has to puzzle about why one is acceptable to sceptics while the other is studiously ignored.

Did she say he'd changed his mind?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 10:58:37 AM
Based on all the evidence I see no reason to doubt Kate
Based on the evidence in Kate's book, I see no reason why I should believe a word she says.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 10:59:08 AM
There never was any evidence that Smith had changed his mind; someone made that up in my opinion.

There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:59:53 AM
Thank You, G.  Yes, I am fine.  Sometimes I find it hard and sometimes I find it more easy to deal with.  Phases of The Moon I suspect.  I am a Lunar Person.

I don't really like being in charge, but someone has to do it.  And I am inordinately fond of this Forum.  It is the only decent one left.  And Oh My God, I have seen a few.

So please all help me, all of you.  It isn't that difficult to cut the snide remarks, which only ever detract from what are mostly perfectly acceptable comments, even if I don't personally agree with some of them.

I firmly believe that we can be affected by the stages of the moon.
There would be days when the children in class were definitely more restless and less inclined to work.
I would check the stages of the moon and invariably it was a full moon.
Keep up the good work.x
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:01:13 AM
There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?

More succinctly put than my rambling effort.
Why indeed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 11:03:41 AM
Based on the evidence in Kate's book, I see no reason why I should believe a word she says.

It isn't so much what is not believed ... which I think we can all have a pretty good guess at ... I think the topic is more concerned with the belief system which powers the sceptics and how that came about and developed over the years.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:15:07 AM
I wonder why Redwood opened the can of worms that was the Smith sighting? He must have known Smith's opinion of who it was.

Good question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 11:17:28 AM
Based on the evidence in Kate's book, I see no reason why I should believe a word she says.

its clear to me SY and the portuguese disagree with you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 11:19:08 AM
There never was any evidence that Smith had changed his mind; someone made that up in my opinion.

smith and his wife are very supportive of the Mccanns...tahts evidence...I dont think Sith thinks it was Gerry he saw....at the time he thought it might be...but now im sure he knows it wasnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:24:39 AM
Thank You, G.  Yes, I am fine.  Sometimes I find it hard and sometimes I find it more easy to deal with.  Phases of The Moon I suspect.  I am a Lunar Person.

I don't really like being in charge, but someone has to do it.  And I am inordinately fond of this Forum.  It is the only decent one left.  And Oh My God, I have seen a few.

So please all help me, all of you.  It isn't that difficult to cut the snide remarks, which only ever detract from what are mostly perfectly acceptable comments, even if I don't personally agree with some of them.

And most of the forum, including myself, are inordinately fond of you. Pushing the hatred card though is simplistic and beneath you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 11:27:12 AM
I firmly believe that we can be affected by the stages of the moon.
There would be days when the children in class were definitely more restless and less inclined to work.
I would check the stages of the moon and invariably it was a full moon.
Keep up the good work.x

Thanks for that.  I have been aware of this in me for a very long time.  Sometimes I am much more positive than I am at other times, usually at New Moon.

I plant by The Moon, incidentally.  All Breton Farmers do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 11:34:38 AM
And most of the forum, including myself, are inordinately fond of you. Pushing the hatred card though is simplistic and beneath you.

Gosh.  Thanks for that.

But I don't think I push the hatred card.  I just don't understand it, even if it exists, which I am not sure it does.  But I do worry somewhat about unkindness.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 11:35:19 AM
its clear to me SY and the portuguese disagree with you
Pedro Do Carmo is on record as saying he doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. That indicates to me there is absolutely nothing to verify Kate's account of a slamming door and whooshing curtain. They can disagree with me all they like, if they in fact do disagree with me in private.. but with no hard evidence to support Kate's allegation, they are hardly likely to prove Kate was telling the truth anytime soon imo.
It's hardly sceptics fault for the manner in which the McCanns chose to deal with their tricky situations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:36:21 AM
And most of the forum, including myself, are inordinately fond of you. Pushing the hatred card though is simplistic and beneath you.

Calling supporters "apologists" is simplistic and beneath you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:37:40 AM
There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?

Indeed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
Calling supporters "apologists" is simplistic and beneath you.

It is indeed but I was making a point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 12:14:00 PM
It is indeed but I was making a point.

Really?

That's  an excuse which is worth remembering. *%87
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 12:23:09 PM
Pedro Do Carmo is on record as saying he doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. That indicates to me there is absolutely nothing to verify Kate's account of a slamming door and whooshing curtain. They can disagree with me all they like, if they in fact do disagree with me in private.. but with no hard evidence to support Kate's allegation, they are hardly likely to prove Kate was telling the truth anytime soon imo.
It's hardly sceptics fault for the manner in which the McCanns chose to deal with their tricky situations.

I don't know what happened  to Maddie but I'm sure her parents, were not involved...it doesn't matter what a handful of people on forums think it's as clear as, day to me the mccanns are not being investigated  by either investigation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 12:25:21 PM
Really?

That's  an excuse which is worth remembering. *%87

Let’s hope you don’t need to remember it because we can but hope the debate here ceases to be driven by simplistic assumptions and pointless, childish name calling.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
Let’s hope you don’t need to remember it because we can but hope the debate here ceases to be driven by simplistic assumptions and pointless, childish name calling.

Which I am sure you will equally appreciate your part in such behaviour.
Do you wish me to recall some of the names you have addressed to me.
I'm sure you don't.

Huge, huge family celebration to complete the final details for this weekend, so I bid you good afternoon.
May be back later.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 12:46:02 PM

No one is listening to me.  Okay.  Stand by.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 12:47:52 PM
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/
Gemma O’Doherty ... wonder what happened to her.
Did she ever publish her analysis of the McCann case?  Or did that ubiquitous MI5 guy who figures largely in the sceptic belief system have a word in her ear?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 12:48:01 PM
I don't know what happened  to Maddie but I'm sure her parents, were not involved...it doesn't matter what a handful of people on forums think it's as clear as, day to me the mccanns are not being investigated  by either investigation
I'm not disputing that, you may well be right about them not being investigated.. but if that's the case and the case closes without conclusion, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suspicion imo all because Scotland Yard never bothered to find clear evidence to eliminate them. If they have found new clear evidence that does eliminate them then surely in fairness to the McCanns, the police will release it to the public. 
What a handful of people on forums think doesn't matter, I agree. It's not as if what you think will matter anymore than anyone else imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 01:01:40 PM
I'm not disputing that, you may well be right about them not being investigated.. but if that's the case and the case closes without conclusion, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suspicion imo all because Scotland Yard never bothered to find clear evidence to eliminate them. If they have found new clear evidence that does eliminate them then surely in fairness to the McCanns, the police will release it to the public. 
What a handful of people on forums think doesn't matter, I agree. It's not as if what you think will matter anymore than anyone else imo.

I think your assessment is far off the mark.  The sceptic belief that Scotland Yard and the Judicial police have not already eliminated Madeleine's parents from the doubts engineered about them by Amaral is not one I share.
It runs against protocol and is totally illogical.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:11:11 PM
I'm not disputing that, you may well be right about them not being investigated.. but if that's the case and the case closes without conclusion, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suspicion imo all because Scotland Yard never bothered to find clear evidence to eliminate them. If they have found new clear evidence that does eliminate them then surely in fairness to the McCanns, the police will release it to the public. 
What a handful of people on forums think doesn't matter, I agree. It's not as if what you think will matter anymore than anyone else imo.

Your Comment has no logic and is contradictory.

A lifetime of suspicion won't matter to The McCanns.  And they certainly won't care about what you think of them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 01:18:23 PM
There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?

I wasn't discussing whether he was right or wrong. I was discussing whether he changed his mind or not. In my opinion there's no evidence that he did.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:19:07 PM
In the beginning I thought that The McCanns were probably involved, just because parents so often are.  What a mindless moron I must have been in those days.  I am still passing ashamed of myself.

But thereby hangs the tale of my latter day courage.  I was a wimp as well.  Nowadays I fight back when I see injustice.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:21:29 PM
I wasn't discussing whether he was right or wrong. I was discussing whether he changed his mind or not. In my opinion there's no evidence that he did.

So Mr. Smith identified a person whose face he admits he never saw.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 01:33:58 PM
It isn't so much what is not believed ... which I think we can all have a pretty good guess at ... I think the topic is more concerned with the belief system which powers the sceptics and how that came about and developed over the years.

I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 01:40:23 PM
I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.

Call it what you like ... the thread topic refers to "sceptic beliefs ? " ... so as long as it falls within that, I think you will be on topic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:41:15 PM
I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.

I felt shame when I realised how unkind and illogically stupid I had been.  Sadly, shame doesn't sit well with some.

And should I so unlikely be wrong in the end, I will still like me better.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 01:43:39 PM
I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.

Have you not seen sceptical castigating supporters.. I've been told on this forum I'm in love with Kate... Been accused of being part if the family.. Been told I'm only here to support the mccanns... Been called a defender of a child murderers... And more
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 01:45:32 PM
So Mr. Smith identified a person whose face he admits he never saw.

Jane Tanner thought it was possible;

she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 04, 2019, 01:57:10 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

I have already asked for an investigation of post disappearance goings on which involved criminality by several characters supposedly employed on behalf of the McCanns.  Only a full independent investigation will establish who exactly did what and when.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 04, 2019, 02:07:11 PM
Jane Tanner thought it was possible;

she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Redwood never mentioned Totman by name,but was it likely that Tanner couldn't recognise him if itwas indeed Totman.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 02:12:09 PM
Jane Tanner thought it was possible;

she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Have another look at Cristovao.  He looks good to me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 02:19:26 PM
Your Comment has no logic and is contradictory.

A lifetime of suspicion won't matter to The McCanns.  And they certainly won't care about what you think of them.
Eleanor I would cite the numerous libel actions the McCanns have instigated, rightly or wrongly, I don't care,  as evidence that them being suspected does matter to them. I would suggest the court actions contradict the logic of your claim imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 02:27:47 PM
Eleanor I would cite the numerous libel actions the McCanns have instigated, rightly or wrongly, I don't care,  as evidence that them being suspected does matter to them. I would suggest the court actions contradict the logic of your claim imo.

Not anymore, Our Kid.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 02:34:45 PM
I have already asked for an investigation of post disappearance goings on which involved criminality by several characters supposedly employed on behalf of the McCanns.  Only a full independent investigation will establish who exactly did what and when.

I was surprised that Netflix gave so much air time to someone who freely admitted to breaking Portuguese law and intimidating and bribing witnesses. Had Malinka been tempted Murat could be in prison by now, and perverting the course of justice could be added to the list. The 'detective's' sympathy for the McCanns didn't extend to warning them that they were being conned, did it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 02:35:41 PM
Eleanor I would cite the numerous libel actions the McCanns have instigated, rightly or wrongly, I don't care,  as evidence that them being suspected does matter to them. I would suggest the court actions contradict the logic of your claim imo.

The McCanns have enough intelligence that some people will suspect and dislike them and enough sense to ignore it and realise it's of no consequence... Should those people publish libellous lies to try and convince others... Then that's a different case and those people should be subject to the laws of the land
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 02:37:22 PM
I have already asked for an investigation of post disappearance goings on which involved criminality by several characters supposedly employed on behalf of the McCanns.  Only a full independent investigation will establish who exactly did what and when.
Without a full investigation your claims Re the McCann's are pure, speculation and it looks like the PJ are simply not interested...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 02:40:00 PM
I was surprised that Netflix gave so much air time to someone who freely admitted to breaking Portuguese law and intimidating and bribing witnesses. Had Malinka been tempted Murat could be in prison by now, and perverting the course of justice could be added to the list. The 'detective's' sympathy for the McCanns didn't extend to warning them that they were being conned, did it?


What has this to do with the title thread?
Does this have any bearing on sceptic belief that the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 02:42:45 PM
The McCanns have enough intelligence that some people will suspect and dislike them and enough sense to ignore it and realise it's of no consequence... Should those people publish libellous lies to try and convince others... Then that's a different case and those people should be subject to the laws of the land
[Deleted]
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 02:52:09 PM
There's been no libel actions raised against Mark Saunokonoko as far as I'm aware. I wonder if any will be raised after his next podcast that covers the deleted telephone calls. Just another example of typical parental behaviour when they claim they discover their child has been abducted by paedophiles.  &%%6

There is a thread devoted to the podcasts.
This thread is about sceptics continuing belief that the McCanns are culpable of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance and what evidence sustains that belief after many years of two police investigations with no indication that these investigations have found any evidence of such.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 04, 2019, 02:54:28 PM
My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.

A burst of nervous laughter from Gerry would more or less prove he was hiding desperation, guilt,  overwhelming despair and broken hearts,  the effort of trying to keep it all in,  a balloon breaks free in front of his face and he  laughs,  a bodies natural way of releasing tension.   It really annoys me when people who are quite ignorant of the Psychological impact such a trauma has on the human brain will keep showing something like this to prove what?   The McCann's were laughing because their child was missing?   It really is disgusting. IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 02:56:37 PM
Have another look at Cristovao.  He looks good to me.

He doesn't appear to be in good shape or a bit on the thin side to me. That's how the Smiths described the man they saw. .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 02:57:16 PM
[Deleted]

What a pity you deleted it.... I missed it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 03:08:45 PM
A burst of nervous laughter from Gerry would more or less prove he was hiding desperation, guilt,  overwhelming despair and broken hearts,  the effort of trying to keep it all in,  a balloon breaks free in front of his face and he  laughs,  a bodies natural way of releasing tension.   It really annoys me when people who are quite ignorant of the Psychological impact such a trauma has on the human brain will keep showing something like this to prove what?   The McCann's were laughing because their child was missing?   It really is disgusting. IMO

That photo which I believe is a still from video footage , does play an important part in the sceptic belief  of MCann culpability.
I've never understood the significance of it and like you I do wonder what it is meant to prove.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 03:25:32 PM
A burst of nervous laughter from Gerry would more or less prove he was hiding desperation, guilt,  overwhelming despair and broken hearts,  the effort of trying to keep it all in,  a balloon breaks free in front of his face and he  laughs,  a bodies natural way of releasing tension.   It really annoys me when people who are quite ignorant of the Psychological impact such a trauma has on the human brain will keep showing something like this to prove what?   The McCann's were laughing because their child was missing?   It really is disgusting. IMO

The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
Just trying to stop all the deflection away from the subject of the thread.

Threads do have a habit of wandering off, don't they. At least we're not deep in a discussion about dogs........yet....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 03:54:27 PM
The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.

The photo is a reason why people doubt the McCann's yet I've shown a similar photo of a victim at, a funeral... So that puts doubt on the validity of drawing any conclusions from the photo... To do so... IMO... Is quite simplistic
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 04:06:04 PM

What has this to do with the title thread?
Does this have any bearing on sceptic belief that the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?

That would depend on whether you think hiring a firm of inexperienced dodgy detectives who interfere with witnesses and 'compensate' people who talk to them is a perfectly normal way to behave.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 04:13:10 PM
The photo is a reason why people doubt the McCann's yet I've shown a similar photo of a victim at, a funeral... So that puts doubt on the validity of drawing any conclusions from the photo... To do so... IMO... Is quite simplistic

I agree. One photo isn't much. A list of strange stories, actions, photographs, interviews and videos is another matter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 04:19:38 PM
The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.

The thread doesn't ask why you doubt the McCanns.
It asks why you and others continue after so many years, and two investigations which have lasted many years and have not as yet given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance, sceptics cling to their original doubts and suspicions and use the same old arguments over and over.
That photo being one of the sceptics evidence for doubt?
Can you explain why the photo is significant?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 04:22:08 PM
That would depend on whether you think hiring a firm of inexperienced dodgy detectives who interfere with witnesses and 'compensate' people who talk to them is a perfectly normal way to behave.

Why does this add to your doubts about the McCanns?
Can you explain?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 05:32:07 PM
I agree. One photo isn't much. A list of strange stories, actions, photographs, interviews and videos is another matter.

In your opinion... You can support an argument fir many things by being selective with the evidence you choose
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 05:56:23 PM
In your opinion... You can support an argument fir many things by being selective with the evidence you choose

I absolutely agree...the Netflix documentary being a case in point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 06:02:40 PM
Just another example of your fondness for hyperbole then.
Absolutely not, it’s true as far as I remember, but would likely be impossible to prove as most of Faith’s bitchier comments tend to be removed by the mods.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 06:11:53 PM
The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.
It’s a pretty pathetic reason isn’t it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 07:01:16 PM
Why does this add to your doubts about the McCanns?
Can you explain?

Why a company which didn't have any experience of finding missing people?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 07:12:52 PM
Why a company which didn't have any experience of finding missing people?

It must be difficult when your daughter disappears to find just the right company.
Are they listed  in Yellow pages?
Why do you think they chose a dodgy and inexperienced company.?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:16:01 PM
Why a company which didn't have any experience of finding missing people?
Name the company they should have gone with.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 07:19:57 PM
It must be difficult when your daughter disappears to find just the right company.
Are they listed n Yellow pages?
Why do you think they chose a dodgy and inexperienced company.?

Didn’t the gentlemen from Metodo3 who appeared in the Netflix documentary warn the fund that Metodo were claiming money for work they didn’t do ? I believe he said he was surprised that the fund took no action.

From the Portugal Resident

“Meantime, adding to the sudden burst of new stories, came online furore over the translation into English of key sections of a book by former private eyes with the Spanish Metodo 3 detective agency, hired early on in the McCann’s private search for their daughter.

Reinforcing claims made in Diário de Notícias in 2013, authors Julián Peribañez and Antonio Tamarjit guaranteed that Metodo 3’s investigation was mired by corruption, and that the company had falsified receipts and charged for work by non-existent employees.

But when Peribañez claims he tried to bring this to Team McCann’s attention, he says he was met a “wall of silence”.

“I simply could not understand how they could fail to be alarmed by the discovery that they had been the victims of a financial fraud and had been charged for work which was not carried out”, he wrote in La Cortina de Humo (the Smokescreen).”
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:27:23 PM
Didn’t the gentlemen from Metodo3 who appeared in the Netflix documentary warn the fund that the Metodo wereclaiming money for work they didn’t do ? I believe he said he was surprised that the fund took no action.
Who was the Fund at that stage?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 07:39:59 PM
Didn’t the gentlemen from Metodo3 who appeared in the Netflix documentary warn the fund that Metodo were claiming money for work they didn’t do ? I believe he said he was surprised that the fund took no action.

From the Portugal Resident

“Meantime, adding to the sudden burst of new stories, came online furore over the translation into English of key sections of a book by former private eyes with the Spanish Metodo 3 detective agency, hired early on in the McCann’s private search for their daughter.

Reinforcing claims made in Diário de Notícias in 2013, authors Julián Peribañez and Antonio Tamarjit guaranteed that Metodo 3’s investigation was mired by corruption, and that the company had falsified receipts and charged for work by non-existent employees.

But when Peribañez claims he tried to bring this to Team McCann’s attention, he says he was met a “wall of silence”.

“I simply could not understand how they could fail to be alarmed by the discovery that they had been the victims of a financial fraud and had been charged for work which was not carried out”, he wrote in La Cortina de Humo (the Smokescreen).”


Why did they choose a dodgy and inxperienced company?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 07:46:49 PM
It’s a pretty pathetic reason isn’t it?
When a missing child's father gives the police two completely different versions of the last time he claims he seen his daughter alive, that's a reason imo.... and when the father's best friend gives the police two completely different versions of the last time he seen her there's reason number two imo.
Two of the best reasons anyone would have to suspect the parents are involved imo.

Then there's the method they have employed when they get into tricky situations, reason number three.
How many reasons are you looking for?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 07:49:02 PM
When a missing child's father gives the police two completely different versions of the last time he claims he seen his daughter alive, that's a reason imo.... and when the father's best friend gives the police two completely different versions of the last time he seen her there's reason number two imo.
Two of the best reasons anyone would have to suspect the parents are involved imo.

Then there's the method they have employed when they get into tricky situations, reason number three.
How many reasons are you looking for?

I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:11:33 PM
I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...


I've always assumed that both current investigations have read the files and noted the unreliable, twice translated statements.
Clinging steadfastly to the same old, same old !!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 08:19:43 PM
I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...
Then there was the witness who called police to tell them he believed him and his wife seen Gerry McCann carrying a child matching the missing child's description towards the beach. Reason number 4.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 08:22:16 PM
I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...
Then Gerry McCann, who must have known Mr Smith and his wife were wrong about seeing him refused to publish the E-Fit of this possible abductor until SY done it for them, more than FIVE years later. Reason number 5.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 08:24:23 PM
Then Gerry McCann, who must have known Mr Smith and his wife were wrong about seeing him refused to publish the E-Fit of this possible abductor until SY done it for them, more than FIVE years later. Reason number 5.

Do you really think SY would have spent 12 million if it, was as simple as you think
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 08:28:02 PM
Do you really think SY would have spent 12 million if it, was as simple as you think
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 08:29:19 PM
It must be difficult when your daughter disappears to find just the right company.
Are they listed  in Yellow pages?
Why do you think they chose a dodgy and inexperienced company.?

Why didn't they get advice from the company they were already involved with? In fact they seemed to have the expertise needed themselves. As an international operation they could surely have directed them into safe hands if they were too busy?

https://www.controlrisks.com/who-we-are/about-us
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2019, 08:32:44 PM
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.


Add reason 6, the McCanns insight into who had taken Maddie.

Gerry talking of paedo gangs, Kate screaming "The f....ing b......s have taken her".

Either they had prior knowledge or the abduction is BS.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 08:34:17 PM

Wandering Off Topic folks ... please be so kind as to stick with "Sceptics beliefs?"  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 08:36:07 PM
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.

I don't think you've given one sensible reason.. IMO..
Reinforced by the fact the the McCann's are not being investigated bybeither investigation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:37:54 PM
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.

No actually you are wrong.
It is about what both current investigations  seem to think and why in spite of the fact that both Investigations have not acted on  all the damning evidence that sceptics claim to be important,  sceptics cling steadfastly to their beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:40:54 PM
Why didn't they get advice from the company they were already involved with? In fact they seemed to have the expertise needed themselves. As an international operation they could surely have directed them into safe hands if they were too busy?

https://www.controlrisks.com/who-we-are/about-us

But you do believe that their badly mistaken choice of company contributes to their culpability in Madeleine's disappearance.??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2019, 08:44:07 PM
No actually you are wrong.
It is about what both current investigations  seem to think and why in spite of the fact that both Investigations have not acted on  all the damning evidence that sceptics claim to be important,  sceptics cling steadfastly to their beliefs.

The Yard seem willing to discount the gusty curtains scenario, in hypothesising that Maggie wandered out of the apartment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6429815/Gerry-Kate-McCann-slam-claims-Madeleine-walked-aparment-says-kidnapped.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 08:44:40 PM
I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...

That's a theory not a fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 08:48:53 PM
That's a theory not a fact.
It's a fact the statements may not be accurate

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 08:50:35 PM
That's a theory not a fact.
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 08:55:22 PM
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.
At least one was not a direct quote... So is therefore hearsay
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:57:10 PM
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.

Again, both current investigations will have read the files.These discrepancies will have been noted.
To date there has been no indication that your beliefs are causing concern.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:04:55 PM
No actually you are wrong.
It is about what both current investigations  seem to think and why in spite of the fact that both Investigations have not acted on  all the damning evidence that sceptics claim to be important,  sceptics cling steadfastly to their beliefs.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Why not just accept that opinions differ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 09:05:31 PM
At least one was not a direct quote... So is therefore hearsay
It was a direct quote from a questionnaire David Payne himself provided. Unless you are suggesting DC Marshal can't read. The other was also recorded verbatim. Hearsay? Dream on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:06:20 PM
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.
Completely different would be different location, different day, different circumstances.  What were the main points of difference?  Do you think David Payne is involved then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 09:06:36 PM
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Why not just accept that opinions differ?
Here's the best reason you'll ever get for why in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that people believe Madeleine's parents are guilty. It is because they are both doing a terrible job of proving anyone other than the last people to see the missing child alive are guilty. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2019, 09:06:54 PM
SY seem quite content with believing those twice translated statements.

MADDIE QUIZ Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been quizzed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’
Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 09:06:58 PM
It was a direct quote from a questionnaire David Payne himself provided. Unless you are suggesting DC Marshal can't read. The other was also recorded verbatim. Hearsay? Dream on.

Only one recorded verbatim so the other is hearsay... Thanks fir confirming
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 09:07:18 PM

Why did they choose a dodgy and inxperienced company?

You’d have to ask them that but what is clear is that when the fund knew that it was being defrauded it did nothing. Why do you think that was ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 09:10:14 PM
Only one recorded verbatim so the other is hearsay... Thanks fir confirming
"I read carefully the WRITTEN document/questionnaire provided by David Payne."
but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate AND GERRY. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.

If you can't accept the truth, who am I to question you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 09:12:15 PM
SY seem quite content with believing those twice translated statements.

MADDIE QUIZ Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been quizzed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’
Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/

Looks like the article is confused and has confused some sceptics... It talks of not being interviewed as witnesses then changes to not formally interviewed.. Believe the rubbish in the confused dun if you wish.. I have enough sense to see their error
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 04, 2019, 09:13:08 PM
"I read carefully the WRITTEN document/questionnaire provided by David Payne."
but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate AND GERRY. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.

If you can't accept the truth, who am I to question you.

So you have confirmed it's hearsay
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:13:20 PM
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Why not just accept that opinions differ?

I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 09:13:30 PM
Completely different would be different location, different day, different circumstances.  What were the main points of difference?  Do you think David Payne is involved then?
I know he gave two completely different version of the last time he claims he seen the little angel alive.
Do you think he done that because his best friend's daughter had been abducted?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:14:31 PM
You’d have to ask them that but what is clear is that when the fund knew that it was being defrauded it did nothing. Why do you think that was ?

I've no idea.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:17:32 PM
I know he gave two completely different version of the last time he claims he seen the little angel alive.
Do you think he done that because his best friend's daughter had been abducted?
Could you please describe the main points of complete difference?  I asked you if you thought he was involved, you did not give me an answer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 09:22:16 PM
Could you please describe the main points of complete difference?  I asked you if you thought he was involved, you did not give me an answer.
I did give you an answer, you might not have liked it but we can't get everything we want. Read my posts, the main point is in there. The name is Cheeky Monkey, not John Parrot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:24:14 PM
Here's the best reason you'll ever get for why in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that people believe Madeleine's parents are guilty. It is because they are both doing a terrible job of proving anyone other than the last people to see the missing child alive are guilty.

Now the McCanns have to prove to " that people"  by doing other than a "terrible job"  that they are not guilty of what?
However let's just ignore that two lengthy investigations by two police forces have not yet accused them of anything.

So much for our justice system.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:27:36 PM
Now the McCanns have to prove to " that people"  by doing other than a "terrible job"  that they are not guilty of what?
However let's just ignore that two lengthy investigations by two police forces have not yet accused them of anything.

So much for our justice system.

As they haven't produced anything conclusive, we might just as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:28:49 PM
As they haven't produced anything conclusive, we might just as well.

Just as well do what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
Just as well do what?
might as well ignore the investigations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:32:44 PM
It's a fact the statements may not be accurate

In my honest opinion that recurring mantra is purely an attempt to cast doubt on inexplicable anomalies. I rhink there's plenty to be found using other sources.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:36:04 PM
might as well ignore the investigations.

Very true, exactly what sceptics are doing.!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:36:23 PM
I did give you an answer, you might not have liked it but we can't get everything we want. Read my posts, the main point is in there. The name is Cheeky Monkey, not John Parrot.
You didn’t say what was “completely different” about David Payne’s statements, do you now refuse to say?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
In my honest opinion that recurring mantra is purely an attempt to cast doubt on inexplicable anomalies. I rhink there's plenty to be found using other sources.

Do you believe that both investigating police forces have ignored these " inexplicable anomalies" ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:40:20 PM
Very true, exactly what sceptics are doing.!!

When OG or PJ come forth with anything new and constructive will be the time to pay attention - if they ever do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 09:43:04 PM
You didn’t say what was “completely different” about David Payne’s statements, do you now refuse to say?
How can I refuse to do something I have already done? Reply #277 Pay attention laddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:46:21 PM
When OG or PJ come forth with anything new and constructive will be the time to pay attention - if they ever do.

I agree.
But as yet in spite of years of investigation, and in spite of all the " evidence" which sceptics have such faith in,  as to date none of this "evidence" has resulted in any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
It's back to my original question, what does keep sceptics so grounded in their beliefs?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:46:48 PM
I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.

Why not? I don't know what happened and neither do these investigators you are pinning your hopes on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:49:52 PM
I agree.
But as yet in spite of years of investigation, and in spite of all the " evidence" which sceptics have such faith in,  as to date none of this "evidence" has resulted in any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
It's back to my original question, what does keep sceptics so grounded in their beliefs?

A conviction that they are correct.
I imagine that supporters are equally convinced it their opinion.
So it will remain, probably until the end of time  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:51:18 PM
How can I refuse to do something I have already done? Reply #277 Pay attention laddie.
Please don’t call me laddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:55:53 PM
A conviction that they are correct.
I imagine that supporters are equally convinced it their opinion.
So it will remain, probably until the end of time  @)(++(*

It's not about opinion.
It's about why sceptics continue to cling to their beliefs in spite of two current police Investigations which have as yet not found any of the sceptic "evidence" convincing and why sceptics steadfastly cling to their beliefs??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:05:36 PM
Why not? I don't know what happened and neither do these investigators you are pinning your hopes on.

Exactly you have no idea of what happened but perhaps the two investigating police forces have a little more information than you do !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 10:13:35 PM
I’d like to know what motivates the sceptics to keep endlessly poring over the files and repeating their suspicions o line day in, day out for 12 years.  Is it devotion to Madeleine?  Deep antipathy towards the parents?  Or simply a fervent belief that what they are doing is going to help solve the case?  Who do they hope to influence?  What difference are they making?  Have any of their suspicions proven to be correct after all this time?  How many more years are they in this for?  Until death or dementia stops them?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:16:02 PM
Do you believe that both investigating police forces have ignored these " inexplicable anomalies" ?

I haven't a clue. In my opinion neither have those who think they know what's going on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:18:06 PM
I haven't a clue. In my opinion neither have those who think they know what's going on.

Is that a reference to both the current police Investigations?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 10:19:28 PM
I’d like to know what motivates the sceptics to keep endlessly poring over the files and repeating their suspicions o line day in, day out for 12 years.  Is it devotion to Madeleine?  Deep antipathy towards the parents?  Or simply a fervent belief that what they are doing is going to help solve the case?  Who do they hope to influence?  What difference are they making?  Have any of their suspicions proven to be correct after all this time?  How many more years are they in this for?  Until death or dementia stops them?
What about the case gets solved, you forgot that didn't you? Or is that a sign of your confidence in
Operation Catch That Abductor is severely lacking?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 10:21:43 PM
What about the case gets solved, you forgot that didn't you? Or is that a sign of your confidence in
Operation Catch That Abductor is severely lacking?
I honestly don’t believe that the case being solved will silence the sceptics, whatever the outcome.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 10:27:26 PM
I honestly don’t believe that the case being solved will silence the sceptics, whatever the outcome.
Does it trouble you that people debate an unsolved case of public interest? Don't you think in a missing person case, there is no such thing as bad publicity? For the missing person's benefit I mean.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:33:11 PM
Does it trouble you that people debate an unsolved case of public interest? Don't you think in a missing person case, there is no such thing as bad publicity? For the missing person's benefit I mean.

Do you think Madeleine is a missing person?
I thought you believed she was the victim of her parents involvement in whatever you believe their involvement with is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:36:14 PM
It's not about opinion.
It's about why sceptics continue to cling to their beliefs in spite of two current police Investigations which have as yet not found any of the sceptic "evidence" convincing and why sceptics steadfastly cling to their beliefs??

It seems to me it's about your opinion that you know what these investigations are doing. Now that's what I call a belief.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:41:06 PM
Is that a reference to both the current police Investigations?

Were you referring to both? Then so was my reply.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 10:46:53 PM
Does it trouble you that people debate an unsolved case of public interest? Don't you think in a missing person case, there is no such thing as bad publicity? For the missing person's benefit I mean.
I’m not troubled at all.  As for your second question, if the bad publicity or propaganda if you prefer convinces most people that the missing person is dead and was buried by their own parents I don’t really see that as good publicity tbh.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:47:04 PM
It seems to me it's about your opinion that you know what these investigations are doing. Now that's what I call a belief.

Not at all.
It's been a lengthy investigation.
I've no opinion at at all about where the investigation will end.
Just to reiterate that as to today  there is no indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance..
Its not difficult to believe that both investigating police forces have as yet  not found any indication that Madeleine's parents are suspects.

That's  just a belief in innocence until proved otherwise.
Not quite the belief sceptics have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 10:58:34 PM
I’m not troubled at all.  As for your second question, if the bad publicity or propaganda if you prefer convinces most people that the missing person is dead and was buried by their own parents I don’t really see that as good publicity tbh.
But don't you think the bad publicity for the McCanns is actually good publicity for their missing child, IF she is still alive. Can you think of any other missing child who has ever achieved the level of publicity Madeleine's face has? Don't you think Amaral's book and their court case has been a tremendous success in terms of achieving publicity for the missing child?  No one was physically searching for her when the case was closed anyway. SY's search consited of cadaver dogs and shovels.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:07:35 PM
But don't you think the bad publicity for the McCanns is actually good publicity for their missing child, IF she is still alive. Can you think of any other missing child who has ever achieved the level of publicity Madeleine's face has? Don't you think Amaral's book and their court case has been a tremendous success in terms of achieving publicity for the missing child?  No one was physically searching for her when the case was closed anyway. SY's search consited of cadaver dogs and shovels.

But you don't believe she is missing?
Do you?
You believe her parents are complicit in her disappearance?
Or have I interpreted your posts wrongly?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:14:38 PM
But don't you think the bad publicity for the McCanns is actually good publicity for their missing child, IF she is still alive. Can you think of any other missing child who has ever achieved the level of publicity Madeleine's face has? Don't you think Amaral's book and their court case has been a tremendous success in terms of achieving publicity for the missing child?  No one was physically searching for her when the case was closed anyway. SY's search consited of cadaver dogs and shovels.
Well if your child was missing and she was world famous as the child that some not—very-bright ex cop had promoted as dead and hidden by your own hand would you consider that helpful for finding her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 11:15:28 PM
Not at all.
It's been a lengthy investigation.
I've no opinion at at all about where the investigation will end.
Just to reiterate that as to today  there is no indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance..
Its not difficult to believe that both investigating police forces have as yet  not found any indication that Madeleine's parents are suspects.

That's  just a belief in innocence until proved otherwise.
Not quite the belief sceptics have.

You believe there are no indications that the McCanns are involved. That's fine, but others disagree.

You also believe the police have found no such indications either. That you cannot know.

Do you know, some people are still accusing Amaral of being guilty despite Portugal's Supreme Court clearing him? I think that's far worse than me saying I'm not convinced by the McCanns, don't you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:19:41 PM
I've no idea.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Let me put it another way. If you say paid for the tiles on your roof to be changed and the roof tilers only changed half but told you they had changed them all. A few days later one of the tilers, ashamed by the job that was done, comes and tells you what happened. What would you do ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 11:20:58 PM
Well if your child was missing and she was world famous as the child that some not—very-bright ex cop had promoted as dead and hidden by your own hand would you consider that helpful for finding her?
Who has stopped looking and when did they stop looking as a result of this ex cops claims? Can you name one single person? Where were they searching exactly before he wrote his book that made them stop?
IMO he has given the missing child huge and continuing publicity. Dead or alive - it's made no difference.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:25:00 PM
You believe there are no indications that the McCanns are involved. That's fine, but others disagree.

You also believe the police have found no such indications either. That you cannot know.

Do you know, some people are still accusing Amaral of being guilty despite Portugal's Supreme Court clearing him? I think that's far worse than me saying I'm not convinced by the McCanns, don't you?


It's not not  just my belief that the McCann's are not suspects, it does seem so far that two investigating police forces have not found any evidence suggesting otherwise.

I'm unsure of why you felt the need to bring Amaral into our exchange of posts..
Guilty of what.
Perjury?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 11:25:27 PM
Well if your child was missing and she was world famous as the child that some not—very-bright ex cop had promoted as dead and hidden by your own hand would you consider that helpful for finding her?

No, and if a court said  ir wasn't proved that his actions had harned the seatch for her I would have appealed against that decision. It was ny main reason for suing him, after all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:32:13 PM
No, and if a court said  ir wasn't proved that his actions had harned the seatch for her I would have appealed against that decision. It was ny main reason for suing him, after all.
???
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
???

You took the ???s out of my mouth
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:36:42 PM
Who has stopped looking and when did they stop looking as a result of this ex cops claims? Can you name one single person? Where were they searching exactly before he wrote his book that made them stop?
IMO he has given the missing child huge and continuing publicity. Dead or alive - it's made no difference.
LOL. Well if and when Madeleine turns up alive she will no doubt be forever in Amaral’s debt for his sterling efforts in trying to convince the world she is dead..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 11:37:40 PM

It's not not  just my belief that the McCann's are not suspects, it does seem so far that two investigating police forces have not found any evidence suggesting otherwise.

I'm unsure of why you felt the need to bring Amaral into our exchange of posts..
Guilty of what.
Perjury?

Repeating your opinions doesn't make them correct, imo. They remain opinions.
 
You mentioned presumption of innocence. I mentioned Amaral as an example of people assuming guilt even after the courts have ruled otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 11:40:48 PM
LOL. Well if and when Madeleine turns up alive she will no doubt be forever in Amaral’s debt for his sterling efforts in trying to convince the world she is dead..
If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:44:24 PM
If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.
If she is found alive it will prove Amaral failed in his duty to investigate her disappearance properly.  Why would she thank him for being not very good at his job and determined to stitch up her parents instead?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 04, 2019, 11:46:17 PM
I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.

Here's the truth:

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:48:42 PM
Here's the truth:

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/


Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Cheeky Monkey on April 04, 2019, 11:55:18 PM
If she is found alive it will prove Amaral failed in his duty to investigate her disappearance properly.  Why would she thank him for being not very good at his job and determined to stitch up her parents instead?
That fact has already been proven, she is still missing, the type of crime remains unknown and Amaral has been long gone from the case. He failed OK. I didn't say she would thank him for anything however, you said that remember, not me. She'd have lots of others to thank first for her predicament I said, and still do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:57:54 PM

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

And no official indication that anyone else is involved either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 12:02:39 AM
If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.

It was Amaral who declared her death ... in conjunction with many other core sceptic beliefs.

Snip

These are the final theses defended by Gonçalo Amaral
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id173.htm


There is no evidence for any of that ... it is opinion.  So why did Amaral's opinions become entrenched in the sceptic beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:03:09 AM
And no official indication that anyone else is involved either.

True.
But still you cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved.
Why?

Do you believe that two current Investigations are ignoring the obvious truths sceptics hold so dearly?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:15:51 AM
True.
But still you cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved.
Why?

Do you believe that two current Investigations are ignoring the obvious truths sceptics hold so dearly?

We know that something happened to Madeleine.
There is no indication that her parents are suspected.
There is no indication that anyone else is suspected.
 But we know someone is involved and at this point it is just as likely to be the parents as AN Othet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:32:39 AM
We know that something happened to Madeleine.
There is no indication that her parents are suspected.
There is no indication that anyone else is suspected.
 But we know someone is involved and at this point it is just as likely to be the parents as AN Othet.

I do believe that proving her parents are involved in her disappearance would be a slightly easier task than ANOthet..
I assume you mean another.
But do appreciate that you accept there is no indication that her parents are suspected
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:42:00 AM
I do believe that proving her parents are involved in her disappearance would be a slightly easier task than ANOthet..

It’s so easy to believe something from a position of ignorance so be my guest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:43:20 AM
It’s so easy to believe something from a position of ignorance so be my guest.

Is it my ignorance you are referring to?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 12:45:50 AM

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

The police can do it however they please. Their job is to gather enough evidence to solve it. They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

28 January 2009 - Police confirm Prout is no longer suspected of murdering his wife.

10 March 2009 - Prout is arrested and charged with murder and appears at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-15794829

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:50:59 AM
28 January 2009 - Police confirm Prout is no longer suspected of murdering his wife.

10 March 2009 - Prout is arrested and charged with murder and appears at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-15794829

Ten years ago and absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance?
You do seem to bring random quotes and newspapers articles and historic criminal cases into the debate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 12:52:34 AM
You haven't got a clue. Police can do it anyway they want. They don't need to prewarn anyone!

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:54:47 AM
You haven't got a clue. Police can do it anyway they want. They don't need to prewarn anyone!

Yes I'm sure they do.
It's possibly the way the best way to operate an investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 12:55:53 AM
They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

Don't make the same mistake twice springs to mind!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:57:20 AM
They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

And I agree again with you.
The police will know how best to run an investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:57:56 AM
Is it my ignorance you are referring to?

I believe that you are ignorant of the direction that the investigation is taking. Am I wrong ?

We have two examples of the police proclaiming that individuals were not suspects when we know they were being investigated, Prout ( thank you Pathfinder) above and the parents in August 2007. You are in denial if you don’t think this again could be the case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:59:55 AM
And I agree again with you.
The police will know how best to run an investigation.

Indeed. Quietly I’m sure would be their preferance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:00:12 AM
I believe that you are ignorant of the direction that the investigation is taking. Am I wrong ?

We have two examples of the police proclaiming that individuals were not suspects when we know they were being investigated, Prout ( thank you Pathfinder) above and the parents in August 2007. You are in denial if you don’t think this again could be the case.

Which investigation?
And which direction is this investigation taking?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:00:46 AM
Indeed. Quietly I’m sure would be their preferance.

Of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 01:00:57 AM
And I agree again with you.
The police will know how best to run an investigation.

Agreed and they use tactics just as smart and sneaky as the perp(s). Their job is to solve it and how they go about it is their call.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:04:49 AM
Which investigation?
And which direction is this investigation taking?

I thought you knew.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:07:02 AM
Agreed and they use tactics just as smart and sneaky as the perp(s). Their job is to solve it and how they go about it is their call.

Within the bounds of the law of course.
No intimidating or threatening or even beating suspects.
As long as the correct judicial guidelines are followed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:08:09 AM
I’ll leave you with this :

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/college-policing-says-forces-should-name-suspects-when-charged-not-when-arrested/

But at point of arrest, the ( College of Policing ) guidance says: "Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis but, save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public."

Why do supporters think that this would not apply to the parents ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:08:45 AM
I thought you knew.

No I believe that is your perogative.
You have indicated before that you know more than any of us on this forum.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:26:39 AM
No I believe that is your perogative.
You have indicated before that you know more than any of us on this forum.

I’m not sure where you got that idea from.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 07:15:00 AM
No sceptic has been able to explain exactly what aspect of the parents they think the police have been spending the last 8 years and £12 m investigating.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 08:01:13 AM
If there is all this evidence against the McCann's... Whyvare they not being investigated... Why have they not been interviewed under caution by either investigation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:32:38 AM
If there is all this evidence against the McCann's... Whyvare they not being investigated... Why have they not been interviewed under caution by either investigation

Using that logic theres no evidence against anyone,thats why there's supposed to be ongoing investigations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:35:16 AM
No sceptic has been able to explain exactly what aspect of the parents they think the police have been spending the last 8 years and £12 m investigating.


Is that why you think the thread was set up for,if not why the apparent dissappointment in "sceptics" noy playing ball.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 08:37:24 AM
Using that logic theres no evidence against anyone,thats why there's supposed to be ongoing investigations.

But sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns, enough evidence for sceptics to believe the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's. disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:43:35 AM
But sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns, enough evidence for sceptics to believe the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's. disappearance.


I think from reading some post's on other threads at times  one or two others(Supporters) believe they have seen some supposed evidence of Madeleine being held elsewhere and SY are using surveillance to monitor them, if a sceptic view is wrong is the view of the others also wrong?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 08:45:44 AM
No sceptic has been able to explain exactly what aspect of the parents they think the police have been spending the last 8 years and £12 m investigating.

Why should we want to ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 08:52:48 AM
Using that logic theres no evidence against anyone,thats why there's supposed to be ongoing investigations.

Murat has been reinterviewed... The burglars have been interviewed.. The McCann's haven't.
I dint know what SY and the PJ are working on but despite the evidence sceptics think exists they have not been reinterviewed and there us talk of the investigation closing... So... If there is real evidence against the McCann's why are both investigations taking no action....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 08:53:40 AM

I think from reading some post's on other threads at times  one or two others(Supporters) believe they have seen some supposed evidence of Madeleine being held elsewhere and SY are using surveillance to monitor them, if a sceptic view is wrong is the view of the others also wrong?


Supporters have differing views on what may or may not have happened to Madeleine but  as far as I am aware , no supporter on this forum has accused a named person of being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
Sceptics seem to believe that there is enough evidence of the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearance that they can quite comfortably point their finger at her parents.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:55:26 AM
I thought as much,there was a sceptic bashing thread before.
Still nowt else happening is there.


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.0
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:01:39 AM
I thought as much,there was a sceptic bashing thread before.
Still nowt else happening is there.


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.0

It's a pity you take that view of this thread.
It is more of an opportunity for sceptics to explain why they steadfastly hold to their belief that there is enough evidence for them to point the finger at Madeleine's parents when after years of two current police investigations , neither of these investigations have seen enough evidence to do a similar finger pointing exercise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:03:12 AM

Supporters have differing views on what may or may not have happened to Madeleine but  as far as I am aware , no supporter on this forum has accused a named person of being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
Sceptics seem to believe that there is enough evidence of the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearance that they can quite comfortably point their finger at her parents.

I think you'll find "sceptics" have  differing view's on what happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I certain have no need to explain my views or reasons behind them to anyone.
 I am trying to persuade no one to my way of thinking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:06:54 AM
I think you'll find "sceptics" have  differing view's on what happened to Madeleine.

I've never read any sceptic view which does not point the finger at Madeleine's parents being involved in some way in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:07:33 AM
It's a pity you take that view of this thread.


If you read both threads you'll understand or maybe not as the case may be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:10:23 AM
I've never read any sceptic view which does not point the finger at Madeleine's parents being involved in some way in her disappearance.

I don't suppose you have. It's the details of the disappearance where differences arise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:11:07 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I certain have no need to explain my views or reasons behind them to anyone.
 I am trying to persuade no one to my way of thinking.

But you do believe that there is enough evidence to satisfy your reasoning and view that Madeleine's parents are complicit in some way in her disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:12:06 AM
Murat has been reinterviewed... The burglars have been interviewed.. The McCann's haven't.
I dint know what SY and the PJ are working on but despite the evidence sceptics think exists they have not been reinterviewed and there us talk of the investigation closing... So... If there is real evidence against the McCann's why are both investigations taking no action....

So despite your constant criticism of the original investigation it was exemplery in investigating and not finding any evidence in linking the parents to the girls dissappearence.
Why else would there be no need to reinterview the parents?
But there again you might just might have touched on why its still ongoing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:13:08 AM
I don't suppose you have. It's the details of the disappearance where differences arise.

But all sceptics believe that her parents are involved.
The manner of the involvement does differ among sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:14:13 AM
But you do believe that there is enough evidence to satisfy your reasoning and view that Madeleine's parents are complicit in some way in her disappearance?

I see no evidence to discount their involvement.
I see no evidence to support their abduction claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:15:28 AM
If you read both threads you'll understand or maybe not as the case may be.

If you find this thread to be a "sceptic bashing" thread, then just don't post on it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:16:28 AM
If you find this thread to be a "sceptic bashing" thread, then just don't post on it.

What! and let you have all the fun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:18:48 AM
I see no evidence to discount their involvement.
I see no evidence to support their abduction claim.

But you do see enough evidence to point the finger at them?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:20:42 AM
What! and let you have all the fun.

Unfortunately I'm signing off now.
A really busy day ahead.
I'll leave you to have "fun".
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:24:07 AM
But you do see enough evidence to point the finger at them?

Until I see compelling evidence of an alternative culprit, of course. Who else is there in the frame?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:34:42 AM
Until I see compelling evidence of an alternative culprit, of course. Who else is there in the frame?


Fingers crossed and hopefully you are never called to do jury duty!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 11:27:14 AM
Until I see compelling evidence of an alternative culprit, of course. Who else is there in the frame?
OK ... burglars don't count.  An individual molesting children in their beds doesn't either.  Witness statements of men behaving oddly and on at least one occasion entering a property uninvited where there was a young child.

There seems to be a general belief among sceptics that none of this matters;  much as there is that Amaral's conduct of the Cipriano case was textbook excellence as was his conduct of the McCann case.

Only wee problem there is that no trace of either child has ever been found ... and the sceptic belief is that is entirely due to the parents.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 11:31:54 AM
OK ... burglars don't count.  An individual molesting children in their beds doesn't either. Witness statements of men behaving oddly and on at least one occasion entering a property uninvited where there was a young child.

There seems to be a general belief among sceptics that none of this matters;  much as there is that Amaral's conduct of the Cipriano case was textbook excellence as was his conduct of the McCann case.

Only wee problem there is that no trace of either child has ever been found ... and the sceptic belief is that is entirely due to the parents.

All discarded - apparently.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 11:56:30 AM
It's a pity you take that view of this thread.
It is more of an opportunity for sceptics to explain why they steadfastly hold to their belief that there is enough evidence for them to point the finger at Madeleine's parents when after years of two current police investigations , neither of these investigations have seen enough evidence to do a similar finger pointing exercise.

What makes you think aceptics wanted or needed an opportunity ro explain anything? Should I start a thread giving you a similar opportunity?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:22:39 PM
What makes you think aceptics wanted or needed an opportunity ro explain anything? Should I start a thread giving you a similar opportunity?

That would certainly be a very short thread.....because the parents said so....the end !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 01:14:58 PM
But all sceptics believe that her parents are involved.
The manner of the involvement does differ among sceptics.

But only to try to get around the obvious.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 01:25:46 PM
OK ... burglars don't count.  An individual molesting children in their beds doesn't either.  Witness statements of men behaving oddly and on at least one occasion entering a property uninvited where there was a young child.

There seems to be a general belief among sceptics that none of this matters;  much as there is that Amaral's conduct of the Cipriano case was textbook excellence as was his conduct of the McCann case.

Only wee problem there is that no trace of either child has ever been found ... and the sceptic belief is that is entirely due to the parents.

Is there any compelling evidence that any of these people were involved? If so it would be interesting to see it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 01:28:17 PM
Is there any compelling evidence that any of these people were involved? If so it would be interesting to see it.

Is there any compelling evidence that The McCanns are involved?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:43:52 PM
Is there any compelling evidence that The McCanns are involved?

So it’s as likely that it is the parents than AN Other.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 02:04:58 PM
So it’s as likely that it is the parents than AN Other.

And as likely not. 

These days I only hope I will live long enough to find out.

That one day I will hear that Madeleine has been found alive and unharmed.  Silly, I do know, although I always hope that she will.

Basically, we are all the same.  Mostly vaguely intelligent people with something lacking in our lives who come here nearly every day after twelve years in the hope of being proved right.

And we get a bit of craic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 02:05:48 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!

How utterly pathetic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 03:24:33 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!

A fine sceptic post
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 04:29:33 PM
A fine sceptic post

Indeed it is ... although not quite on a par with the horror who thought it a good idea to put Madeleine's profile on a dating site complete with photograph and accompanying offensive message.

What motivates these people?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 04:32:32 PM
Indeed it is ... although not quite on a par with the horror who thought it a good idea to put Madeleine's profile on a dating site complete with photograph and accompanying offensive message.

What motivates these people?

Hopefully we will never know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 05, 2019, 04:33:57 PM

What motivates these people?
Alcohol, a keyboard and a twisted sense of humour usually.
That's not a sceptic, that's an absolute tool.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 04:36:14 PM
Alcohol, a keyboard and a twisted sense of humour usually.
That's not a sceptic, that's an absolute tool.

If you say so.

For me I think it is deeper and darker than that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 04:51:25 PM
If you say so.

For me I think it is deeper and darker than that.

Of course it is.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 04:57:02 PM
Where there is a microphone there will very likely be a camera.
Anyone remember the SHOCK HORROR footage of Gerry laughing posted on the internet as part of the sceptic case?

It's all in the mindset when portrayed out of context as most of the of the sceptic beliefs invariably are.

Snip
With the family around there was always the odd funny moment to alleviate the tension and keep us sane.
That last evening, Gerry’s mum was sitting outside on the patio giving it lots of granny chat (which our granny does exceptionally well) when we suddenly spotted a big, furry boom microphone hovering over the patio wall. Whether it was Eileen’s colourful outburst on finally noticing this fluffy intruder, or the thought that anyone would need a boom microphone around Granny McCann (she’s quite loud), we all collapsed into fits of belly-aching
laughter.
        Kate McCann: MADELEINE
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 05:03:23 PM
Where there is a microphone there will very likely be a camera.
Anyone remember the SHOCK HORROR footage of Gerry laughing posted on the internet as part of the sceptic case?

It's all in the mindset when portrayed out of context as most of the of the sceptic beliefs invariably are.

Snip
With the family around there was always the odd funny moment to alleviate the tension and keep us sane.
That last evening, Gerry’s mum was sitting outside on the patio giving it lots of granny chat (which our granny does exceptionally well) when we suddenly spotted a big, furry boom microphone hovering over the patio wall. Whether it was Eileen’s colourful outburst on finally noticing this fluffy intruder, or the thought that anyone would need a boom microphone around Granny McCann (she’s quite loud), we all collapsed into fits of belly-aching
laughter.
        Kate McCann: MADELEINE

No matter how you paint it, this behaviour is not natural when you have no idea whether your child is dead or with predators.

It appears that it is okay to suggest Madeleine is dead but not that she is with predators. Even stranger when you consider that much of the Netflix documentary was about Metodo 3 and their research into the sex trafficking of children and its connection, or not,  to Madeleine’s disappearance. I presume the parents supported this research.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:00:18 PM

Is that why you think the thread was set up for,if not why the apparent dissappointment in "sceptics" noy playing ball.
Nope, I would just like to know that’s all, I’m always curious about the thought processes of the seriously self-deluding conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:01:31 PM
Why should we want to ?
Of course you wouldn’t want to - that would have to involve some actual logical thinking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:08:19 PM
No matter how you paint it, this behaviour is not natural when you have no idea whether your child is dead or with predators.

It appears that it is okay to suggest Madeleine is dead but not that she is with predators. Even stranger when you consider that much of the Netflix documentary was about Metodo 3 and their research into the sex trafficking of children and its connection, or not,  to Madeleine’s disappearance. I presume the parents supported this research.
Oh FFS I sometimes wonder if you are a human or a sceptic-bot.  There is nothing unnatural about that behaviour, nothing at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:14:19 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!
yes you, by the looks of it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 06:47:11 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!

Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 06:53:20 PM
Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended

Suspended for what?  Writing the word 'piss'?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 07:05:00 PM
I think the word 'belief' is more applicable to supporters than to sceptics.

Supporters have a core belief they all share imo; there is an explanation for Madeleines's disappearance which doesn't involve her parents or friends or woke and wandered.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 07:08:40 PM
Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended

If they are then anyone writing FFS should get the sane treatment. We know what those letters stand for, you know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 07:14:16 PM
I think the word 'belief' is more applicable to supporters than to sceptics.

Supporters have a core belief they all share imo; there is an explanation for Madeleines's disappearance which doesn't involve her parents or friends or woke and wandered.

You don't seem to realise that your conclusions are based on beliefs.. But there are also some hard facts... Statements by both investigations.. And the fact there is no evidence the mccanns are being investigated
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 08:02:46 PM
You don't seem to realise that your conclusions are based on beliefs.. But there are also some hard facts... Statements by both investigations.. And the fact there is no evidence the mccanns are being investigated

And no evidence that anyone else is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 08:24:59 PM
You don't seem to realise that your conclusions are based on beliefs.. But there are also some hard facts... Statements by both investigations.. And the fact there is no evidence the mccanns are being investigated

I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Here's another. The PJ were accused of leaking Kate McCann's first statement to a journalist. It caused quite a stir when he reported what it said; that Madeleine told her parents that she and Sean woke up and cried on 2nd May. I don't know what document the journalist had, but it wasn't Kate McCann's first statement because that's not what she saud.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 08:34:21 PM
If they are then anyone writing FFS should get the sane treatment. We know what those letters stand for, you know.
Do you seriously think Davel was objecting to the word “piss”?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 08:49:26 PM
I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Here's another. The PJ were accused of leaking Kate McCann's first statement to a journalist. It caused quite a stir when he reported what it said; that Madeleine told her parents that she and Sean woke up and cried on 2nd May. I don't know what document the journalist had, but it wasn't Kate McCann's first statement because that's not what she saud.

I actually lost all respect for you as someone who could evaluluate evidence when you claimed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 09:04:25 PM
I actually lost all respect for you as someone who could evaluluate evidence when you claimed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

It's of no interest to me whether you respect my abilities or not. Aren't you going to refute my cold hard facts?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 09:07:50 PM
It's of no interest to me whether you respect my abilities or not. Aren't you going to refute my cold hard facts?

You don't have any hard cold facts... You just think you do..
If the deleted posts, were of any consequence the authorities would have acted on them

I dint think you realise, what cold hard facts are... Smoking causes lung cancer... Thats a cold hard fact...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 09:22:47 PM
No matter how you paint it, this behaviour is not natural when you have no idea whether your child is dead or with predators.
 
It’s interesting that this post has been changed twice by a moderator to remove the word predators and I have received a warning for reposting it. It appears that it is okay to suggest Madeleine is dead but not that she is with predators, even though it is not libellous or against forum rules. I will continue to repost it until it is fairly judged.

When you consider that much of the Netflix documentary was about Metodo3 and their research into the sex trafficking of children and its connection, or not,  to Madeleine’s disappearance, research I presume the parents supported, that it offends some mods to the point of deleting the same point is strange to say the least.

Gerry knew that paedophile gangs had taken Maddie & Kate too knew that "The f....ing b......s" had taken her, immediately after the alarm had been raised. Indeed, I can't see how they could laugh, or even raise a smile while in possession of that certain knowledge.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 09:34:40 PM
You don't have any hard cold facts... You just think you do..
If the deleted posts, were of any consequence the authorities would have acted on them

I dint think you realise, what cold hard facts are... Smoking causes lung cancer... Thats a cold hard fact...

I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 09:36:48 PM
Gerry knew that paedophile gangs had taken Maddie & Kate too knew that "The f....ing b......s" had taken her, immediately after the alarm had been raised. Indeed, I can't see how they could laugh, or even raise a smile while in possession of that certain knowledge.
Is you it your belief that no one whose child has disappeared without trace ever smiled or laughed again for the rest of their lives?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 09:46:57 PM
Is you it your belief that no one whose child has disappeared without trace ever smiled or laughed again for the rest of their lives?

No, but knowing, as the McCanns did, that Maddie was in the clutches of a paedophile gang, would surely make it difficult for them to find humour in anything for quite some time, I'd imagine.
This wasn't just a suspicion they had, they knew their precious child was in the clutches of child sex offenders. What would there be to smile about? Balloons & microphones?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You don't have any hard cold facts... You just think you do..
If the deleted posts, were of any consequence the authorities would have acted on them

I dint think you realise, what cold hard facts are... Smoking causes lung cancer... Thats a cold hard fact...

Why are my facts not facts in your opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 09:58:31 PM
Why are my facts not facts in your opinion?

I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Where are the three different versions... Are you relying on the statements... We don't know how accurate, they are...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 09:59:44 PM
I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<

Only twenty years?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:02:12 PM
I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<

Precisely... You dont realize the significance of your statement... Would you discourage your children from smoking.. More children as they grow older will die an horrific death from smoking and the effects of smoking than Wil come to harm from being left alone in a holiday apartment
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:03:49 PM
Only twenty years?

Maybe 25 actually now I think about it.  Smoked like a trooper so I did, 20 plus a day, hand rolled strong tobacco. It never did me any harm.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:05:25 PM
Precisely... You dont realize the significance of your statement... Would you discourage your children from smoking

Nope, I think smoking is good for you. It suppresses the appetite, thus preventing obesity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:06:46 PM
Nope, I think smoking is good for you. It suppresses the appetite, thus preventing obesity.

Great.. You show how well informed and educated skeptics are
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:07:56 PM
Great.. You show how well informed and educated sceotics are

I don't claim to represent sceptics on the whole. My views are my own & mine only.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:09:22 PM
I don't claim to represent sceptics on the whole. My views are my own & mine only.
Doesn't matter what you claim you are a sceptic and represent skeptics
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:11:18 PM
Doesn't matter what you claim you are a sceptic and represent skeptics

I don't recall being elected as a representative. I'd want paying for that responsibility, about 12 million squids should cover it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:12:40 PM
I don't recall being elected as a representative. I'd want paying for that responsibility, about 12 million squids should cover it.

You weren't elected... Your posts identify  you..I'd say 12 squid an hour us more representative
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:13:26 PM
I don't recall being elected as a representative. I'd want paying for that responsibility, about 12 million squids should cover it.

I'm on your side on this one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:16:01 PM
You weren't elected... Your posts identify  you..

No they don't. My identification is a closely guarded secret thank you very much.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:16:40 PM
I'm on your side on this one.

Yes... You seemed to have problems with me when I showed the link between smoking and lung cancer
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:17:22 PM
No they don't. My identification is a closely guarded secret thank you very much.
You are identified as a sceptic..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:18:14 PM
You weren't elected... Your posts identify  you..I'd say 12 squid an hour us more representative

Oh, do give over.  You aren't much fun are you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
You are identified as a sceptic..

For a minute there I thought you said I was septic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 10:19:52 PM
I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Where are the three different versions... Are you relying on the statements... We don't know how accurate, they are...

So your answer is just the same old mantra? OK. How did that journalist misread Kate McCann's first statement then? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 10:20:12 PM
I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<
I grew up in a tropical country, was exposed to equatorial sunrays for years without ever wearing suntan lotion and have never had skin cancer, therefore sun rays obviously don’t cause cancer.  8((()*/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:21:05 PM
Oh, do give over.  You aren't much fun are you.

Lung cancer isn't much fun and it's a disgrace to try and pretend smoking isn't a cause if it... In fact it's more irresponsible  than leaving children in an unlocked apartment
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:24:40 PM
I grew up in a tropical country, was exposed to equatorial sunrays for years without ever wearing suntan lotion and have never had skin cancer, therefore sun rays obviously don’t cause cancer.  8((()*/

It's a pertinent  point because it shows that some posters dint understand what evidence is
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:26:32 PM
Yes... You seemed to have problems with me when I showed the link between smoking and lung cancer

Oh for God's sake.  I am eighty years old and have smoked for all of my adult life.  No.  It isn't a good idea.  But I haven't got Lung Cancer.  Or any other Cancer that you might want to blame on smoking.  Okay?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Precisely... You dont realize the significance of your statement... Would you discourage your children from smoking.. More children as they grow older will die an horrific death from smoking and the effects of smoking than Wil come to harm from being left alone in a holiday apartment

If you're so bothered you should have noticed the growing concern about traffic emmissons imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:29:46 PM
Oh for God's sake.  I am eighty years old and have smoked for all of my adult life.  No.  It isn't a good idea.  But I haven't got Lung Cancer.  Or any other Cancer that you might want to blame on smoking.  Okay?
Okay what... Smoking causes lung cancer and it's irresponsible to suggest it doesn't.. More irresponsible  than leaving the children in sn unlocked apartment.. I make no aplogy for my disgust at thosr who try to pretend smoking is acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:31:19 PM
If you're so bothered you should have noticed the growing concern about traffic emmissons imo.

I have noticed and that's why there us a movement yo electric cars.. Have you not noticed that
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:32:02 PM
If you're so bothered you should have noticed the growing concern about traffic emmissons imo.

I drive a Prius hybrid, low emissions, doing my bit for the environment. I think traffic emissions & cars on the whole are more deadly than ciggies  ?>)()<
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:34:48 PM
I drive a Prius hybrid, low emissions, doing my bit for the environment. I think traffic emissions & cars on the whole are more deadly than ciggies  ?>)()<
Doesn't matter what you think.. It's what the evidence says
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 05, 2019, 10:34:57 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:36:17 PM
So your answer is just the same old mantra? OK. How did that journalist misread Kate McCann's first statement then?
Which first statement... The ine in Portuguese.. We don't know how accurate thst is
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:38:27 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

Smoking causes lung cancer the evidence proves it... Based on your, argument how would you feel about your grandchildren  smoking.. Would you deter them
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

It was epidemiology that proved the link.. So I think I understand it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:42:57 PM
Okay what... Smoking causes lung cancer and it's irresponsible to suggest it doesn't.. More irresponsible  than leaving the children in sn unlocked apartment.. I make no aplogy for my disgust at thosr who try to pretend smoking is acceptable

I did both.  So now what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 10:44:18 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.
Do you think it’s possible that the smoking contibuted in any way to the strokes and heart attacks?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:45:38 PM
I did both.  So now what?

So did I... But I would not recommend either
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:46:20 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

I am not even going to die from that.  My blood pressure is always low.  I don't know why.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:46:50 PM
Do you think it’s possible that the smoking contibuted in any way to the strokes and heart attacks?

Of course it did
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:48:56 PM
So did I... But I would not recommend either

Well, there's good.  Thank Christ for that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 10:50:12 PM
Interesting.. I..like Eleanor ...left a baby sleeping in an apartment whilst I dined 50 metres, awa..nothing happened si it's obviously perfectly safe.. Why all the criticism of the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:57:08 PM
Interesting.. I..like Eleanor ...left a baby sleeping in an apartment whilst I dined 50 metres, awa..nothing happened si it's obviously perfectly safe.. Why all the criticism of the mccanns
Did you leave the baby some ciggies to smoke?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 05, 2019, 10:59:33 PM
Did you leave the baby some ciggies to smoke?
I blew smoke directly into my babies faces and they thrived on it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 11:02:29 PM
Did you leave the baby some ciggies to smoke?

According to you that would have been  quite, acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 11:07:26 PM
Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended

That was published today!

Friday 5 April 2019
Madeleine McCann: The heartbreaking 'ironic' song Kate recalls singing with her daughter
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1110159/madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-ironic-song-kate-mccann-recalls-spt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 11:13:40 PM
Interesting.. I..like Eleanor ...left a baby sleeping in an apartment whilst I dined 50 metres, awa..nothing happened si it's obviously perfectly safe.. Why all the criticism of the mccanns

I think I have briefly run out of steam.  Cheeky Monkey has wiped me out.  I am now a Wreck.  Back tomorrow.  Or maybe the next day.  But don't count on it.

Charlotte, the demented Pug has just pissed on the floor again, and so has Connor the Dachshund, but he's not demented, yet.  However, it is looking like an option for me.  Sorry, being demented, I meant, and not pissing on the floor.  Oh, for God's sake.  Time I went to bed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 05, 2019, 11:20:22 PM
Smoking causes lung cancer the evidence proves it... Based on your, argument how would you feel about your grandchildren  smoking.. Would you deter them
My grandchildren are not related to me by genetics.

However, my beloved's family also appears to be prone to deaths related to high blood pressure, not cancer.

I don't lecture my children about topics such as smoking or high blood pressure.  I put in a little gentle steerage from time to time, but otherwise they are the responsible authorities, not me.  My time is past.

Here's a small true story for you.  We oldies don't have a Netflix subscription.  But I twigged in a conversation that the kids do, so the question arose, could I borrow it to watch the Madeleine series?  The answer was yes, so far, so good.

The next part of the conversation was about the '14 bottles of wine' allegation.  I felt obliged to do a little steerage, to explain that the 14 bottles were not just for the T9, but for all those entitled parties in the Tapas on that occasion.  Oh!

Our kids did not watch the Netflix series.  Having worked in Luz, they are sick to the back teeth of the MBM story.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 11:24:48 PM
That was published today!

Friday 5 April 2019
Madeleine McCann: The heartbreaking 'ironic' song Kate recalls singing with her daughter
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1110159/madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-ironic-song-kate-mccann-recalls-spt


Indeed somebody sure is "takin da piss!"  *%87 and it certainly is not a heartbroken mother. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 05, 2019, 11:25:37 PM
My grandchildren are not related to me by genetics.

However, my beloved's family also appears to be prone to deaths related to high blood pressure, not cancer.

I don't lecture my children about topics such as smoking or high blood pressure.  I put in a little gentle steerage from time to time, but otherwise they are the responsible authorities, not me.  My time is past.

Here's a small true story for you.  We oldies don't have a Netflix subscription.  But I twigged in a conversation that the kids do, so the question arose, could I borrow it to watch the Madeleine series?  The answer was yes, so far, so good.

The next part of the conversation was about the '14 bottles of wine' allegation.  I felt obliged to do a little steerage, to explain that the 14 bottles were not just for the T9, but for all those entitled parties in the Tapas on that occasion.  Oh!

Our kids did not watch the Netflix series.  Having worked in Luz, they are sick to the back teeth of the MBM story.

I don't need to lecture my children Re smoking.. They are intelligent enough to understand  the evidence... Everyone isn't.. Obviously
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 11:32:34 PM


Indeed somebody sure is "takin da piss!"  *%87 and it certainly is not a heartbroken mother.

She sure does take the piss! The one question she answered proves it!

49. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

Kate McCann Answer: ‘Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.’
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 11:48:35 PM
My grandchildren are not related to me by genetics.

However, my beloved's family also appears to be prone to deaths related to high blood pressure, not cancer.

I don't lecture my children about topics such as smoking or high blood pressure.  I put in a little gentle steerage from time to time, but otherwise they are the responsible authorities, not me.  My time is past.

Here's a small true story for you.  We oldies don't have a Netflix subscription.  But I twigged in a conversation that the kids do, so the question arose, could I borrow it to watch the Madeleine series?  The answer was yes, so far, so good.

The next part of the conversation was about the '14 bottles of wine' allegation.  I felt obliged to do a little steerage, to explain that the 14 bottles were not just for the T9, but for all those entitled parties in the Tapas on that occasion.  Oh!

Our kids did not watch the Netflix series.  Having worked in Luz, they are sick to the back teeth of the MBM story.

Been there and done all of this.  Hopefully without anger, although some of it was too long ago to remember.  I suspect that I might have been a bit cross now and again.  14 Bottles if wine.  What a colossal fib that was.

My youngest son thinks that I am cracked.  Not because I believe The Mccanns, but because I have the patience, although God knows what he thinks I should be doing.  At my age there isn't too much going on that anyone could find riveting.

Sceptic Beliefs?  Perhaps it is the same for Sceptics.  Most of us are over the hill.  No where to go other than to hope.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 11:50:53 PM
I blew smoke directly into my babies faces and they thrived on it.

Oh, you are a one.  Chimps Ahoy.  That was fun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 06, 2019, 07:21:59 AM
Oh, you are a one.  Chimps Ahoy.  That was fun.
Troll the trolls.  It’s the only way...  8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 09:18:51 AM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

They certainly don't understand epidemiology or statistics if they think either proves cause and effect imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 06, 2019, 09:21:43 AM
They certainly don't understand epidemiology or statistics if they think either proves cause and effect imo.

It's not what anyone here thinks it's what the world experts in this field think... But if course you know better than the world's experts ...it's significant because it shows your. unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence when it is presented to you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 09:28:17 AM

The topic of the thread is ... "Sceptics  beliefs ?"  Please bear that in mind when posting.  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 02:03:39 PM
It's not what anyone here thinks it's what the world experts in this field think... But if course you know better than the world's experts ...it's significant because it shows your. unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence when it is presented to you

Cornell University shares my opinion, so It's not my 'belief';

Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 06, 2019, 03:08:23 PM
Cornell University shares my opinion, so It's not my 'belief';

Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html

I have claimed the evidence shows smoking causes lung cancer... You and others have claimed this is not a fact... It might be better if you actually read the, article you quoted... It contains...

The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer....


So the paper YOU quoted confirms the causal link between smoking and lung cancer... Hopefully this will be the last post on the topic and you should now accept you have been wrong all along
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 04:44:35 PM
One of the sceptic beliefs which is still under discussion by and can apparently be found repeated on twitter even today is 'blood spatter'.  The myth of blood spatter just isn't substantiated in the files ... in fact the files indicate the exact opposite http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336681#msg336681
Yet it still persists 12 years down the line defying evidence that there was no such thing ... and ultimately defying logic.

Why believe? something which just isn't true ... as the mythical blood spatter demonstrates.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 06, 2019, 05:20:51 PM
And then there’s the lichen on the window ledge myth which still does the rounds from time to time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 05:34:46 PM
And then there’s the lichen on the window ledge myth which still does the rounds from time to time.

So 'proof' that Madeleine couldn't have been abducted via the window was that the lichen on the window ledge hadn't been disturbed.
Forensic photographs of the time illustrate that there was no lichen present to begin with.  Yet people believed that for years and as you say ... it still pops up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 06, 2019, 05:40:05 PM
So 'proof' that Madeleine couldn't have been abducted via the window was that the lichen on the window ledge hadn't been disturbed.
Forensic photographs of the time illustrate that there was no lichen present to begin with.  Yet people believed that for years and as you say ... it still pops up.
It was microscopic invisible lichen apparently...  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 05:40:42 PM
The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 06, 2019, 05:51:17 PM
The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

Diane Webster proved the shutter couldn’t be opened without damage on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, a media crew a few weeks later. I really don’t know who benefits from misrepresenting already established facts.

From the files:


- Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 06, 2019, 06:06:04 PM
The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

"However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 06:23:08 PM
I have claimed the evidence shows smoking causes lung cancer... You and others have claimed this is not a fact... It might be better if you actually read the, article you quoted... It contains...

The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer....


So the paper YOU quoted confirms the causal link between smoking and lung cancer... Hopefully this will be the last post on the topic and you should now accept you have been wrong all along

If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 06:30:54 PM
One of the sceptic beliefs which is still under discussion by and can apparently be found repeated on twitter even today is 'blood spatter'.  The myth of blood spatter just isn't substantiated in the files ... in fact the files indicate the exact opposite http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336681#msg336681
Yet it still persists 12 years down the line defying evidence that there was no such thing ... and ultimately defying logic.

Why believe? something which just isn't true ... as the mythical blood spatter demonstrates.

I assume that's a rhetorical question?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 06, 2019, 06:41:58 PM
If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.
There is no proof that uv rays cause skin cancer so I guess you don’t believe that either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 06, 2019, 06:47:12 PM
If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.
have you read the article you linked to...did you read and understand my post...have another look...



The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer...
.


it says cigarrettes are the factor causing the increase in lung cancer...how much clearer does it need to be....


what this shows to me is you have a totally closed mind and just will not accept clear evidence taht contradicts it.....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 07:39:08 PM
I assume that's a rhetorical question?

Feel free to answer it if you are so inclined.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
"However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 06, 2019, 08:17:08 PM
As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

Dianne was there on the night of the disappearance and tried the shutter that night. Peter Mac raised the shutter years later so who knows what had happened to it in the meantime.

It always amuses me when individuals who weren’t there on the night attempt to second guess individuals who were. Why would Dianne Webster say that she couldn’t raise the shutters if she could ? What would she have to gain.

John would it be possible to have a fingers in ears emoticon?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 06, 2019, 08:24:48 PM
Dianne was there on the night of the disappearance and tried the shutter that night. Peter Mac raised the shutter years later so who knows what had happened to it in the meantime.

It always amuses me when individuals who weren’t there on the night attempt to second guess individuals who were. Why would Dianne Webster say that she couldn’t raise the shutters if she could ? What would she have to gain.

John would it be possible to have a fingers in ears emoticon?
But you yourself have posted an excerpt from the files in which the police themselves say they saw the shutter forced open.  How was this possible if Dianne Webster could not perform the feat?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 09:21:41 PM
Feel free to answer it if you are so inclined.

It's nothing to do with me. I just wondered who you were talking to. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 09:47:29 PM
It's nothing to do with me. I just wondered who you were talking to.

??? ... you did after all respond to my post which I think does make it 'something to do with' you otherwise why bother? ... but hey-ho ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 06, 2019, 10:59:23 PM
As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

On 3 May 2007 they could not be raised by Dianne as seen in crime scene photos. They had stuck that's why that weren't fully down! They normally fall back down but there's a gap at the bottom which means the shutters had stuck! Elementary like the evidence found on the alleged open window!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 01:00:31 AM
On 3 May 2007 they could not be raised by Dianne as seen in crime scene photos. They had stuck that's why that weren't fully down! They normally fall back down but there's a gap at the bottom which means the shutters had stuck! Elementary like the evidence found on the alleged open window!
Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 01:17:47 AM
Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.

Whether or not there was an abduction you have to ask why he did that ? This concerned parent who knew it was an abduction from the get go, or so we’re told, decided to tamper with the shutters he believed had been used by the abductor and by doing so risked contaminating any evidence that had been deposited there. What did he hope to achieve by messing with the shutters ? Did it matter at that point whether they’d been opened from the outside to let someone in or the inside to let someone out ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 07:33:33 AM
Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.

Who says Gerry McCann opened the window and shutter?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 08:11:23 AM
Is a supposed open window the sole reserve of an alleged abductor?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 08:43:44 AM
Who says Gerry McCann opened the window and shutter?
I thought you believed the McCanns staged an abduction?  Do you think only one of them did while the other had no idea that’s what was going on? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 10:25:16 AM
I thought you believed the McCanns staged an abduction?  Do you think only one of them did while the other had no idea that’s what was going on?

Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 10:47:01 AM
Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.
As this thread is about sceptics ‘ beliefs perhaps it isn’t the thread for you.  Sitting on the fence allows you to cast doubt about anything and everything without ever having to commit yourself either way ans it is IMO a technique to enable you to wriggle out of any position when the logic of that position is exposed as flawed.  You do it in every discussion whether it’s smoking, Brexit or this case.  You have no firm views on anything, or claim not to, and I find it extremely slippery.  You are not convinced of the McCanns’ guilt?  When have you once tested the “staged abduction and hid the body”  theory critically?  Never on this forum as far as I recall.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 10:59:50 AM
Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.

i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:12:34 AM
Quite.  G-Unit believes the McCanns acted oddly, then cites a photo on one ten thousandth of a second in time to illustrate the perceived oddness. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:19:15 AM
i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif
It’s an interesting point actually.  If the McCanns were tried on the evidence that we so far have that purports to point to their guilt, would G-Unit have to find them “Not Guilty”?  I guess by her own admission having just declared she isnot convinced of their guilt thst she would have to clear them of involvement.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Who says Gerry McCann opened the window and shutter?

Himself and his wife say he raised the shutter. Evidence suggests it was Kate who opened the window.  The shutter will fall back down if raised so I don't think anybody saw them in a fully raised position. I think Dianne was the first to raise them and got them stuck otherwise why would Kate get her to do it if Gerry had already tried? It does not add up!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 11:34:46 AM
Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.

based on your logic a judicial system would be impossible...every trial would result without any conclusion...no one could be found guilty or not guilty....you have to look at the evidence and make a decision...based on the evidence...and based on the evidence at the moment the mccanns would be found not guilty....and cleared
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 12:44:46 PM
i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif

Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 12:48:19 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee

The jury decides who's evidence it believes as you have confirmed... They reach a verdict based on belief..
To look at belief as being worthless is ridiculous... How else can any trial rec a conclusion without a belief based on the evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 12:57:26 PM
Whether or not there was an abduction you have to ask why he did that ? This concerned parent who knew it was an abduction from the get go, or so we’re told, decided to tamper with the shutters he believed had been used by the abductor and by doing so risked contaminating any evidence that had been deposited there. What did he hope to achieve by messing with the shutters ? Did it matter at that point whether they’d been opened from the outside to let someone in or the inside to let someone out ?

I think it did matter because, if they claimed the intruder came in via a window it would not be a good look if the bloody shutter didn't open for him/her to 'escape with MBM.

I am of the opinion there is a very good reason why the room was 'searched' by the Tapas and the shutters/window was tested-Allowing contamination of evidence- IF THERE WAS ANY from a stranger.

Perhaps they all panicked about what would happen to them- leaving their children alone everynight-to wine and dine on this 'family' holiday- jail? loss of jobs? children removed to social care in Portugual..

Claiming abduction  from the bed would be a great get -out- of -jail- card-free for them!

It could have  worked...until the seen abductor was found not to be an abductor by UK Police, The time line was moved, and the police in Portugual never believed it, and now  SY are looking at walked and wandered...

This leaves me with two questions...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 01:03:42 PM
The jury decides who's evidence it believes as you have confirmed... They reach a verdict based on belief..
To look at belief as being worthless is ridiculous... How else can any trial rec a conclusion without a belief based on the evidence

You didn't mention evidence  you just said belief. no one has been convicted on anything in a courtroom based on someones belief of nothing.

Perhaps you should make your posts clearer.

 Based on EVIDENCE, as the PJ have claimed there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge the Parents. So how can anyone say they believe them or not if no evidence is offered by the police.

G is quite right to sit on a fence if that is what is being claimed, due to ther being no evidence of abduction from window.

I agree with G on this point.    I rule nothing in or out and anything is possible,unless ruled out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 01:16:15 PM
You didn't mention evidence  you just said belief. no one has been convicted on anything in a courtroom based on someones belief of nothing.

Perhaps you should make your posts clearer.

 Based on EVIDENCE, as the PJ have claimed there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge the Parents. So how can anyone say they believe them or not if no evidence is offered by the police.

G is quite right to sit on a fence if that is what is being claimed, due to ther being no evidence of abduction from window.

I agree with G on this point.    I rule nothing in or out and anything is possible,unless ruled out.

based on a belief in the evidence...it all comes down to belief...based on the evidence I think the mccanns are totally innocent....as Ive shown...based on the evience smoking causes cancer...g didnt believe taht either....g can think what she likes .....g is wrong to criticise supporters because we believe the mccanns are innocent...based on the evidence....which iv said countless times...and supporters have also said that if new evidence comes to light they would be happy to change their mind
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 01:17:22 PM
I think it did matter because, if they claimed the intruder came in via a window it would not be a good look if the bloody shutter didn't open for him/her to 'escape with MBM.

I am of the opinion there is a very good reason why the room was 'searched' by the Tapas and the shutters/window was tested-Allowing contamination of evidence- IF THERE WAS ANY from a stranger.

Perhaps they all panicked about what would happen to them- leaving their children alone everynight-to wine and dine on this 'family' holiday- jail? loss of jobs? children removed to social care in Portugual..

Claiming abduction  from the bed would be a great get -out- of -jail- card-free for them!

It could have  worked...until the seen abductor was found not to be an abductor by UK Police, The time line was moved, and the police in Portugual never believed it, and now  SY are looking at walked and wandered...

This leaves me with two questions...

you believe SY are looking at w and w...I dont beleive they are
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 01:24:27 PM
you believe SY are looking at w and w...I dont beleive they are

What do you believe that they are looking at and why ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 01:27:04 PM
based on a belief in the evidence...it all comes down to belief...based on the evidence I think the mccanns are totally innocent....as Ive shown...based on the evience smoking causes cancer...g didnt believe taht either....g can think what she likes .....g is wrong to criticise supporters because we believe the mccanns are innocent...based on the evidence....which iv said countless times...and supporters have also said that if new evidence comes to light they would be happy to change their mind

Davel, I think you are getting cought up with yourself again...You never mentioned evidence in your fist post

 you have never shown any evidence the parents are innocent and there was an abduction from the flat. So keep pretending you have.does not make it true.

I will quite happpily agree the parents are innocent when real hard evidence with some circumstancial evidence is presented- untill then I cannot form an opinion. I will not change my mind about their behaviour though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 01:51:13 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee
But I didn't say that did I?  How about quoting me accurately, rather than make stuff up?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 01:55:18 PM
You didn't mention evidence  you just said belief. no one has been convicted on anything in a courtroom based on someones belief of nothing.

Perhaps you should make your posts clearer.

 Based on EVIDENCE, as the PJ have claimed there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge the Parents. So how can anyone say they believe them or not if no evidence is offered by the police.

G is quite right to sit on a fence if that is what is being claimed, due to ther being no evidence of abduction from window.

I agree with G on this point.    I rule nothing in or out and anything is possible,unless ruled out.
Anything?
All possibilities equally as possible?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
Davel, I think you are getting cought up with yourself again...You never mentioned evidence in your fist post

 you have never shown any evidence the parents are innocent and there was an abduction from the flat. So keep pretending you have.does not make it true.

I will quite happpily agree the parents are innocent when real hard evidence with some circumstancial evidence is presented- untill then I cannot form an opinion. I will not change my mind about their behaviour though.

Ive been talking about ..based on the evidence...for the last 5 years...if you cant see evidence of innocence ...thats up to you ....I can.....i dont really care if you dont change your mind...its of no importance,...

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 01:58:33 PM
Davel, I think you are getting cought up with yourself again...You never mentioned evidence in your fist post

 you have never shown any evidence the parents are innocent and there was an abduction from the flat. So keep pretending you have.does not make it true.

I will quite happpily agree the parents are innocent when real hard evidence with some circumstancial evidence is presented- untill then I cannot form an opinion. I will not change my mind about their behaviour though.

this was my post today..Whats that big word in red




i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 02:06:28 PM
this was my post today..Whats that big word in red




i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif


Nice try but what you said was:

'the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury'

Maybe the word evidence should have been somewhere else in the paragraph if that was meant to be a paragraph?  could have been in a sentence like the above sentence? *%87

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 02:11:44 PM

Nice try but what you said was:

'the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury'

Maybe the word evidence should have been somewhere else in the paragraph if that was meant to be a paragraph?  could have been in a sentence like the above sentence? *%87

you said i never mentioned evidence in my first post...the EVIDENCE shows you are totally wrong....its not really worth having a conversation with someone who refuses to accept clear EVIDENCE...I wont bother replying to you on this topic again
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 02:20:28 PM
Ive been talking about ..based on the evidence...for the last 5 years...if you cant see evidence of innocence ...thats up to you ....I can.....i dont really care if you dont change your mind...its of no importance,...

So what do you believe OG and the PJ are looking at ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 02:22:40 PM
So what do you believe OG and the PJ are looking at ?

based on the evidence ...which Ive posted many times...I beleive they are still looking at a stranger abduction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:29:27 PM
As this thread is about sceptics ‘ beliefs perhaps it isn’t the thread for you.  Sitting on the fence allows you to cast doubt about anything and everything without ever having to commit yourself either way ans it is IMO a technique to enable you to wriggle out of any position when the logic of that position is exposed as flawed.  You do it in every discussion whether it’s smoking, Brexit or this case.  You have no firm views on anything, or claim not to, and I find it extremely slippery.  You are not convinced of the McCanns’ guilt?  When have you once tested the “staged abduction and hid the body”  theory critically?  Never on this forum as far as I recall.

I never said I was a sceptic with beliefs; in fact I've been denying it for years. Hopefully the penny has finally dropped and people will stop accusing me of believing this or that. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 02:32:56 PM
based on the evidence ...which Ive posted many times...I beleive they are still looking at a stranger abduction

Yes but in what context ? Child traffickers, childless couples, confused burglars....what ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 02:33:36 PM
I never said I was a sceptic with beliefs; in fact I've been denying it for years. Hopefully the penny has finally dropped and people will stop accusing me of believing this or that.

but you do have beliefs...you believe the statements are accurate....you believe the alert are accurate
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 02:35:23 PM
Yes but in what context ? Child traffickers, childless couples, confused burglars....what ?
i just stick with stranger abduction......it could still be one of several
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
Himself and his wife say he raised the shutter. Evidence suggests it was Kate who opened the window.  The shutter will fall back down if raised so I don't think anybody saw them in a fully raised position. I think Dianne was the first to raise them and got them stuck otherwise why would Kate get her to do it if Gerry had already tried? It does not add up!

There is quite a long and involved thread on the forum where a highly respected member posted ...

5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118208#msg118208

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
I never said I was a sceptic with beliefs; in fact I've been denying it for years. Hopefully the penny has finally dropped and people will stop accusing me of believing this or that.
You’re not a sceptic and you have no beliefs you say, however the evidence of your posts on this forum tend to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:42:42 PM
i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif

I'm neither a judge nor a juror so I don't have to decide anything. If I found myself on a jury I would decide based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, nothing else. Whoever did the best job would win, which is slightly different than saying justice would triumph.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:46:19 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee

Why do you think the Portuguese Attorney General didn't instruct charging the arguidos instead of lifting their suspect status.
Might it have been there was no evidence to justify it?  I believe that is the case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:48:15 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee

It's amazing isn't it? There seem to be a set of rules that some think everyone must abide by. If you dare to be different you're not playing fair, it seems!!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:51:57 PM
I think it did matter because, if they claimed the intruder came in via a window it would not be a good look if the bloody shutter didn't open for him/her to 'escape with MBM.

I am of the opinion there is a very good reason why the room was 'searched' by the Tapas and the shutters/window was tested-Allowing contamination of evidence- IF THERE WAS ANY from a stranger.

Perhaps they all panicked about what would happen to them- leaving their children alone everynight-to wine and dine on this 'family' holiday- jail? loss of jobs? children removed to social care in Portugual..

Claiming abduction  from the bed would be a great get -out- of -jail- card-free for them!

It could have  worked...until the seen abductor was found not to be an abductor by UK Police, The time line was moved, and the police in Portugual never believed it, and now  SY are looking at walked and wandered...

This leaves me with two questions...

I think that speculative post covers quite a few of the sceptic beliefs but as it was they didn't require a 'get out of jail card free'.  The lack of evidence to support their guilt did that for them no bother.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:58:04 PM
It's amazing isn't it? There seem to be a set of rules that some think everyone must abide by. If you dare to be different you're not playing fair, it seems!!!

Topic please ... "Sceptics beliefs ?"  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:59:46 PM
but you do have beliefs...you believe the statements are accurate....you believe the alert are accurate

Or maybe some people won't stop accusing me of having beliefs.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:00:13 PM
i just stick with stranger abduction......it could still be one of several

So anyone as long as it’s not the parents ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 03:02:17 PM
So anyone as long as it’s not the parents ?
Anyone who is guilty
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 03:08:38 PM
You’re not a sceptic and you have no beliefs you say, however the evidence of your posts on this forum tend to suggest otherwise.

According to you my posts suggest all sorts of things I have never thought, said or intended to say. May I suggest you stick with what I say instead of trying to find hidden meanings? You're not very good at it in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:09:21 PM
Anyone who is guilty

But you have no evidence against anyone so how do you know that it is not the parents?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 03:29:19 PM
According to you my posts suggest all sorts of things I have never thought, said or intended to say. May I suggest you stick with what I say instead of trying to find hidden meanings? You're not very good at it in my opinion.
Not very good at what? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
But you have no evidence against anyone so how do you know that it is not the parents?
I think we have enough evidence to know the patents are innocent
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 03:42:24 PM
It's amazing isn't it? There seem to be a set of rules that some think everyone must abide by. If you dare to be different you're not playing fair, it seems!!!
In what way do you think you are different?  Evasive yes, different no, in fact quite predictable IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:49:41 PM
I think we have enough evidence to know the patents are innocent

Enough evidence ? What ? OG have said that the parents were not suspects two years ago in a case where Portugal has supremacy and the investigation is covered by judicial secrecy ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 03:52:11 PM
Please post ON TOPIC or expect your post to be deleted.  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 03:54:18 PM
Enough evidence ? What ? OG have said that the parents were not suspects two years ago in a case where Portugal has supremacy and the investigation is covered by judicial secrecy ?

More than enough....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:56:24 PM
More than enough....

So it doesn’t concern you that anything OG is asked about the investigation can’t be answered directly because it is covered by judicial secrecy ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 03:59:19 PM
So it doesn’t concern you that anything OG is asked about the investigation can’t be answered directly because it is covered by judicial secrecy ?
No
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 04:03:29 PM
No

If and its a big if,say SY uncover the moey shot and it helps in a conviction,is it legal given its a Portuguese investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 04:04:29 PM
If and its a big if,say SY uncover the moey shot and it helps in a conviction,is it legal given its a Portuguese investigation.
Yes
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
Yes

On whose say so?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 04:17:53 PM
No

Fair enough. More a faith based opinion than a fact based one then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 05:01:12 PM
There is quite a long and involved thread on the forum where a highly respected member posted ...

5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118208#msg118208

Try leaning out of a window and see how many fingerprints you leave? Anyway nothing about that in her statement. Looking out into the car park for Madeleine? Nope only running in the opposite direction for help.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 05:08:31 PM
On whose say so?

On the fact they were officially invited by the Portuguese police
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 05:09:05 PM
Fair enough. More a faith based opinion than a fact based one then.

In your opinion... IMO based on sound evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 05:17:39 PM
In your opinion... IMO based on sound evidence

There is no evidence....not one single scrap...if you disregard OG’s claim, and we all know that due to judicial secrecy they would not be able to tell us the truth.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 05:22:43 PM
There is no evidence....not one single scrap...if you disregard OG’s claim, and we all know that due to judicial secrecy they would not be able to tell us the truth.

again in your opinion....imo there is lots of evidence which rules out the parents...you dont seem to understand yhe difference between your opinion and facts.....so tahts a poor start
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
Try leaning out of a window and see how many fingerprints you leave? Anyway nothing about that in her statement. Looking out into the car park for Madeleine? Nope only running in the opposite direction for help.

The pity of it all is that you have had this conversation before with a genuinely impartial member when it came to interpreting the evidence ...

Snip
@Pathfinder thanks, her 5 fingerprints which you posted were not on the window handle, and not on any part of the aluminium, they were on the inside surface of the glass.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192765#msg192765
_____________________________________________________________

Viewed from inside, it is the right half of the sliding window which was open.
Someone leaning out of that open window to look left and right, would place their right hand on the wall, and their left hand on the window.

The left palm would lean on the aluminium frame of the already opened sliding section of the window, and their left fingers, extending further, would leave fingerprints on the inside surface of the glass of that sliding section.

And that is exactly what the 5 fingerprints are - left fingers on the inside surface of the glass.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192786#msg192786


I remember the discussion on that thread very well ... indeed I learned a lot from it.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 05:42:12 PM
again in your opinion....imo there is lots of evidence which rules out the parents...you dont seem to understand yhe difference between your opinion and facts.....so tahts a poor start

You say that there is lots of evidence that rules out the parents but you have consistently failed to provide any so forgive me if it cause me to think your opinion is based solely on faith....and that okay, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything else.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 05:45:51 PM
You say that there is lots of evidence that rules out the parents but you have consistently failed to provide any so forgive me if it cause me to think your opinion is based solely on faith....and that okay, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything else.

you can think what you like ...we had a whole thread on the subject....but dont accuse me of pretending...thats ad hom and against forum rules
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 05:50:46 PM
you can think what you like ...we had a whole thraed on the subject....but dont accuse me of pretending...thats ad hom and against forum rules

You have given me no evidence of anything else so how can I think other than that you are pretending? Members lose all respect if they constantly prevaricate as you do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 05:55:06 PM
You have given me no evidence of anything else so how can I think other than that you are pretending? Members lose all respect if they constantly prevaricate as you do.

Im not interested in respect from posters such as you........you are mistaken in most things ...imo...and you are mistaken if you think im pretending....misguided...mistaken ...is my opinion of you ...and I have zero respect for you...doesnt matter does it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:10:47 PM
Im not interested in respect from posters such as you........you are mistaken in most things ...imo...and you are mistaken if you think im pretending....misguided...mistaken ...is my opinion of you ...and I have zero respect for you...doesnt matter does it

It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 06:12:35 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.
What a goading and insulting post.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 06:15:25 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.

Ive provided all the evidence that supports abduction...and theres lots on  a thread devoted to the topic..the rest of your post is the rambling insults of an idiot....imo...LOL
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 07, 2019, 06:17:10 PM
What a goading and insulting post.

A frank exchange of views, I believe it's called   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:24:12 PM
Ive provided all the evidence that supports abduction...and theres lots on  a thread devoted to the topic..the rest of your post is the rambling insults of an idiot....imo...LOL

Provide the link please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 06:30:00 PM
Provide the link please.

do you not remember the thread...[deleted by moderator]?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:39:09 PM
do you not remember the thread...its impossible to have a debate with posters who have such poor memories

As I said, prevarication.

Lest you forget, it’s against forum rules to claim something without a cite. Over to you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 06:41:36 PM
You say that there is lots of evidence that rules out the parents but you have consistently failed to provide any so forgive me if it cause me to think your opinion is based solely on faith....and that okay, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything else.

to say i am pretending is ad hom and reported ...why was this post not removed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 06:42:31 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.

why has rob left this post and edited mine
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 06:44:57 PM
As I said, prevarication.

Lest you forget, it’s against forum rules to claim something without a cite. Over to you.
Faithlilly.  Imagine if you can that Madeleine actually was abducted and that everything the McCanns said about that evening was true.  Then, the open window and shutter would indeed be evidence of an abduction would it not.  just because you choose not to believe them does not mean there is no evidence of abduction, only thst you have chosen to disregard it, just as you will disregard the obvious logic in this post.   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 06:45:32 PM
Provide the link please.

whats the point..if i expalin it all again you will forget it in the next five minutes
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:48:30 PM
whats the point..if i expalin it all again you will forget it in the next five minutes

You have claimed something and forum rules say you have to provide a cite or remove your claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:50:43 PM
by the state of your memory I would say you are extremely grown up

Stop prevaricating and provide a cite as per forum rules or withdraw your claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 06:51:24 PM
Stop prevaricating and provide a cite as per forum rules or withdraw your claim.
LOL
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 06:52:37 PM
Here's a thread for you,

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.0

55 pages of overwhelming abduction evidence including.....

An (alleged) open window

Some sightings

The parents insistence

Not Suspects

I think that about sums it up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:00:01 PM
On the fact they were officially invited by the Portuguese police


They were? I thougt it was the McCann who wanted them.
Got to be a cite for that if you please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2019, 07:00:53 PM
Ive provided all the evidence that supports abduction...and theres lots on  a thread devoted to the topic..the rest of your post is the rambling insults of an idiot....imo...LOL
Saying things that refer to another member as an "idiot" crosses the boundary.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 07:01:35 PM

They were? I thougt it was the McCann who wanted them.

That’s what it said in the Netflix documentary...you know, the very truthful one !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 07:03:19 PM
Saying things that refer to another member as an "idiot" crosses the boundary.
Saying I'm pretending... Crosses the boundary.. Saying I'm behaving like a child crosses the boundary... Di you agree
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:03:51 PM
That’s what it said in the Netflix documentary...you know, the very truthful one !

What, that the Portuguse wanted SY on board as per davels claim?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 07:06:03 PM
I have no respect for forum rules or the moderators who dont enforce them..or for posters such as yourself

Fair enough but you can never claim again that you have provided evidence of an abduction when when asked to you refused to give any.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 07:08:23 PM
What, that the Portuguse wanted SY on board as per davels claim?

Apologies I thought we were talking about the cadaver dog.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 07:08:48 PM
Fair enough but you can never claim again that you have provided evidence of an abduction when when asked to you refused to give any.

spams provide one of the many threads where ive supplied it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:14:19 PM
Apologies I thought we were talking about the cadaver dog.

No this,according to davel the portuguse invited SY on board.

On the fact they were officially invited by the Portuguese police
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 07:16:12 PM
No this,according to davel the portuguse invited SY on board.

they did..thats afact...in order for SY to investigate they required an official invitation from the PJ
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:17:56 PM
they did..thats afact...in order for SY to investigate they required an official invitation from the PJ
Cite please.
So despite the McCanns insistence has some say,it was the PJ who wanted it reopened?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 07:21:00 PM
Cite please.
So despite the McCanns insistence has some say,it was the PJ who wanted it reopened?

another short term memory syndrome....it was only the PJ who could reopen it...I will give acite tomorrow ..its 100% fact...
arent the supposed experts here aware of it..the pj reopened it...whether they wanted to i dont know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2019, 07:21:22 PM
Back to the topic please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:25:00 PM
another short term memory syndrome....it was only the PJ who could reopen it...I will give acite tomorrow ..its 100% fact...
arent the supposed experts here aware of it..the pj reopened it...whether they wanted to i dont know

So the supposed pressure from the McCanns toward cameron was wasted,it was the PJ who they should have appealed to?

Look forward to the cite,if so then its the PJ directing SY and how it spends the brit money or do you think they gave them carte blanche to do what they want?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 07:37:17 PM
The pity of it all is that you have had this conversation before with a genuinely impartial member when it came to interpreting the evidence ...

Snip
@Pathfinder thanks, her 5 fingerprints which you posted were not on the window handle, and not on any part of the aluminium, they were on the inside surface of the glass.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192765#msg192765
_____________________________________________________________

Viewed from inside, it is the right half of the sliding window which was open.
Someone leaning out of that open window to look left and right, would place their right hand on the wall, and their left hand on the window.

The left palm would lean on the aluminium frame of the already opened sliding section of the window, and their left fingers, extending further, would leave fingerprints on the inside surface of the glass of that sliding section.

And that is exactly what the 5 fingerprints are - left fingers on the inside surface of the glass.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192786#msg192786


I remember the discussion on that thread very well ... indeed I learned a lot from it.

"Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother,"

You don't support yourself using only 2 fingers to lean out of a window - you use all of them.

Nothing in her statement about looking out of a window to check the car park. I'm interested in evidence not made up bollox!

"After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 07:41:15 PM
They unearthed what they thought was evidence.
Didn't go much on education 50+ yrs ago  I'll not take it from you too.

for those of us who were educated 50 years ago.. I would say education has gone backwards...my son went to a leading private day school and is now a doctor...but did not study maths at A..and S of course.. to the depth i did..perhaps you simply didnt go to a very good school..i went to the same one as mark Rowley
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:51:31 PM
University of life,best education I've had.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 07, 2019, 07:55:03 PM
University of life,best education I've had.
nothing wrong with that...ive several very successful friends who left school early...but dont knock the education system which has provided the doctors who save thousands of lives every day..Gerry McCann includeD
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 07:56:53 PM
Here's a thread for you,

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.0

55 pages of overwhelming abduction evidence including.....

An (alleged) open window

Some sightings

The parents insistence

Not Suspects

I think that about sums it up.
All of which is evidence if you really think hard about it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
All of which is evidence if you really think hard about it.

I never said it wasn't. None of it's particularly convincing though IMO.

Indeed, there is evidence against the McCanns, contrary to what is often claimed.

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously" KM
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 08:33:07 PM
I never said it wasn't. None of it's particularly convincing though IMO.

Indeed, there is evidence against the McCanns, contrary to what is often claimed.

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously" KM
There we have it.  The evidence which, if and when abduction is proven, will be a very convincing part of it indeed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 08:40:12 PM
There we have it.  The evidence which, if and when abduction is proven, will be a very convincing part of it indeed.

Abduction is apparently already proven according to whichever MSM outlet you subscribe to.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 07, 2019, 08:41:16 PM
There we have it.  The evidence which, if and when abduction is proven, will be a very convincing part of it indeed.

So much hanging on such a little word.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 08:44:26 PM
I never said it wasn't. None of it's particularly convincing though IMO.

Indeed, there is evidence against the McCanns, contrary to what is often claimed.

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously" KM

Please don't post only the part of a quote which suits your purpose.  I think it demeans you as a poster and it brings the reputation of this forum for accuracy into disrepute.

The full quote from Kate's book is ...
"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously.
This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another. And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little."
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 08:49:17 PM
Please don't post only the part of a quote which suits your purpose.  I think it demeans you as a poster and it brings the reputation of this forum for accuracy into disrepute.

The full quote from Kate's book is ...
"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously.
This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another. And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little."

Kate may claim it was absolute nonsense, because she would say that, wouldn't she.

But the fact remains, a witness claimed to have seen them carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

That, my dear, is evidence against the McCanns.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 07, 2019, 08:51:28 PM
University of life,best education I've had.

I would like to say the same, but it isn't true, of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 09:03:31 PM
Kate may claim it was absolute nonsense, because she would say that, wouldn't she.

But the fact remains, a witness claimed to have seen them carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

That, my dear, is evidence against the McCanns.

If that is the quality of the 'evidence' against the McCanns one can see why the Attorney General blew the case against them out of the water.

Anonymous witnesses are ten a penny in Amaral's book and elsewhere on YouTube ... none of whom make an appearance in the files.  If they do ... please cite them ... starting with the one quoted in Kate's book.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2019, 09:06:11 PM
Comments about moderators are off topic.  Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 09:08:21 PM
If that is the quality of the 'evidence' against the McCanns one can see why the Attorney General blew the case against them out of the water.

Anonymous witnesses are ten a penny in Amaral's book and elsewhere on YouTube ... none of whom make an appearance in the files.  If they do ... please cite them ... starting with the one quoted in Kate's book.

You'll have to ask Kate, she must have seen this statement. Maybe this witness statement was redacted from the published files, perhaps because it was in the peado-files. Who knows.
Either way, it's still evidence, Kate herself accepted that fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:15:30 PM
Gunit. You believe there is no evidence of abduction yet you claim not to do beliefs.  Your beliefs are wrong in this case as there is evidence that would be presented in a court of law should a suspected abductor ever be tried.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
Sure.  You believe there is no evidence of abduction yet you claim not to do beliefs.  Your beliefs are wrong in this case as there is evidence that would be presented in a court of law should a suspected abductor ever be tried.

Really?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 07, 2019, 11:37:31 PM
Gunit. You believe there is no evidence of abduction yet you claim not to do beliefs.  Your beliefs are wrong in this case as there is evidence that would be presented in a court of law should a suspected abductor ever be tried.

We have looked at this many times, there was no evidence of any intruder, no sign of a break-in, no valuables taken. The apartment had not been disturbed or rifled in any way, I'm afraid the abduction from the bedroom claim has no basis whatsoever.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 11:40:26 PM
Kate may claim it was absolute nonsense, because she would say that, wouldn't she.

But the fact remains, a witness claimed to have seen them carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

That, my dear, is evidence against the McCanns.

The second main luggage bag they took to PDL is not seen in crime scene photos. Only the blue one was seen in the wardrobe. That second luggage bag should be identified and maybe it's black. All those items seen on the second shelf where Eddie later alerted could have possibly been emptied from it.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SrIb5E4lPUI/AAAAAAAAGbM/JKA6ByR2Pns/s400/wardrobe.jpg)









Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:41:11 PM
Really?
Yes, really.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
We have looked at this many times, there was no evidence of any intruder, no sign of a break-in, no valuables taken. The apartment had not been disturbed or rifled in any way, I'm afraid the abduction from the bedroom claim has no basis whatsoever.
So if a suspected abductor is charged and tried in a court of law there would be no reference made of the open window and raised shutter, because it wouldn’t be evidence of an intruder entering the apartment, is that what you’re claiming? ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 11:54:29 PM
We have looked at this many times, there was no evidence of any intruder, no sign of a break-in, no valuables taken. The apartment had not been disturbed or rifled in any way, I'm afraid the abduction from the bedroom claim has no basis whatsoever.

Exactly the same could be said of Alesha MacPhail's abduction and murder.  There was no evidence in the flat she had been taken from that she had been abducted at knife point.
The flat hadn't been disturbed or rifled.
Nothing had been taken ... with one obvious exception. 
All the evidence was found outside from CCTV and forensic evidence of the psychopath's DNA on Alesha's body.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 12:25:57 AM
Exactly the same could be said of Alesha MacPhail's abduction and murder.  There was no evidence in the flat she had been taken from that she had been abducted at knife point.
The flat hadn't been disturbed or rifled.
Nothing had been taken ... with one obvious exception. 
All the evidence was found outside from CCTV and forensic evidence of the psychopath's DNA on Alesha's body.

That's very different. They had other evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2019, 12:28:52 AM
The second main luggage bag they took to PDL is not seen in crime scene photos. Only the blue one was seen in the wardrobe. That second luggage bag should be identified and maybe it's black. All those items seen on the second shelf where Eddie later alerted could have possibly been emptied from it.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SrIb5E4lPUI/AAAAAAAAGbM/JKA6ByR2Pns/s400/wardrobe.jpg)
Ah ... the infamous blue bag of sceptic belief ~ I had forgotten about that one.

... be it tennis bag ... or golf bag ... any bag will do. 

There was even a handy photograph of Gerry on the links complete with golf bag ... so guess what?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-86nZRQUATh4/T1IC3W_sswI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/T0r6HPiDnfM/s400/vlcsnap-2012-03-03-11h20m03s47.png)
Far too opportune to allow that one to pass ... and grown men actually sat in front of that image and discussed putting a child's body into a bag.  If that doesn't smack of desperation, I don't know what does.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2019, 12:36:01 AM
That's very different. They had other evidence.

There was no evidence of forced entry ... there was no evidence of burglary ... there was no evidence that anything had been disturbed ... there was no evidence the psychopath had been anywhere near the flat let alone had entered it and had taken Alesha.
No-one saw or heard a thing.

What do you think makes that "very different" from apartment 5A?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 08, 2019, 01:18:01 AM
There was no evidence of forced entry ... there was no evidence of burglary ... there was no evidence that anything had been disturbed ... there was no evidence the psychopath had been anywhere near the flat let alone had entered it and had taken Alesha.
No-one saw or heard a thing.

What do you think makes that "very different" from apartment 5A?

Alesha was abducted in the early hours of the morning when everyone was most probably in bed asleep or if not certainly in their houses. Madeleine’s abduction, if it took place, happened around 9.30ish when there were people out and about and there would have been more chance of anything suspicious being seen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: John on April 08, 2019, 03:30:21 AM
So if a suspected abductor is charged and tried in a court of law there would be no reference made of the open window and raised shutter, because it wouldn’t be evidence of an intruder entering the apartment, is that what you’re claiming? ?

An open window and a raised shutter might be indicative of an intruder but isn't evidence of such in its own right. There would have to be other evidence such as a forced entry, footprints or scuff marks on the window sills or walls etc...

There are no independent witnesses who could testify to the window being open or the shutter being raised.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 07:14:43 AM
That's very different. They had other evidence.
It’s very similar IMO.  A child was taken from her bed and she didn’t wake up when taken, nor was any forensic evidence left at the scene. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 07:16:01 AM
Alesha was abducted in the early hours of the morning when everyone was most probably in bed asleep or if not certainly in their houses. Madeleine’s abduction, if it took place, happened around 9.30ish when there were people out and about and there would have been more chance of anything suspicious being seen.
Plenty of suspicious activity was seen, read the files.  Incidentally, your argument doesn’t seem to extend to the person who chose that busy time to carry a corpse through town and dump it in a bin!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 07:17:30 AM
An open window and a raised shutter might be indicative of an intruder but isn't evidence of such in its own right. There would have to be other evidence such as a forced entry, footprints or scuff marks on the window sills or walls etc...

There are no independent witnesses who could testify to the window being open or the shutter being raised.
Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:11:46 AM
There was no evidence of forced entry ... there was no evidence of burglary ... there was no evidence that anything had been disturbed ... there was no evidence the psychopath had been anywhere near the flat let alone had entered it and had taken Alesha.
No-one saw or heard a thing.

What do you think makes that "very different" from apartment 5A?

I was referring to evidence which could be used in court to gain a conviction. The open window and shutters implicate no-one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 10:54:32 AM
Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.

Evidence of what?  That someone opened them.   &^^&*

There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that any third party entered the children's bedroom let alone abducted Maddie.  There is real evidence though that she wandered out and was lifted from the street outside.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 08, 2019, 11:14:23 AM
Evidence of what?  That someone opened them.   &^^&*

There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that any third party entered the children's bedroom let alone abducted Maddie.  There is real evidence though that she wandered out and was lifted from the street outside.

What ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 12:01:28 PM
What ?

A fresh scent trail which ended abruptly right opposite mini reception where Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins stood chatting minutes earlier.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 08, 2019, 12:08:46 PM
A fresh scent trail which ended abruptly right opposite mini reception where Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins stood chatting minutes earlier.

Is that it ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 12:13:22 PM
Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.

Why? In what context?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2019, 01:48:54 PM
Ah ... the infamous blue bag of sceptic belief ~ I had forgotten about that one.

... be it tennis bag ... or golf bag ... any bag will do. 

There was even a handy photograph of Gerry on the links complete with golf bag ... so guess what?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-86nZRQUATh4/T1IC3W_sswI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/T0r6HPiDnfM/s400/vlcsnap-2012-03-03-11h20m03s47.png)
Far too opportune to allow that one to pass ... and grown men actually sat in front of that image and discussed putting a child's body into a bag.  If that doesn't smack of desperation, I don't know what does.

Two main luggage bags were booked on the plane and only one was photographed in crime scene photos. One main luggage bag is missing from crime scene photos and any  proper investigation would identify that bag.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2019, 05:10:13 PM
Two main luggage bags were booked on the plane and only one was photographed in crime scene photos. One main luggage bag is missing from crime scene photos and any  proper investigation would identify that bag.

I concur ... "any proper investigation would identify that bag" ... probably still had the outgoing stickers attached.

So no worries then ... Amaral would have ensured all proper diligences were followed then don't you think?  Or at the least one would have thought there might have been one teensy 'bag' question asked at the arguida interrogation ... but there wasn't, was there?

One of two things then ... the police were satisfied there was no problem concerning a bag ... or the police were incompetent.  Which do you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 06:56:48 PM
Evidence of what?  That someone opened them.   &^^&*

There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that any third party entered the children's bedroom let alone abducted Maddie.  There is real evidence though that she wandered out and was lifted from the street outside.
So are you saying that the evidence of the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence in court?  A simple yes or no will suffice.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 06:58:20 PM
Why? In what context?
What do you mean why?  Do you think at a trial of an alleged abductor the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence, or not referred to?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2019, 07:03:32 PM
I concur ... "any proper investigation would identify that bag" ... probably still had the outgoing stickers attached.

So no worries then ... Amaral would have ensured all proper diligences were followed then don't you think?  Or at the least one would have thought there might have been one teensy 'bag' question asked at the arguida interrogation ... but there wasn't, was there?

One of two things then ... the police were satisfied there was no problem concerning a bag ... or the police were incompetent.  Which do you think?

They would need to check airport CCTV footage. I don't know if they did that but it should have been done.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 07:32:14 PM
What do you mean why?  Do you think at a trial of an alleged abductor the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence, or not referred to?

Things aren't just randomly mentioned in court. They are mentioned because they are useful to the prosecution or the defence. What use are the window and shutters to either side?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 08:02:49 PM
Things aren't just randomly mentioned in court. They are mentioned because they are useful to the prosecution or the defence. What use are the window and shutters to either side?
It was my understanding that the events of the alleged crime including how, why, when, what and where were presented in court by the prosecution and that key witnesses would be called upon to describe what they saw, heard, felt and thought.  Perhaps I am mistaken but I believed this was all part of the evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 08:56:16 PM
It was my understanding that the events of the alleged crime including how, why, when, what and where were presented in court by the prosecution and that key witnesses would be called upon to describe what they saw, heard, felt and thought.  Perhaps I am mistaken but I believed this was all part of the evidence?

So they say they saw an open window and shutters. The defence says their client didn't touch either of them. How can the prosecution prove he/she/they did touch them?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 09:15:11 PM
So they say they saw an open window and shutters. The defence says their client didn't touch either of them. How can the prosecution prove he/she/they did touch them?
They can’t.  Do you still not understand the difference between evidence and proof?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 09:22:09 PM
They can’t.  Do you still not understand the difference between evidence and proof?

So why mention it? Witnesses aren't questioned about something unless it helps to build a case against the accused. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 09:40:19 PM
So why mention it? Witnesses aren't questioned about something unless it helps to build a case against the accused.
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 09:55:51 PM
Is that it ?

More than enough given everything else that we know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 09:57:58 PM
So are you saying that the evidence of the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence in court?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 10:00:38 PM
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven?

Without corroboration they are meaningless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 10:04:06 PM
No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
It would be in the trial of an alleged abductor, unless you believe the method of illegal entry to the apartment in such a trial would be ignored?  The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact, no matter how you want to wriggle out of it an change the terminology from evidence to “observation”.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 10:05:50 PM
Without corroboration they are meaningless.
So in a prospective trial of Gerry McCann Martin Smith’s evidence would not be admitted without corroboration because it would be meaningless?  In a rape trial a victim’s testimony is meaningless without corroboration?  I see.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:25:08 PM
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven?

As you think it will be used, I suggest you are the one who needs to explain what, in your opinion, it adds to the prosecution case?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
It would be in the trial of an alleged abductor, unless you believe the method of illegal entry to the apartment in such a trial would be ignored?  The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact, no matter how you want to wriggle out of it an change the terminology from evidence to “observation”.

To convict someone of abduction you need to either connect them to the crime scene or to the victim. There is nothing which connects anyone to the crime scene.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 10:35:04 PM
As you think it will be used, I suggest you are the one who needs to explain what, in your opinion, it adds to the prosecution case?
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2019, 10:46:21 PM
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?

It would be evidence of staging against the parents e.g. evidence found on said open window. You would need to find evidence of an abductor inside that apartment or witnesses coming forward that overheard planning or talk so what have you got? You cannot say the invisible man took her.

The best lead for abduction were charity collectors who could have been casing the joint but they did not call at apartment 5A and they were doing rounds much earlier than when Maddy was reported to be missing. Trying to con and make some money and abducting a child is a huge leap. Why show your faces to many witnesses if your about to abduct a child. Doesn't make sense to me!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:55:05 PM
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?

It's not how that's important, it's who.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 11:11:23 PM
It's not how that's important, it's who.
Of course how is important.  How the crime was committed.  Tell me why this is not important to establish in a court of law then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
Yet we are told that the window was cleaned on Wednesday, so if the "burglar" wiped the window clean of their fingerprints who would be the wiser.  Wipe marks are wipe marks and no one can tell if they were done Thursday night or Wednesday.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 11:31:26 PM
Of course how is important.  How the crime was committed.  Tell me why this is not important to establish in a court of law then?

They are trying to prove abduction. If they can't place the accused in the apartment it doesn't matter how he gained entry, does it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2019, 11:37:03 PM
They are trying to prove abduction. If they can't place the accused in the apartment it doesn't matter how he gained entry, does it?
That is the reason I think the abduction was more a result of Madeleine being out on the footpath looking for Mum and Dad, rather than there being an intruder.  It would have only required some management type person to close the door at the reception (for security) to make it impossible for Madeleine to enter the Tapas area.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 08, 2019, 11:49:20 PM
They are trying to prove abduction. If they can't place the accused in the apartment it doesn't matter how he gained entry, does it?
What if he can be placed in the vicinity of the apartment?  What if the accused has a criminal history of breaking and entering ground floor flats in a similar manner? 

Let me ask you this:  you arrive home one evening to find the sash window in you bedroom pushed up, not how you left it.  Nothing in the bedroom appears to be disturbed but then you realise that your great grandad’s gold pocket watch is missing from its place in your bedside table.  Do you discount the open window as evidence that the watch was stolen by an intruder because it cannot be corroborated by dna or fingerprints?  Must you keep all possibilities on the table, eg you slept walked and put the watch in the bin the night before, or one of your kids played with it, broke it and threw it away, the ghost of your great grandfather spirited it away, all possibilities being equally likely despite the fact the window was not found as you left it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 09, 2019, 12:09:05 AM
More than enough given everything else that we know.

Not for me. The item the dogs were given to smell would have to be proved to have been Madeleine’s and as she walked that way probably many times how could you be specific in regard to when the scent was left ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 12:24:30 AM
What if he can be placed in the vicinity of the apartment?  What if the accused has a criminal history of breaking and entering ground floor flats in a similar manner? 

Let me ask you this:  you arrive home one evening to find the sash window in you bedroom pushed up, not how you left it.  Nothing in the bedroom appears to be disturbed but then you realise that your great grandad’s gold pocket watch is missing from its place in your bedside table.  Do you discount the open window as evidence that the watch was stolen by an intruder because it cannot be corroborated by dna or fingerprints?  Must you keep all possibilities on the table, eg you slept walked and put the watch in the bin the night before, or one of your kids played with it, broke it and threw it away, the ghost of your great grandfather spirited it away, all possibilities being equally likely despite the fact the window was not found as you left it?

You seem to be moving the goalposts now. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 12:35:05 AM
What if he can be placed in the vicinity of the apartment?  What if the accused has a criminal history of breaking and entering ground floor flats in a similar manner? 

Let me ask you this:  you arrive home one evening to find the sash window in you bedroom pushed up, not how you left it.  Nothing in the bedroom appears to be disturbed but then you realise that your great grandad’s gold pocket watch is missing from its place in your bedside table.  Do you discount the open window as evidence that the watch was stolen by an intruder because it cannot be corroborated by dna or fingerprints?  Must you keep all possibilities on the table, eg you slept walked and put the watch in the bin the night before, or one of your kids played with it, broke it and threw it away, the ghost of your great grandfather spirited it away, all possibilities being equally likely despite the fact the window was not found as you left it?
Personally I think it would be a mistake to link the two observations together, if the watch was out of reach from the open window, and it appeared from forensic evidence no one accessed the open window.  The two events are coincidental and not linked by evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 07:14:09 AM
You seem to be moving the goalposts now.
. Perhaps you eould like to explain how my scenario “moves the goalposts”? It is exactly the same as the Madeleine case, only difference is what was taken.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 07:15:39 AM
Personally I think it would be a mistake to link the two observations together, if the watch was out of reach from the open window, and it appeared from forensic evidence no one accessed the open window.  The two events are coincidental and not linked by evidence.
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 09, 2019, 08:40:36 AM
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 08:58:35 AM
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
You might, but in reality I think you'd be blaming the wrong person.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 09:00:45 AM
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
I for one do not get what you mean. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 09, 2019, 09:06:50 AM
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 09, 2019, 09:12:26 AM
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
How dare you! [scuttles off down to the pawn shop, is offered £12 for the mass produced, non-working, late-Victorian, silver plate pocket watch, agrees, takes the money, nips to Gregg's for a sausage roll and trousers the remaining £11.20]
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 09:36:19 AM
. Perhaps you eould like to explain how my scenario “moves the goalposts”? It is exactly the same as the Madeleine case, only difference is what was taken.

I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.

Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.

The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it  doesn't place then there.

If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.

In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.

The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in  showing who did it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 05:58:37 PM
You might, but in reality I think you'd be blaming the wrong person.
Why, who should you be blaming?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:01:14 PM
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
No, because there is evidence, the open window and shutter and missing child are evidence of an abduction.  Had Alesha McPhails killer not been caught on CCTV there would have been even less evidence of abduction than in the McCann case, how does the old saying about absence of evidence go?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:01:55 PM
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
No you’re right but it’s still evidence nonetheless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:04:38 PM
I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.

Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.

The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it  doesn't place then there.

If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.

In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.

The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in  showing who did it.
Perhaps you could point to any post I have made where I suggested the open windows would provided evidence of who did it.  You can carry on like this until the cows come home, the fact is Kate’s statement is evidence, she mentions the open window so that’s evidence, it would probably be repeated in a court of law as evidence, why do you continue to dispute this?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 09, 2019, 06:06:20 PM
No you’re right but it’s still evidence nonetheless.

So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:07:53 PM
Why, who should you be blaming?
Another person who had access to the room.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:10:31 PM
No you’re right but it’s still evidence nonetheless.
I would tend to call it a finding.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:16:55 PM
So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
Of course, as I think I pointed out yesterday in fact when I asked if Gerry was ever prosecuted for staging an abduction would not the open window and shutters not be used in court as evidence?  I don’t seem to recall anyone commenting on that.   Can we therefore once and for all agree that the open window and shutters are evidence.  They are evidence of abduction, or of something else, but they feature in the statement narrative of at least one key witness so to suggest they are not evidence of anything is IMO absurd.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:21:38 PM
So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
As the PJ report states faced with a situation of a missing child and an open window Kate is justified in thinking that they are linked, as in MBM was abducted and taken via the window.  That was her initial interpretation.  Later it was found no one climbed through the window, so it is not the full story.

Of course, as I think I pointed out yesterday in fact when I asked if Gerry was ever prosecuted for staging an abduction would not the open window and shutters not be used in court as evidence?  I don’t seem to recall anyone commenting on that.   Can we therefore once and for all agree that the open window and shutters are evidence.  They are evidence of abduction, or of something else, but they feature in the statement narrative of at least one key witness so to suggest they are not evidence of anything is IMO absurd.

The open window and shutters "are evidence of something else" IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:25:23 PM
The open windows evidence could be used in a prosecution (or defence)  of an alleged abductor to ascertain whether or not they acted alone
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 09, 2019, 06:26:53 PM
In what way?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:31:37 PM
In what way?
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:34:58 PM
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.
OK if there were two abductors explain how the first one got into the room?  And while you're at it how did he leave?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:55:50 PM
OK if there were two abductors explain how the first one got into the room?  And while you're at it how did he leave?
I don’t need to, but clearly an abductor could get into the apartment, it was unlocked and on the ground floor.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
Perhaps you could point to any post I have made where I suggested the open windows would provided evidence of who did it.  You can carry on like this until the cows come home, the fact is Kate’s statement is evidence, she mentions the open window so that’s evidence, it would probably be repeated in a court of law as evidence, why do you continue to dispute this?

So the accused is asked if he opened the window/shutters. He says no. He is asked if he entered by the window. He says no. As there's no proof he did either of those things the questions are a waste of time. What can be proved using that evidence in your opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 09, 2019, 07:31:44 PM
So the accused is asked if he opened the window/shutters. He says no. He is asked if he entered by the window. He says no. As there's no proof he did either of those things the questions are a waste of time. What can be proved using that evidence in your opinion?

Actually proving anything is going to be nigh on impossible in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 07:54:19 PM
So the accused is asked if he opened the window/shutters. He says no. He is asked if he entered by the window. He says no. As there's no proof he did either of those things the questions are a waste of time. What can be proved using that evidence in your opinion?
So the accused is asked if he abducted Madeleine, he says no.  He is asked if he was ever in the vicinity of Apartment 5a on the evening of the 3rd May.  He says no.  I guess these questions are a waste of time too then.  I see you are going to carry on maintaining the open window and shutter are not evidence and that no amount of common sense posting from me to the contrary will deter you from that view.  Oh well, God loves a tryer apparently.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 08:03:13 PM
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.

So now it's being discussed in court because the accused has admitted it was used? Possible but unlikely imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 08:34:02 PM
So now it's being discussed in court because the accused has admitted it was used? Possible but unlikely imo.
One last try.  In any potential court case about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are you of the opinion that at no point in the proceedings would Kate be called upon to give her account of the evening’s events? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 09, 2019, 08:37:28 PM
One last try.  In any potential court case about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are you of the opinion that at no point in the proceedings would Kate be called upon to give her account of the evening’s events?
Which one?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 08:47:58 PM
Which one?
Kate's account has been pretty consistent IMO.  I don't see the problem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 08:49:17 PM
Which one?
What are you on about?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 09:20:27 PM
One last try.  In any potential court case about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are you of the opinion that at no point in the proceedings would Kate be called upon to give her account of the evening’s events?

The whole trial could take place wthout any of the group being called. As far as I know none of them saw or heard anything which might incriminate anyone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 09:29:13 PM
The whole trial could take place wthout any of the group being called. As far as I know none of them saw or heard anything which might incriminate anyone.
Therefore nothing in any of the Tapas groups’s statements is evidence, correct?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 09:32:11 PM
Therefore nothing in any of their statements is evidence, correct?
It would depend on who is being accused IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 09, 2019, 11:22:39 PM
Iwonder if G-Unit considers that there is any evidence of a staged abduction within the apartment?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 12:12:15 AM
Therefore nothing in any of the Tapas groups’s statements is evidence, correct?

I don't know and neither do you. It would depend on who was being tried and what for.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 12:19:38 AM
I don't know and neither do you. It would depend on who was being tried and what for.
You don’t know if the Tapas group’s statements are evidence?  What is evidence then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 12:26:38 AM
You don’t know if the Tapas group’s statements are evidence?  What is evidence then?

The police gather evidence from the moment they open an investigation. At some point someone is charged because some of the evidence points to their guilt. Not all of it, some of it. In court only the evidence which, it is hoped, will prove guilt is used. Did you think all the evidence was used? That would drag on a bit to say the least.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2019, 01:42:29 AM
You don’t know if the Tapas group’s statements are evidence?  What is evidence then?
A word I heard  the other day was "testify" so I think a statement is called testimony.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 07:33:04 AM
The police gather evidence from the moment they open an investigation. At some point someone is charged because some of the evidence points to their guilt. Not all of it, some of it. In court only the evidence which, it is hoped, will prove guilt is used. Did you think all the evidence was used? That would drag on a bit to say the least.
So you agree it is evidence then.    Case closed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 08:16:42 AM
So you agree it is evidence then.    Case closed.

It still doesn't mean that Kate's evidence about the window/shutters would be heard in court, which was your original claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 08:34:30 AM
It still doesn't mean that Kate's evidence about the window/shutters would be heard in court, which was your original claim.
We can’t know at this stage what evidence would be heard in court.  You cannot claim it definitely would not, IMO, as hers and others evidence might be used to demonstrate what time window the alleged abductor operated within.  My original claim was that the open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction, I think we can all agree now that it is, I hope!. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 09:58:18 AM
We can’t know at this stage what evidence would be heard in court.  You cannot claim it definitely would not, IMO, as hers and others evidence might be used to demonstrate what time window the alleged abductor operated within.  My original claim was that the open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction, I think we can all agree now that it is, I hope!.

Your original claim has clearly changed.

snip/

The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519713#msg519713

Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519620#msg519620



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
Your original claim has clearly changed.

snip/

The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519713#msg519713

Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519620#msg519620
I stand by that.  When the prosecution sets out its case it usually describes the events leading up to the crime, based on the evidence it has accumulated.  Now, tell me - 'do you think the evidence of the open window and shutters would be considered irrelevant in a trial concerning a case of an abductor gaining entry to an apartment?  Was the method of entry (an unlocked back door) not discussed or referenced at any point at trial in the case of the girl abducted from her bath do you think?  If the open window and shutter are of so little importance or consequence in this case why have they fascinated some people for 12+ years? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 10, 2019, 10:42:30 AM
If the open window and shutter are of so little importance or consequence in this case why have they fascinated some people for 12+ years?
I imagine the same fascination as to why seemingly sane, responsible parents would habitually leave 3 wee ans alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, all for a jolly old time with friends and colleagues.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 10:44:16 AM
I stand by that.  When the prosecution sets out its case it usually describes the events leading up to the crime, based on the evidence it has accumulated.  Now, tell me - 'do you think the evidence of the open window and shutters would be considered irrelevant in a trial concerning a case of an abductor gaining entry to an apartment?  Was the method of entry (an unlocked back door) not discussed or referenced at any point at trial in the case of the girl abducted from her bath do you think?  If the open window and shutter are of so little importance or consequence in this case why have they fascinated some people for 12+ years?

You changed your original opinion when you realised it wasn't tenable as my last post shows. I have no need or desire to start at the beginning again.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 10:46:49 AM
I imagine the same fascination as to why seemingly sane, responsible parents would habitually leave 3 wee ans alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, all for a jolly old time with friends and colleagues.
Why has that aspect of the case held so much fascination for some for 12+ years I wonder...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 10:48:29 AM
You changed your original opinion when you realised it wasn't tenable as my last post shows. I have no need or desire to start at the beginning again.
I have not changed my opinion as MY last post shows.  The open window and shutter would, IMO, feature in the court case of a would-be abductor.  What we don't know is how that evidence would be used, but the idea that it wouldn't even be mentioned is nonsense IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 10, 2019, 08:17:32 PM
Be interesting to see the jury's faces when the evidence on said open window is revealed and no independent witnesses saw it open before or after the alleged abduction. Star witness Amy must have been dreaming to see it open when everybody else saw it closed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 08:30:23 PM
Be interesting to see the jury's faces when the evidence on said open window is revealed and no independent witnesses saw it open before or after the alleged abduction. Star witness Amy must have been dreaming to see it open when everybody else saw it closed.
So Amy is not an independent witness then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 09:02:47 PM
So Amy is not an independent witness then?

Amy will need to explain how she got there before Gerry closed that window. She'd have had to follow him in.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 10, 2019, 09:14:47 PM
Amy will need to explain how she got there before Gerry closed that window. She'd have had to follow him in.
Is she independent or not?  Why would she haveto explain anything if the window evidence is never going to be heard in court?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2019, 09:31:58 PM
Is she independent or not?  Why would she haveto explain anything if the window evidence is never going to be heard in court?
So is "Amy" actually Amy Tierney?  I explored the reason (in another thread) how she got to the apartment early enough to see the window open and the shutters still up. 

Coming to think about it again that fact just about proves it wasn't Kate who first notices Madeleine missing.

I was very tempted to say who knew Madeleine was missing before Kate did, but it would have been called libel so I didn't.  I feel the rules on libel do restrict the development of new theories.  (When in fact it appears a common tactic for the police to explore all possible theories in this manner.)


What I can't see is how Amaral processed this information and made sense of it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 10, 2019, 11:51:49 PM
So is "Amy" actually Amy Tierney?  I explored the reason (in another thread) how she got to the apartment early enough to see the window open and the shutters still up. 

Coming to think about it again that fact just about proves it wasn't Kate who first notices Madeleine missing.

I was very tempted to say who knew Madeleine was missing before Kate did, but it would have been called libel so I didn't.  I feel the rules on libel do restrict the development of new theories.  (When in fact it appears a common tactic for the police to explore all possible theories in this manner.)


What I can't see is how Amaral processed this information and made sense of it.

It is very interesting that Amy was just happening by and saw this. could she have seen the 'abductor' as well? So where does that leave poor Diane Webster- telling us it didn't open  and stay up... or Gerry Testing it.  WHO CLOSED THE SHUTTERS AND WINDOW? Tsk!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 01:48:00 AM
It is very interesting that Amy was just happening by and saw this. could she have seen the 'abductor' as well? So where does that leave poor Diane Webster- telling us it didn't open  and stay up... or Gerry Testing it.  WHO CLOSED THE SHUTTERS AND WINDOW? Tsk!
As I have said previously, following listening to hundreds of murder cases described on YouTube, where you have parents involved, they will protect the name of their offspring.  If Dianne had any suspicion her daughter or son in law were involved in any way it is likely, from my studies, I'd say she would do things to make it more difficult to prove any possible case against them. [Note: I'm not saying they were involved]
So I ask myself why would she get involved in trying to determine if the shutters could be opened from the outside?  Firstly it would be make sure her children can't be implicated in any way.   Secondly it would be to make it seem impossible to do so, even if it wasn't impossible to open from the outside.
I have not been able to work out if Gerry's attempt was before or after Dianne's. 

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 07:16:29 AM
Is she independent or not?  Why would she haveto explain anything if the window evidence is never going to be heard in court?

She is independent, and if she's telling the truth then others are not. Did I say the window evidence was never going to be used? I think I said it wasn't a fact that it would be used as you insisted.

 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:24:59 AM
She is independent, and if she's telling the truth then others are not. Did I say the window evidence was never going to be used? I think I said it wasn't a fact that it would be used as you insisted.
I think we have made some progress actually, from the “no evidence of abduction “ position to the “some evidence of abduction “ position.  I’m cool with that.   I’m also certain rhat should an alleged abductor ever come to court the judge and jury (if there is one in Portugal) will want to know how it was possible for him or her to get into the apartment and that his or her defence team will use the absence of evidence linking to the suspect at the points  of entry to argue his or her innocence.   Therefore I maintain that the open window and shutter would be evidence that would be tested in court. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 08:05:42 AM
As I have said previously, following listening to hundreds of murder cases described on YouTube, where you have parents involved, they will protect the name of their offspring.  If Dianne had any suspicion her daughter or son in law were involved in any way it is likely, from my studies, I'd say she would do things to make it more difficult to prove any possible case against them. [Note: I'm not saying they were involved]
So I ask myself why would she get involved in trying to determine if the shutters could be opened from the outside?  Firstly it would be make sure her children can't be implicated in any way.   Secondly it would be to make it seem impossible to do so, even if it wasn't impossible to open from the outside.
I have not been able to work out if Gerry's attempt was before or after Dianne's.

In the Alesha MacPhail murder ... the psychopath's mother contacted police and handed in CCTV footage of her son which played a prominent role bringing him to the attention of the police and in his subsequent trial and conviction.

It is therefore not a rule of thumb that parents do not implicate their child in a crime ... quite often they do.

What is extraordinary about Madeleine's case is that innocent witnesses have had everything about them mulled over ad nauseam while little thought is given to the perpetrator despite two police forces now looking for him/her or them.
That's the internet for you though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 08:58:29 AM
I think we have made some progress actually, from the “no evidence of abduction “ position to the “some evidence of abduction “ position.  I’m cool with that.   I’m also certain rhat should an alleged abductor ever come to court the judge and jury (if there is one in Portugal) will want to know how it was possible for him or her to get into the apartment and that his or her defence team will use the absence of evidence linking to the suspect at the points  of entry to argue his or her innocence.   Therefore I maintain that the open window and shutter would be evidence that would be tested in court.

An open window and shutters is evidence that someone opened them. Who, when or why is unknown and a defence lawyer would be quite correct to point out that there's no evidence that his client was the person who opened them for the purpose of abducting MBM.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 09:18:09 AM
In the Alesha MacPhail murder ... the psychopath's mother contacted police and handed in CCTV footage of her son which played a prominent role bringing him to the attention of the police and in his subsequent trial and conviction.

It is therefore not a rule of thumb that parents do not implicate their child in a crime ... quite often they do.

What is extraordinary about Madeleine's case is that innocent witnesses have had everything about them mulled over ad nauseam while little thought is given to the perpetrator despite two police forces now looking for him/her or them.
That's the internet for you though.


Hardly surprising when you consider that nothing is known about this perpetrator.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 10:02:09 AM
In the Alesha MacPhail murder ... the psychopath's mother contacted police and handed in CCTV footage of her son which played a prominent role bringing him to the attention of the police and in his subsequent trial and conviction.

It is therefore not a rule of thumb that parents do not implicate their child in a crime ... quite often they do.

What is extraordinary about Madeleine's case is that innocent witnesses have had everything about them mulled over ad nauseam while little thought is given to the perpetrator despite two police forces now looking for him/her or them.
That's the internet for you though.
You are right it might not be absolute.  I get the impression that the response "that parents do not implicate their child in a crime"  maybe be as high as 90% and only 10% that would turn their kids in to the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 10:03:40 AM

Hardly surprising when you consider that nothing is known about this perpetrator.

Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 10:10:48 AM
12 years on, nothing has advanced - as far as we can tell.
Plenty of leads that went nowhere, perhaps because they were never real leads in the first place, yet OG still plods on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 10:17:06 AM
12 years on, nothing has advanced - as far as we can tell.
Plenty of leads that went nowhere, perhaps because they were never real leads in the first place, yet OG still plods on.
Isn't the pressure on the PJ the real benefit to the UK community.  If there are still millions of tourists going to Portugal, an improved method of investigating missing children, break-ins at holiday resorts, and rapes of tourists is the payback for the expense of investigating the MBM case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 11, 2019, 10:26:35 AM
Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.

Amaral had got away with those tactics before so why not try it again?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 10:33:40 AM

Hardly surprising when you consider that nothing is known about this perpetrator.

It has never been established that there is a perpetrator. In order to believe there is one it's necessary to believe that those closest to MBM are completely innocent. In order to believe those people are completely innocent it's necessary to believe they told the truth. Some people do believe that, others don't.

In my opinion it's those who support the parents and their friends who are relying on belief. Those who view them with scepticism are refusing to believe. They point to evidence which suggests a possible lack of truthfulness. What they don't know is why that evidence exists. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
My original point for the thread was to question why sceptics still hold fast to their beliefs   that the McCanns are complicit in their child's disappearance in spite of two ongoing police investigations which have been investigating the evidence for years, and have declared them not to be suspects.

Just to add on a personal note, we have just celebrated our Golden Wedding and the whole experience has brought sharply home to me how tragic it must be for any family to have a member of their family  missing from any celebration when the family member's whereabouts is unknown.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 10:53:22 AM
Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.

He dismissed the notion of stranger abduction very quickly., too quickly and many of those early myths are still in circulation in various forums on the internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 11:04:10 AM
Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.

Amaral wasn't alone in doubting the notion of stranger abduction. I don't know why you cling to the notion that he was the originator of any doubts. People have said their doubts were not aroused by anything he said or did; why do you disbelieve them?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 11:08:25 AM
Amaral wasn't alone in doubting the notion of stranger abduction. I don't know why you cling to the notion that he was the originator of any doubts. People have said their doubts were not aroused by anything he said or did; why do you disbelieve them?

I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 11:25:26 AM
It has never been established that there is a perpetrator. In order to believe there is one it's necessary to believe that those closest to MBM are completely innocent. In order to believe those people are completely innocent it's necessary to believe they told the truth. Some people do believe that, others don't.

In my opinion it's those who support the parents and their friends who are relying on belief. Those who view them with scepticism are refusing to believe. They point to evidence which suggests a possible lack of truthfulness. What they don't know is why that evidence exists.

I don't accept that Madeleine disappeared into thin air of her own volition, so there has to be a perpetrator
The identity of this person, whether stranger or known to the family has not yet been determined.
All IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 11:52:07 AM
I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.

You may find something difficult to believe but that doesn't nean it's not true.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 11:55:18 AM
You may find something difficult to believe but that doesn't nean it's not true.

I quite agree, although  far down the scale of probability as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 11:57:02 AM
12 years on, nothing has advanced - as far as we can tell.
Plenty of leads that went nowhere, perhaps because they were never real leads in the first place, yet OG still plods on.

Many 'real' leads were not followed at the time in 2007 and had to be investigated after Scotland Yard's involvement of 2013 by which time the prime suspect for the Judicial police in 2013 had allegedly died.

Part and parcel of positive investigative work is checking everything to rule it in or rule it out before progressing to the next stage; sometimes successfully sometimes not; but if you don't bother being open to possibility or decide the conclusion and then seek the evidence to suit your conclusion that is a recipe for disaster.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 12:02:06 PM
You may find something difficult to believe but that doesn't nean it's not true.




What first triggered your disbelief  and has there ever been a time when you doubted your disbelief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 12:04:23 PM
Many 'real' leads were not followed at the time in 2007 and had to be investigated after Scotland Yard's involvement of 2013 by which time the prime suspect for the Judicial police in 2013 had allegedly died.

Part and parcel of positive investigative work is checking everything to rule it in or rule it out before progressing to the next stage; sometimes successfully sometimes not; but if you don't bother being open to possibility or decide the conclusion and then seek the evidence to suit your conclusion that is a recipe for disaster.

That is precisely what Operation Grange has been about. The so called 'leads' have just been a smokescreen - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 12:10:46 PM
I don't accept that Madeleine disappeared into thin air of her own volition, so there has to be a perpetrator
The identity of this person, whether stranger or known to the family has not yet been determined.
All IMO.

Whatever people think, it's true to say that the existence of a perpetrator has never been extablished.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 12:15:55 PM
Amaral wasn't alone in doubting the notion of stranger abduction. I don't know why you cling to the notion that he was the originator of any doubts. People have said their doubts were not aroused by anything he said or did; why do you disbelieve them?

Amaral instituted and promoted his interpretation of what happened to Madeleine.

He wrote a best selling book about it.

He became an omnipresent media pundit to promulgate it.

Name me anyone else outwith his clique who has not long since abandoned 'doubt' in the face of evidence.

Amaral built a case to declare the McCanns arguidos ... that case was blown away when the PJ files were released, as Sandra Felgueiras broadcast to the Netflix audience.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 12:18:33 PM
Whatever people think, it's true to say that the existence of a perpetrator has never been extablished.

Agreed, and after so much police activity as well. So much effort for so little return.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 11, 2019, 12:28:10 PM
My original point for the thread was to question why sceptics still hold fast to their beliefs   that the McCanns are complicit in their child's disappearance in spite of two ongoing police investigations which have been investigating the evidence for years, and have declared them not to be suspects.

Just to add on a personal note, we have just celebrated our Golden Wedding and the whole experience has brought sharply home to me how tragic it must be for any family to have a member of their family  missing from any celebration when the family member's whereabouts is unknown.


So you can imagine - as you still believe Maddie could still be alive.

How that must feel -  at the times Maddie was alone and had no one.

Bad decision or choice it was there's to make - not Maddie's.

What is tragic in all this- is Maddie faced it on her own they still had a family.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 12:31:02 PM
Agreed, and after so much police activity as well. So much effort for so little return.k


Look at it in a different way.
So much effort and still nothing to indicate that the police Investigations have apparently found any evidence  of parental involvement.
Surely that would be a relatively easier task than finding the evidence for stranger abduction!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 12:39:41 PM
So much effort and publicly, nothing to show for it. Zilch.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 12:54:59 PM



What first triggered your disbelief  and has there ever been a time when you doubted your disbelief?

The early appeals by the parents. They didn't trigger disbelief, they just didn't trigger belief. I rhen forgot about it. The next time I took any notice was when they were made arguidos. It didn't surprise me because of my initial impression pf them.

I don't recall taking any other interest in the case for years. Then one day I was asked for my opinion on it and my reply was that I didn't know. I began to research the case in 2014 in order to be able to answer that question. It soon dawned on me that it was necessary to read the PJ files, because so much of what I read was opinion or rumour. My conclusion was that, based on the evidence, it was impossible to be certain what happened to Madeleine.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 11, 2019, 12:55:38 PM
So much effort and publicly, nothing to show for it. Zilch.

And no further on than the day Maddie went missing - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 01:02:02 PM
Amaral instituted and promoted his interpretation of what happened to Madeleine.

He wrote a best selling book about it.

He became an omnipresent media pundit to promulgate it.

Name me anyone else outwith his clique who has not long since abandoned 'doubt' in the face of evidence.

Amaral built a case to declare the McCanns arguidos ... that case was blown away when the PJ files were released, as Sandra Felgueiras broadcast to the Netflix audience.

And yet she continued to question the parents in an accusatory manner for years after the files were released. She therefore must have known the truth but put the parents through that kind of questioning simply for ratings.... either that or she is wringing her hands now for ratings...either way her integrity as an individual as well as her credibility as a journalist is shot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:17:04 PM

So you can imagine - as you still believe Maddie could still be alive.

How that must feel -  at the times Maddie was alone and had no one.

Bad decision or choice it was there's to make - not Maddie's.

What is tragic in all this- is Maddie faced it on her own they still had a family.

What I can't imagine is anyone bothering posting a statement like that fourteen years down the line unless there had been some undue outside influence to encourage the continued unkindness.

Words fail me regarding your last sentence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 01:20:01 PM
Amaral instituted and promoted his interpretation of what happened to Madeleine.

He wrote a best selling book about it.

He became an omnipresent media pundit to promulgate it.

Name me anyone else outwith his clique who has not long since abandoned 'doubt' in the face of evidence.

Amaral built a case to declare the McCanns arguidos ... that case was blown away when the PJ files were released, as Sandra Felgueiras broadcast to the Netflix audience.

What I find in your posts is an unshakeable belief in the McCann's innocence and an equally unshakeable belief that they were only ever doubted because of Amaral. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 01:28:03 PM

Look at it in a different way.
So much effort and still nothing to indicate that the police Investigations have apparently found any evidence  of parental involvement.
Surely that would be a relatively easier task than finding the evidence for stranger abduction!
Not really, in the main, and I know there's exceptions, an abductor will leave some trace - damage, footprints, disturbed dust, noise, DNA, fingerprints, etc. It's usually pretty easy evidence to spot. Breaking and entering and then taking a human being will generally involve leaving some vestiges of activity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 01:32:34 PM



What first triggered your disbelief  and has there ever been a time when you doubted your disbelief?
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:36:12 PM
What I find in your posts is an unshakeable belief in the McCann's innocence and an equally unshakeable belief that they were only ever doubted because of Amaral.

I have an unshakeable belief in the right of individuals to the right to the presumption of innocence ... it is the hallmark of a civilised society.

As you have noticed my posts respect not just that one but all human rights.  I wouldn't have it any other way.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:47:11 PM
Not really, in the main, and I know there's exceptions, an abductor will leave some trace - damage, footprints, disturbed dust, noise, DNA, fingerprints, etc. It's usually pretty easy evidence to spot. Breaking and entering and then taking a human being will generally involve leaving some vestiges of activity.

Alesha MacPhail's abduction left none of the indications you suggest in common with many others.  You recognise that fact in your post. 
Have you never heard of intruders or burglars particularly in holiday complexes illicitly using a key?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:48:29 PM
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.

The body language issue is one which the sceptic belief system adopted with gusto.

There are still those who believe in the tabloid invention of a syringe found to administer drugs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 11, 2019, 01:57:56 PM
My original point for the thread was to question why sceptics still hold fast to their beliefs   that the McCanns are complicit in their child's disappearance in spite of two ongoing police investigations which have been investigating the evidence for years, and have declared them not to be suspects.

Just to add on a personal note, we have just celebrated our Golden Wedding and the whole experience has brought sharply home to me how tragic it must be for any family to have a member of their family  missing from any celebration when the family member's whereabouts is unknown.

All other leads have come to nowt for good reason - truth doesn't change!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 11, 2019, 02:05:30 PM
What I can't imagine is anyone bothering posting a statement like that fourteen years down the line unless there had been some undue outside influence to encourage the continued unkindness.

Words fail me regarding your last sentence.


Likewise - I fail to see to see how you have compassion to the mcs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 02:06:51 PM
The body language issue is one which the sceptic belief system adopted with gusto.

There are still those who believe in the tabloid invention of a syringe found to administer drugs.


Really, you must tell me who they are - or is it just your opinion ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 02:11:40 PM
The body language issue is one which the sceptic belief system adopted with gusto.

There are still those who believe in the tabloid invention of a syringe found to administer drugs.
Scurrilous, and to be expected from the filthy rags.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 02:13:16 PM

Really, you must tell me who they are - or is it just your opinion ?

Hmmm ... you don't read comments under Mccann articles?  Good choice, actually.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 02:17:08 PM
Hmmm ... you don't read comments under Mccann articles?  Good choice, actually.

Better than your's, it would seem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 02:22:15 PM

Likewise - I fail to see to see how you have compassion to the mcs.

  ... and it is sentiments like that which epitomise sceptic opinion. 
That has to be fuelled from somewhere and I suggest it is the beliefs spouted unashamedly and uncritically on social media.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 03:04:20 PM
All other leads have come to nowt for good reason - truth doesn't change!

And you know "the truth".?
Which lead has not "come to nowt" ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 03:20:57 PM
Truth is an absolute. Only its perception is open to question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 03:55:17 PM
  ... and it is sentiments like that which epitomise sceptic opinion. 
That has to be fuelled from somewhere and I suggest it is the beliefs spouted unashamedly and uncritically on social media.
You keep doing that, as if there aren't degrees of scepticism and as if one speaks for all.
If I'm your 'sceptic', then this poster doesn't speak for me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 04:07:53 PM
Truth is an absolute. Only its perception is open to question.

Best tell that to Pathfinder.!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 04:36:41 PM
The early appeals by the parents. They didn't trigger disbelief, they just didn't trigger belief. I rhen forgot about it. The next time I took any notice was when they were made arguidos. It didn't surprise me because of my initial impression pf them.

I don't recall taking any other interest in the case for years. Then one day I was asked for my opinion on it and my reply was that I didn't know. I began to research the case in 2014 in order to be able to answer that question. It soon dawned on me that it was necessary to read the PJ files, because so much of what I read was opinion or rumour. My conclusion was that, based on the evidence, it was impossible to be certain what happened to Madeleine.

If the early appeals didn't trigger either belief or disbelief what did they trigger?
Any emotion or feeling?
It maybe impossible to say with certainty what happened to Madeleine but your reading of the files seems to have  influenced your disbelief rather than belief in the parent non involvement.
Both police investigations will be very aware of the files and both have said the McCanns are not suspects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 04:38:05 PM
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.

Your doubts are based on body language?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 05:15:26 PM
If the early appeals didn't trigger either belief or disbelief what did they trigger?
Any emotion or feeling?
It maybe impossible to say with certainty what happened to Madeleine but your reading of the files seems to have  influenced your disbelief rather than belief in the parent non involvement.
Both police investigations will be very aware of the files and both have said the McCanns are not suspects.

And both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy so won’t be able to tell the public even if the parents were suspects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
I have an unshakeable belief in the right of individuals to the right to the presumption of innocence ... it is the hallmark of a civilised society.

As you have noticed my posts respect not just that one but all human rights.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

I hope we all agree with all the rights people are enttled to; including freedom of expression.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:28:53 PM
And both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy so won’t be able to tell the public even if the parents were suspects.


You believe that after two lengthy investigations by both Police Forces, this is still a possibility?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 05:33:17 PM
I hope we all agree with all the rights people are enttled to; including freedom of expression.

With freedom of expression or 'freedom of speech' comes responsibility.  That is where morality comes in.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 05:36:37 PM

You believe that after two lengthy investigations by both Police Forces, this is still a possibility?

It's infinitely more likely that Maddie was taken by a dead tractor driver who preferred kidnap to employment tribunals.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 05:37:26 PM
You keep doing that, as if there aren't degrees of scepticism and as if one speaks for all.
If I'm your 'sceptic', then this poster doesn't speak for me.

Describing all sceptics in terms of the most extreme or ill-onformed of them is just an attempt to paint all sceptcs with the same brush. Otherwise it would have to be acknowledged that there are sceptics who aren't sad, lonely, ill-educated trolls who hate the McCanns because they're jealous of them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 05:50:08 PM

You believe that after two lengthy investigations by both Police Forces, this is still a possibility?

It’s a fact not a possibility.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:50:24 PM
It's infinitely more likely that Maddie was taken by a dead tractor driver who preferred kidnap to employment tribunals.

I'm sure that theory has been discarded as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:51:15 PM
It’s a fact not a possibility.

What's a fact?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:57:52 PM
Describing all sceptics in terms of the most extreme or ill-onformed of them is just an attempt to paint all sceptcs with the same brush. Otherwise it would have to be acknowledged that there are sceptics who aren't sad, lonely, ill-educated trolls who hate the McCanns because they're jealous of them.

Not at all!
But step out of the safety of this forum, and you will find many sceptics who fit your description exactly!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 06:04:12 PM
If the early appeals didn't trigger either belief or disbelief what did they trigger?
Any emotion or feeling?
It maybe impossible to say with certainty what happened to Madeleine but your reading of the files seems to have  influenced your disbelief rather than belief in the parent non involvement.
Both police investigations will be very aware of the files and both have said the McCanns are not suspects.

Concern for the child, obviously, which has nothing to do with belief in her parents. I found a lot of things in the files, but nothing which convinced me of anyone's innocence.

I have no idea what the police are thinking or doing so I can't comment. Perhaps one day there may be another release of files in Portugal, but OG will cling to secrecy just as LP did imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 06:06:01 PM
What's a fact?

That both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy and therefore even if the parents were under investigation we, the public, wouldn’t be told about it. That is exactly what happened in the original investigation. The PJ’s spokesperson denied that the parents were suspects even though we now know that they were.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:08:42 PM
An open window and shutters is evidence that someone opened them. Who, when or why is unknown and a defence lawyer would be quite correct to point out that there's no evidence that his client was the person who opened them for the purpose of abducting MBM.
Who is disputing that?  Possibly the prosecution who may have amassed other, circumstantial evidence in the meantime.  Glad you now seem to be accepting the evidence would almost certainly be presented in court anyway.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:09:27 PM
Concern for the child, obviously, which has nothing to do with belief in her parents. I found a lot of things in the files, but nothing which convinced me of anyone's innocence.

I have no idea what the police are thinking or doing so I can't comment. Perhaps one day there may be another release of files in Portugal, but OG will cling to secrecy just as LP did imo.

So nothing that has added weight to either your belief or disbelief in the McCanns non involvement?
Did their pursuit of the scoping exercise and the consequent reopening of the investigation not influence your view?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 06:11:27 PM
With freedom of expression or 'freedom of speech' comes responsibility.  That is where morality comes in.

Are you accusing someone of irresponsibility?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:13:10 PM
That both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy and therefore even if the parents were under investigation we, the public, wouldn’t be told about it. That is exactly what happened in the original investigation. The PJ’s spokesperson denied that the parents were suspects even though we now know that they were.

So it is a fact that after a lengthy investigation by two police forces no evidence has been found as yet which would make the parents suspects.
Does this not make you doubt your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:13:46 PM
And yet she continued to question the parents in an accusatory manner for years after the files were released. She therefore must have known the truth but put the parents through that kind of questioning simply for ratings.... either that or she is wringing her hands now for ratings...either way her integrity as an individual as well as her credibility as a journalist is shot.
In your opinion.  Is she out of work now in Portugal as a result of this so-called “shot credibility “?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:15:29 PM
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.
Does that mean you actually believe the McCanns sedated their children?  What with, do you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 06:16:31 PM
Not at all!
But step out of the safety of this forum, and you will find many sceptics who fit your description exactly!

Safety? Safe from what? Not from being accused of being all those things I'm not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:19:13 PM
Safety? Safe from what? Not from being accused of being all those things I'm not.


If you choose to misread a post in order to seem to be a victim of false accusations, then so be it!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:20:01 PM
Safety? Safe from what? Not from being accused of being all those things I'm not.
Who on this forum has accused you of being a sad, lonely, ill-educated troll jealous of the Mc.canns?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:27:46 PM
Does that mean you actually believe the McCanns sedated their children? 
No. It means it was a really odd reaction and there was more to it.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
No. It means it was a really odd reaction and there was more to it.

More to what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 06:31:44 PM
I have an unshakeable belief in the right of individuals to the right to the presumption of innocence ... it is the hallmark of a civilised society.

As you have noticed my posts respect not just that one but all human rights.  I wouldn't have it any other way.
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 11, 2019, 06:34:13 PM
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.
I presume and trust that you and yours are safe.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 06:37:31 PM
I'm sure that theory has been discarded as well.
On what basis?  Did he have a watertight alibi for the 3rd of May 2007?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:40:06 PM
I presume and trust that you and yours are safe.
I may be wrong here but I don’t believe Robbitybob is a Muslim worshipper.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:41:41 PM
No. It means it was a really odd reaction and there was more to it.
You just didn’t the look of him and that was that.  Rational, much.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:41:47 PM
On what basis?  Did he have a watertight alibi for the 3rd of May 2007?

Fair enough.
He might still  be a suspect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:44:28 PM
More to what?
How many things do you think I was talking about? It's right there in the post - his odd reaction.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 06:44:56 PM
Fair enough.
He might still  be a suspect.

And why don’t you know whether he is ? Could it be due to judicial secrecy ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:45:34 PM
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.

Yes, it must be difficult in a case such as that, to be on a jury and try to remain with the concept of innocent .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:49:07 PM
How many things do you think I was talking about? It's right there in the post - his odd reaction.
What would have been a normal reaction to being asked that question in front of the TV cameras and in what way did Gerry’s reaction differ so noticeably from the correct behaviour to display when asked?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:49:17 PM
You just didn’t the look of him and that was that.  Rational, much.
Is that the best you've got? 'Didn't like the look of him'? Apart from not even remotely stating that, it wasn't even insinuated. I thought his reaction to the question was odd and was incongruous to the refutation. I'm no body language expert, or speech analyst, and I don't trust the supposed science related to it - but it was pretty starkly obvious.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:50:24 PM
And why don’t you know whether he is ? Could it be due to judicial secrecy ?

You keep avoiding the question.
Does the fact that two lengthy police investigations have so far not been able to implicate the McCanns of being complicit in their child's disappearance not cast the slightest doubt on your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
Is that the best you've got? 'Didn't like the look of him'? Apart from not even remotely stating that, it wasn't even insinuated. I thought his reaction to the question was odd and was incongruous to the refutation. I'm no body language expert, or speech analyst, and I don't trust the supposed science related to it - but it was pretty starkly obvious.

To you?
Or to everyone ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:52:09 PM
How many things do you think I was talking about? It's right there in the post - his odd reaction.

That's it then?
That's the basis for your belief ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:53:33 PM
What would have been a normal reaction to being asked that question in front of the TV cameras and in what way did Gerry’s reaction differ so noticeably from the correct behaviour to display when asked?
Well I stated that the context must be taken in to account and lent some latitude, if you care to read the pertinent parts of the original post. Tell you what, I'll find the clip and let the forum decide. In my opinion, it was a reaction that was attempting to hide a poke of the amygdala. Could be fight / anger, but it looked more like flight to me. I see it daily in my line of work.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 06:53:53 PM
I presume and trust that you and yours are safe.
Yes all OK. 

Yes, it must be difficult in a case such as that, to be on a jury and try to remain with the concept of innocent .

My feeling is that no one goes and shoots him dead just on the basis he is presumed guilty.  There has to be the fair trial first.  OK how to select an impartial jury is yet to be seen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 06:56:45 PM
You keep avoiding the question.
Does the fact that two lengthy police investigations have so far not been able to implicate the McCanns of being complicit in their child's disappearance not cast the slightest doubt on your belief?

No it’s you who keeps avoiding the question. Why didn’t we know through official channels that the parents were being investigated before September 6th 2007 ? Could it be down to judicial secrecy? Why would we not know if the parents were being investigated this time? Judicial secrecy too ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:56:57 PM
To you?
Or to everyone ?
I get it now - it's a wee game. OK, I have to explain in terms you can understand - I've stated it's my opinion. I've stated it from the initial post.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:02:11 PM
That's it then?
That's the basis for your belief ?
You are on fire tonight. Read the initial post - it made me think, in my opinion he's not being truthful, so what else isn't true. It didn't define an entire belief system, I'm not on a crusade or going to start a cult.

Are we permitted to post links to Youtube?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:05:53 PM
I get it now - it's a wee game. OK, I have to explain in terms you can understand - I've stated it's my opinion. I've stated it from the initial post.

No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 07:07:42 PM
No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.
We all can express our own opinions.  The General has spoken.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 07:08:38 PM
No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.

I did to me too. Most odd.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:09:51 PM
You are on fire tonight. Read the initial post - it made me think, in my opinion he's not being truthful, so what else isn't true. It didn't define an entire belief system, I'm not on a crusade or going to start a cult.

Are we permitted to post links to Youtube?

One clip made you doubtful?
Has any clip made you doubt your doubts?

I didn't for one moment think you would start a cult or a crusade.
What a strange thought to have?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:11:06 PM
I did to me too. Most odd.

Of course!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:11:18 PM
No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.
Well of course that's the case. That's the case with anything subjective in the history of humanity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:14:19 PM
Well of course that's the case. That's the case with anything subjective in the history of humanity.

I do not doubt that you found it odd.
But has it defined your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:18:56 PM
No it’s you who keeps avoiding the question. Why didn’t we know through official channels that the parents were being investigated before September 6th 2007 ? Could it be down to judicial secrecy? Why would we not know if the parents were being investigated this time? Judicial secrecy too ?

May to September is five months.

How long is it since both investigations declared the McCanns not to be suspects?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:19:33 PM
Well I stated that the context must be taken in to account and lent some latitude, if you care to read the pertinent parts of the original post. Tell you what, I'll find the clip and let the forum decide. In my opinion, it was a reaction that was attempting to hide a poke of the amygdala. Could be fight / anger, but it looked more like flight to me. I see it daily in my line of work.
Ah.  You’re something of an expert.  Might have known.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:20:28 PM
I do not doubt that you found it odd.
But has it defined your belief?
No. It was not Road to Damascus moment. I didn't throw my arms up, cast my robes off and embark on a crusade.
I'm no staunch McCann [ censored word ], I haven't got a Mr Magoo what went on, but it's not stitching together and little episodes like this only add to the intrigue.
Thanks for reading.

I'll post the clip, if permitted, but I'm sure you've all seen it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:23:05 PM
Ah.  You’re something of an expert.  Might have known.
It's that obvious?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
No. It was not Road to Damascus moment. I didn't throw my arms up, cast my robes off and embark on a crusade.
I'm no staunch McCann [ censored word ], I haven't got a Mr Magoo what went on, but it's not stitching together and little episodes like this only add to the intrigue.
Thanks for reading.

I'll post the clip, if permitted, but I'm sure you've all seen it.

Do you think the you tube clip will have been noted by both police Investigations?
Would it be used as evidence?

I'm hoping you are allowed to post it here.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:25:57 PM
Do you think the you tube clip will have been noted by both police Investigations?
Would it be used as evidence?

I'm hoping you are allowed to post it here.
No, absolutely not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 07:27:08 PM
You are on fire tonight. Read the initial post - it made me think, in my opinion he's not being truthful, so what else isn't true. It didn't define an entire belief system, I'm not on a crusade or going to start a cult.

Are we permitted to post links to Youtube?
Yes links are OK.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:27:34 PM
It's that obvious?
It’s the way you stuck your finger up your nose when you said it that convinced me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:28:03 PM
Yes links are OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58)

Please ignore the amateur youtube pyschologists input in the comments. Not my opinions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:29:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58)
Aww, come on.  He’s so obviously flirting with Sandra I’m surprised Kate didn’t slap him one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:30:37 PM
Aww, come on.  He’s so obviously flirting with Sandra I’m surprised Kate didn’t slap him one.
I almost inserted an laughing emoji there........touché.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 07:33:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58)

Please ignore the amateur youtube pyschologists input in the comments. Not my opinions.

What do you notice from that clip?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 07:42:03 PM
So nothing that has added weight to either your belief or disbelief in the McCanns non involvement?
Did their pursuit of the scoping exercise and the consequent reopening of the investigation not influence your view?

I found nothing in the files whch dispelled my dooubts. I found things which added to them. Their appeal for a review isn't necessarily a sign of innocence. It might be, but equally it might not be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:44:11 PM
I found nothing in the files whch dispelled my dooubts. I found things which added to them. Their appeal for a review isn't necessarily a sign of innocence. It might be, but equally it might not be.

Why would they appeal for a review if guilty of playing a part in their child's disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 07:48:50 PM
Bluff, in the hope that people will say exactly what you have said.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 07:50:08 PM
.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 07:52:27 PM
Who on this forum has accused you of being a sad, lonely, ill-educated troll jealous of the Mc.canns?

I am labelled a sceptic. I constantly read posts describing sceptics. None pf them describe me. That's why I object to the label. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:52:44 PM
Bluff, in the hope that people will say exactly what you have said.

Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?
So, they knowing that they are implicit in their child's disappearance, ask for a review of the investigation into her disappearance as a bluff?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 07:53:49 PM
Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?
So, they knowing that they are implicit in their child's disappearance, ask for a review of the investigation into her disappearance as a bluff?

Well, they seem to have convinced you  8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:54:19 PM
What do you notice from that clip?
That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is evasive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

* effusive replaced with evasive. I meant evasive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:55:01 PM
Well, they seem to have convinced you  8(0(*

But it hasn't convinced you.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:57:39 PM
That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is effusive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

Have you ever been interviewed by a professional interviewer and asked if you sedated your child who has disappeared?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 08:00:45 PM
Have you ever been interviewed by a professional interviewer and asked if you sedated your child who has disappeared?
No, but then I've never left my kids in a holiday apartment and lost one of them either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 08:06:15 PM
No, but then I've never left my kids in a holiday apartment and lost one of them either.

Tut tut, the usual deflection when a question cannot be answered.
I'm sure you haven't.
But yet you seem to know that a parent who did "lose "a child would know exactly how to respond to  a professional interviewer suggesting that the missing child had been sedated?
Excellent powers of putting oneself into a situation that you would never have been in.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 08:15:45 PM
Tut tut, the usual deflection when a question cannot be answered.
I'm sure you haven't.
But yet you seem to know that a parent who did "lose "a child would know exactly how to respond to  a professional interviewer suggesting that the missing child had been sedated?
Excellent powers of putting oneself into a situation that you would never have been in.
What part of 'no' at the beginning of the response is deflection?

And to be clear, I have admitted it's extenuating circumstances, under duress / pressure after innumerable banal interviews. I even yield to the fact that they never shy away from the scrutiny, particularly the first years. But I maintain that this specific reaction is at odds with the refutation of the impertinent question, given that he probably girded his loins knowing he would likely be asked.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 08:25:10 PM
Why would they appeal for a review if guilty of playing a part in their child's disappearance?

That would depend on what they were trying to achieve. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 08:33:44 PM
That would depend on what they were trying to achieve.

I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 11, 2019, 08:35:31 PM
I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?


Continue on what grounds? when SY have no jurisdiction in Portugal.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 08:37:58 PM
That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is evasive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

* effusive replaced with evasive. I meant evasive.
Sandra asks if they used Calpol, but in his answer there is no mention of Calpol.  Gerry denies using sedatives.  Calpol IMO is not a sedative.  They may have used Calpol for there is no specific denial of Calpol use.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:39:46 PM
I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

The original investigation never need have ended, Amaral had got the boot & wasn't there to frame the McCanns anymore, Robelo tried to get them back for a reconstruction, all they had to do was convince their friends to go back with them, it was in Maddie's best interests afterall. But, alas, following the Rothley meeting, the McCanns friends decided it best not to return. The selfish b......s. Poor Maddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:42:38 PM
Maddie was abandoned for a second time. All for the sake of a few hours spent demonstrating innocence, which wouldn't have been difficult, given how incredibly bloody innocent they are.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 08:46:07 PM
Maddie was abandoned for a second time. All for the sake of a few hours spent demonstrating innocence, which wouldn't have been difficult, given how incredibly bloody innocent they are.
Who were they going to demonstrate that to?  They were asked to vacate the apartment in the middle of the night.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 08:49:44 PM
Just acknowledging your replies Wonderfulspam
 However there is nothing in either replies which  adds anything to the answers to my original question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:51:41 PM
Who were they going to demonstrate that to?  They were asked to vacate the apartment in the middle of the night.

I'm talking about Robelo's request for a reconstruction, a year later, which didn't take place, hence the investigation ended.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2039181/Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction-called-off-by-Portuguese-Police.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:55:55 PM
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.
#

Have you seen the video?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:00:50 PM
#

Have you seen the video?
No I haven't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 09:02:43 PM
Off to watch the final episode of the Victim
Very involving of internet speculation?
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 09:04:24 PM
No I haven't.

I have. Would you like to see it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:06:58 PM
I'm talking about Robelo's request for a reconstruction, a year later, which didn't take place, hence the investigation ended.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2039181/Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction-called-off-by-Portuguese-Police.html
I don't believe that there was any intention to have a reconstruction.   But because certain members of the Tapas 9 were in fear of what might happen they refused to attend.   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:08:06 PM
I have. Would you like to see it?
Not really. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 09:12:13 PM
I don't believe that there was any intention to have a reconstruction.   But because certain members of the Tapas 9 were in fear of what might happen they refused to attend.   

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1584329/Madeleine-McCann-parents-asked-to-return-to-Portugal-for-reconstruction.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 09:16:22 PM
Not really.

You're missing out there.
I watched it twice. He certainly left his mark.
I think the MSM do a dis service in their censorship of events like these.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 09:18:07 PM
I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

I have to say you puzzle me. I don't care what you believe or assume about the McCanns, their friends or the police.You can think what you like.

On the other hand you seem interested in learning and understanding why other people think what they think. When they tell you, however, you just reject their views out of hand. 

I get the impression that you're convinced that you're right and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. I find that somewhat arrogant to be honest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 09:18:14 PM
What part of 'no' at the beginning of the response is deflection?

And to be clear, I have admitted it's extenuating circumstances, under duress / pressure after innumerable banal interviews. I even yield to the fact that they never shy away from the scrutiny, particularly the first years. But I maintain that this specific reaction is at odds with the refutation of the impertinent question, given that he probably girded his loins knowing he would likely be asked.
What I find odd is that this interview, over a year after Madeleine’s disappearance, was the thing that you say triggered your disbelief, not all the other stuff that had already convinced most sceptics that they were as guilty as hell.  Was this interview your first encounter with the case?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:25:04 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1584329/Madeleine-McCann-parents-asked-to-return-to-Portugal-for-reconstruction.html
"Senior Portuguese police are sitting in on the interviews but are not allowed to question anyone themselves. Over the next three days, they will interview all of the so-called Tapas Seven." 
So these events happened at the time of the rogatory interviews.

That article shows there were a lot of unresolved issues to be defined before the Tapas 9 would agree to a revisit to Portugal.  I don't think these issues were ever resolved. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 09:29:57 PM
What I find odd is that this interview, over a year after Madeleine’s disappearance, was the thing that you say triggered your disbelief, not all the other stuff that had already convinced most sceptics that they were as guilty as hell.  Was this interview your first encounter with the case?
I'll be honest, I didn't see any of this material contemporaneously really.
It's only after stumbling upon the rise of the Youtube sensationalist and pretend sleuths that I started digging. I've changed my point of view about 30 times. So when I chanced upon this I just thought.....'yeh, bit cringy that'.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 11, 2019, 09:32:11 PM
"Senior Portuguese police are sitting in on the interviews but are not allowed to question anyone themselves. Over the next three days, they will interview all of the so-called Tapas Seven." 
So these events happened at the time of the rogatory interviews.

That article shows there were a lot of unresolved issues to be defined before the Tapas 9 would agree to a revisit to Portugal.  I don't think these issues were ever resolved.

The Tapas 7 asked for various assurances which Rebelo refused to give.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 09:42:12 PM
I'll be honest, I didn't see any of this material contemporaneously really.
It's only after stumbling upon the rise of the Youtube sensationalist and pretend sleuths that I started digging. I've changed my point of view about 30 times. So when I chanced upon this I just thought.....'yeh, bit cringy that'.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 11, 2019, 10:13:44 PM
I may be wrong here but I don’t believe Robbitybob is a Muslim worshipper.
I would rate your post as crass, and that is being generous.

Christchurch has suffered in recent times from a major earthquake and a massive shooting.

Although neither American or Australian, we have one of both under our roof at the moment.

 &%%6  And I thought I had no empathy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 10:22:44 PM
"Senior Portuguese police are sitting in on the interviews but are not allowed to question anyone themselves. Over the next three days, they will interview all of the so-called Tapas Seven." 
So these events happened at the time of the rogatory interviews.

That article shows there were a lot of unresolved issues to be defined before the Tapas 9 would agree to a revisit to Portugal.  I don't think these issues were ever resolved.

Rebelo did his best but it was never going to happen imo.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 10:37:34 PM
I have to say you puzzle me. I don't care what you believe or assume about the McCanns, their friends or the police.You can think what you like.

On the other hand you seem interested in learning and understanding why other people think what they think. When they tell you, however, you just reject their views out of hand. 

I get the impression that you're convinced that you're right and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. I find that somewhat arrogant to be honest.

Goodness me!
What a personal and inappropriate response!
I believe I did ask you what the McCanns hoped to achieve from their request to have the investigation reopened ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 11, 2019, 10:43:17 PM
I would rate your post as crass, and that is being generous.

Christchurch has suffered in recent times from a major earthquake and a massive shooting.

Although neither American or Australian, we have one of both under our roof at the moment.

 &%%6  And I thought I had no empathy.
As the gunman struck some weeks ago, targeting Muslim worshippers at a mosque, your concern for Robbity’s safety seemed somewhat unecessary, though well meant I’m sure.   I have visited NZ and have many relatives there but did not feel the need to enquire after their safety after the event - they would have thought me mad to do so in the circumstances.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 12, 2019, 12:48:03 AM
July 2015

The remaining line of inquiry is centred around a letter asking for assistance sent from UK investigators to the Portuguese Public Prosecution Service in July 2015.

The statement from the Attorney General's office said confirmed they had received the letter in July, and said the request will be sent to the Criminal Investigation Police (PJ) for them to look in to.

The spokeswoman would not comment on the nature of the request.

October 2015

Madeleine McCann case: Police team cut to four

April 2016

Madeleine McCann case: One line of inquiry remains

Police are following one remaining line of inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said.

February 2017

In the 76-page ruling on the case – made public – they also said the archiving in 2008 of the criminal case into Madeline’s ­disappearance does not prove the McCanns are innocent.

They wrote: “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 12, 2019, 09:25:59 PM
July 2015

The remaining line of inquiry is centred around a letter asking for assistance sent from UK investigators to the Portuguese Public Prosecution Service in July 2015.

The statement from the Attorney General's office said confirmed they had received the letter in July, and said the request will be sent to the Criminal Investigation Police (PJ) for them to look in to.

The spokeswoman would not comment on the nature of the request.

October 2015

Madeleine McCann case: Police team cut to four

April 2016

Madeleine McCann case: One line of inquiry remains

Police are following one remaining line of inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said.

February 2017

In the 76-page ruling on the case – made public – they also said the archiving in 2008 of the criminal case into Madeline’s ­disappearance does not prove the McCanns are innocent.

They wrote: “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”

Both Police forces have said the McCanns are not suspects.

(Davel isn't here, just filling in for him)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 12, 2019, 09:43:33 PM
Both Police forces have said the McCanns are not suspects.

(Davel isn't here, just filling in for him)

Tis true.
They are not!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Faithlilly on April 12, 2019, 10:14:07 PM
Tis true.
They are not!!

But then because of judicial secrecy we wouldn’t know if they were.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 12, 2019, 10:47:42 PM
But then because of judicial secrecy we wouldn’t know if they were.
Judicial secrecy didn’t stop us knowing about the last lot of suspects, why would it be any different with the McCanns?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 08:56:09 AM
  ... and it is sentiments like that which epitomise sceptic opinion. 
That has to be fuelled from somewhere and I suggest it is the beliefs spouted unashamedly and uncritically on social media.


Could you expand- on the above post please B

Exactly what you are suggesting.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 09:12:43 AM
Judicial secrecy didn’t stop us knowing about the last lot of suspects, why would it be any different with the McCanns?

Why would the McCanns not be suspects, while burglar bill & Bobby Murat were???

Evidence, I'd imagine. There must be some definite evidence which rules the McCanns out.

I wonder what it is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 09:28:14 AM

Could you expand- on the above post please B

Exactly what you are suggesting.

Please read back over your previous posts and give some thought to the thread title 'Sceptics beliefs?' in relation to them before deflecting.

I often find it useful to look in before I look out when wondering.  I can recommend it to you particularly as the thread is for discussion of opinions such as those expressed in your posts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 09:55:10 AM
Goodness me!
What a personal and inappropriate response!
I believe I did ask you what the McCanns hoped to achieve from their request to have the investigation reopened ?

Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 10:00:21 AM
Please read back over your previous posts and give some thought to the thread title 'Sceptics beliefs?' in relation to them before deflecting.

I often find it useful to look in before I look out when wondering.  I can recommend it to you particularly as the thread is for discussion of opinions such as those expressed in your posts.

Unfortunately still can't grasp - what your point is B
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 10:03:18 AM
Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.

Thank God I was born an optimist.  But just the luck of the draw.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.

Nothing wrong with 'doubting' that I can see.

That 'doubting' appears to become entrenched as part of 'Sceptics beliefs?' maintained over a twelve year period and is applicable to everything McCann and anyone associated with them however peripherally.

No doubts about Madeleine author Paulo Pereira Cristovao and no fora set up to excoriate him?  Nothing about another arguido the supreme court judges' ruling put in exactly the same basket as the McCanns?

What luxury it must be, being a selective 'doubter' and a selective 'sceptic'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 10:16:38 AM
Why would the McCanns not be suspects, while burglar bill & Bobby Murat were???

Evidence, I'd imagine. There must be some definite evidence which rules the McCanns out.

I wonder what it is.

You have to believe that the police know more than you do! They haven't suggested there's evidence which rules the McCanns out, they've said there's no evidence which suggests their involvement. Anyone who thinks there is is making things up because they're nasty trolls. Any sensible person knows that the police know the truth, tell the truth and don't make mistakes. Have faith!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 10:22:45 AM
Thank God I was born an optimist.  But just the luck of the draw.

I'm an optimist too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 10:43:19 AM
Nothing wrong with 'doubting' that I can see.

That 'doubting' appears to become entrenched as part of 'Sceptics beliefs?' maintained over a twelve year period and is applicable to everything McCann and anyone associated with them however peripherally.

No doubts about Madeleine author Paulo Pereira Cristovao and no fora set up to excoriate him?  Nothing about another arguido the supreme court judges' ruling put in exactly the same basket as the McCanns?

What luxury it must be, being a selective 'doubter' and a selective 'sceptic'.
I believe nothing and no-one. Some people and things I don't believe, which isn't the same at all.
There's nothing selective about my scepticism I can assure you. I apply A B C  to everyone and everything. A lack of comment shouldn't be interpreted as approval or belief; it's more likely to signify lack of interest. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
You have to believe that the police know more than you do! They haven't suggested there's evidence which rules the McCanns out, they've said there's no evidence which suggests their involvement. Anyone who thinks there is is making things up because they're nasty trolls. Any sensible person knows that the police know the truth, tell the truth and don't make mistakes. Have faith!

I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 11:16:23 AM
I believe nothing and no-one. Some people and things I don't believe, which isn't the same at all.
There's nothing selective about my scepticism I can assure you. I apply A B C  to everyone and everything. A lack of comment shouldn't be interpreted as approval or belief; it's more likely to signify lack of interest.

So you keep insisting ... while missing that what is posted is in danger of leading the reader to a different conclusion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:18:13 AM
I'm an optimist too.

But only for your own sake.  My optimism applies to everything I do and think.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 11:18:50 AM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

That is just your opinion - I think more common sense for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 11:25:04 AM
That is just your opinion - I think more common sense for obvious reasons.

When starting a sentence with "I think" it means it is my opinion.

Perhaps you would care to elucidate yours as it is likely to throw a great deal more light on sceptics beliefs than mine ever could.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 11:25:56 AM
So you keep insisting ... while missing that what is posted is in danger of leading the reader to a different conclusion.

Only in your opinion.  If outraged, why not take it up with the Sun ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:27:05 AM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

I believe that Amaral saw a way to exonerate himself in The Cipriano Case.  Mothers kill their children.

How on God's earth he was allowed to run the investigation on Missing Madeleine McCann will always be a disgrace to Portugal.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:34:09 AM
Only in your opinion.  If outraged, why not take it up with the Sun ?

I thought that The Sun article was only a question.  Just to sell newspapers.  There are no accusations within the article.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 11:38:52 AM
I thought that The Sun article was only a question.  Just to sell newspapers.  There are no accusations within the article.

In which case there is no need for anyone to get worked up about it - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 11:50:08 AM
When starting a sentence with "I think" it means it is my opinion.

Perhaps you would care to elucidate yours as it is likely to throw a great deal more light on sceptics beliefs than mine ever could.

Yes, I know what it means - that why I put it.

As for elucidating - I speak for myself - I don't believe the mcs version of events.

As to list why - I haven't time to sit here all day.

One main belief as the title of the thread - I don't believe a word they say.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:53:16 AM
In which case there is no need for anyone to get worked up about it - IMO

I amn't worked up about it.   But I suppose that we have to talk about something.

Like Brietta, I believe totally in the Presumption of Innocence.  There would be No Law without that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 11:53:50 AM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:55:54 AM
Yes, I know what it means - that why I put it.

As for elucidating - I speak for myself - I don't believe the mcs version of events.

As to list why - I haven't time to sit here all day.

One main belief as the title of the thread - I don't believe a word they say.

That is sad.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:58:45 AM
Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.

"Adopted" is probably the operative word.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 12:21:28 PM
That is sad.

I know - I would love to sit here all day.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 12:24:15 PM
Amaral, by no means, is an honourable man.  He never was.  He is a serial philander, a thief and a liar, and was so long before Madeleine disappeared.

Anyone who would put their faith in him has got a serious problem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 01:00:31 PM
Amaral, by no means, is an honourable man.  He never was.  He is a serial philander, a thief and a liar, and was so long before Madeleine disappeared.

Anyone who would put their faith in him has got a serious problem.


Just the same as I would think - putting your faith in the mcs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 01:23:22 PM

Just the same as I would think - putting your faith in the mcs

I put my faith in the McCann's as there is no way they could have hidden Madeleine's body somewhere where no one could find her in a place they had never visited before and the time line in which they had to do it,  impossible.  Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.

Amaral was under pressure to get results,  it was a god send to him for the dogs to signal.   He ignored the warnings from our lab to wait for the end results of the DNA he didn't wait and rushed to report there was 100% DNA of Madeleine's in 5a,  there wasn't he was wrong.  Unfortunately he wouldn't listen and with the dog alerts and DNA he made the McCann's arguido's from then on the search for Madeleine ended.  The McCann's were guilty as far as he was concerned and sealed what he thought with his book.  IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 01:38:44 PM
I put my faith in the McCann's as there is no way they could have hidden Madeleine's body somewhere where no one could find her in a place they had never visited before and the time line in which they had to do it,  impossible.  Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.

Amaral was under pressure to get results,  it was a god send to him for the dogs to signal.   He ignored the warnings from our lab to wait for the end results of the DNA he didn't wait and rushed to report there was 100% DNA of Madeleine's in 5a,  there wasn't he was wrong.  Unfortunately he wouldn't listen and with the dog alerts and DNA he made the McCann's arguido's from then on the search for Madeleine ended.  The McCann's were guilty as far as he was concerned and sealed what he thought with his book.  IMO

Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.


Oh lol - when did that happen then.

Or is it what you thought they did.

when were they ever nonfunctioning - I think the fund kept them to busy for that
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 01:46:24 PM
Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.


Oh lol - when did that happen then.

Or is it what you thought they did.

when were they ever nonfunctioning - I think the fund kept them to busy for that


I suggest you read the statements of those that were there.

They started the fund up a while later,  with a lot of help.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 13, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.

It seems you are under a massive misapprehension by saying some believe everything  the McCanns say even though it's been explained to you many times.
I believe  the McCanns accounts.. Not blindly but based on the evidence.... That's a very sensible and logical approach .
It's pointless you asking me what evidence because we don't agree on what is and isn't evidence.
I think its absolutely  true that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence... Some don't agree and afaiac they are wrong... Barry George was cleared due to the absence of evidence.... Would anyone disagree with that..
I don't know a 100% the McCanns are innocent but based on the evidence I would say they are innocent to a very high degree of certainty...
You believe that the McCanns statements are accurate... But you cannot know for certain..it's your belief.. You believe the alerts by the dogs are accurate... But there is no certainty... Its just your belief.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 01:58:03 PM

I suggest you read the statements of those that were there.

They started the fund up a while later,  with a lot of help.

Which statements - they seemed to have a lot of discrepancy in them.

how long were they nonfunctioning then - whatever happened the mcn knew Maddie had gone.

also that she was not going to be found anytime soon - they knew that. imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Davel on April 13, 2019, 02:00:08 PM
I amn't worked up about it.   But I suppose that we have to talk about something.

Like Brietta, I believe totally in the Presumption of Innocence.  There would be No Law without that.

I think the McCanns are entitled far more than the presumption of innocence based on the absence of evidence..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 02:02:24 PM
Which statements - they seemed to have a lot of discrepancy in them.

how long were they nonfunctioning then - whatever happened the mcn knew Maddie had gone.

also that she was not going to be found anytime soon - they knew that. imo

Read the statements of the friends,  the police,  the manager of the ocean club,  and anyone else who was there.

Why do you think the McCann's knew Madeleine wasn't going to be found?


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 02:26:25 PM
Read the statements of the friends,  the police,  the manager of the ocean club,  and anyone else who was there.

Why do you think the McCann's knew Madeleine wasn't going to be found?


Maddie could have turned up at any time - the extravagance shows they didn't think she would. IMO

a photo as well to show how they weren't functioning.

https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/12/gerry-mccann-speaking-on-june-3rd-2007.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 02:27:50 PM

I suggest you read the statements of those that were there.

They started the fund up a while later,  with a lot of help.

I have done.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 02:34:06 PM
I have done.

So you would have read this from Alan Pyke a crisis counsellor -

I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information. They were insecure as to how to help and with the lack of help and assistance. Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.


Though you will know different,  you being an expert on how parents behave when their daughter disappears.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:41:57 PM

Just the same as I would think - putting your faith in the mcs

Hardly the same thing.  The McCanns do not have a criminal record of any kind.  While Amaral was convicted on more counts than one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 02:43:36 PM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.
Amaral was the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:48:08 PM
I think the McCanns are entitled far more than the presumption of innocence based on the absence of evidence..

You are probably right, but I can only presume on The Rule of Law.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Amaral was the police.

Bloody Great.  God preserves us all.  Amaral was a self serving Copper who stood to make a lot of money.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:52:37 PM
I have done.

I am glad that you are back as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 02:58:34 PM
Bloody Great.  God preserves us all.  Amaral was a self serving Copper who stood to make a lot of money.
Are you insinuating, apart from his perceived incompetence, he was also corrupt?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:18:09 PM
So you keep insisting ... while missing that what is posted is in danger of leading the reader to a different conclusion.

I answer for myself. I have no intention of taking responsibility for anyone who misunderstands my posts or my intentions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:20:07 PM
But only for your own sake.  My optimism applies to everything I do and think.

Sorry, I haven't the foggiest what you mean.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 03:24:22 PM
Are you insinuating, apart from his perceived incompetence, he was also corrupt?

Yes.  No insinuation.  Amaral was convicted of Perjury and sentenced to a Suspended Sentence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:30:40 PM
I thought that The Sun article was only a question.  Just to sell newspapers.  There are no accusations within the article.

You are correct, it was just a question. It suggested nothing, required no answer and was completely and utterly pointless. That is my opinion and I think it needs highlighting that the newspaper in question doesn't exist to give information and opinions about current events and news. It's just a money-chasing waste of space rag imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
Sorry, I haven't the foggiest what you mean.

First and ever foremost, I believe that all people are basically good.  I never assume that someone did something awful.  I always hope that they didn't.

But you see, I need proof before I go around inflicting even more pain on anyone who could be innocent.  I simply don't understand anyone who does.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 03:47:10 PM
Sorry, I haven't the foggiest what you mean.

I actually meant that like me, you are a tough old cookie.  Being married to HM Services isn't all that much fun.  So for your own sake you survive.

For your own sake.  I have never lost my ability to care about other people.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 03:51:22 PM
Nothing wrong with 'doubting' that I can see.

That 'doubting' appears to become entrenched as part of 'Sceptics beliefs?' maintained over a twelve year period and is applicable to everything McCann and anyone associated with them however peripherally.

No doubts about Madeleine author Paulo Pereira Cristovao and no fora set up to excoriate him?  Nothing about another arguido the supreme court judges' ruling put in exactly the same basket as the McCanns?

What luxury it must be, being a selective 'doubter' and a selective 'sceptic'.

You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 03:56:06 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack


Yes!  Yes!  Yes!   8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:59:53 PM
I actually meant that like me, you are a tough old cookie.  Being married to HM Services isn't all that much fun.  So for your own sake you survive.

For your own sake.  I have never lost my ability to care about other people.

You think I have lost my ability to care about others? What on earth makes you think that?. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
So you would have read this from Alan Pyke a crisis counsellor -

I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information. They were insecure as to how to help and with the lack of help and assistance. Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.


Though you will know different,  you being an expert on how parents behave when their daughter disappears.


I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information.

Oh, a few reasons - not because Maddie was missing. namely lack of information.

You don't have to be an expert - as I said Maddie had gone one way or the other.

The grief would be the same - abducted or if they were involved. imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
First and ever foremost, I believe that all people are basically good.  I never assume that someone did something awful.  I always hope that they didn't.

But you see, I need proof before I go around inflicting even more pain on anyone who could be innocent.  I simply don't understand anyone who does.

That sounds absolutely lovely if you gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, but in my opinion you don't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 04:11:12 PM

I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information.

Oh, a few reasons - not because Maddie was missing. namely lack of information.

You don't have to be an expert - as I said Maddie had gone one way or the other.

The grief would be the same - abducted or if they were involved. imo

That is right on the Money Kizzy. Their behaviour is really very different from the parents of say the moors /abducted/murdered children.

They did seem concerned enough to wonder what people would say..family at home and workmates.
Ans they did seem Un destraught when Mrs Fenn asked if they needed to call the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:12:36 PM
First and ever foremost, I believe that all people are basically good.  I never assume that someone did something awful.  I always hope that they didn't.


I don't employ that train of thought when I'm on the tube at night, I can tell you that much.
I assume everyone has murderous intent, and they think the same. It's tube rules.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:13:14 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack

Well said.  8((()*/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 04:18:25 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack

What?  Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCann's,  are you joking?

He came out with the 100% DNA of Madeleine found in the car rubbish.   He was the one who made the McCann's arguido's on the basis of the dog alerts and his misunderstanding of the DNA results.  Of course people started doubting the McCann's they were met with hostility when they were taken in for questioning.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:21:10 PM
  He was the one who made the McCann's arguido's on the basis of the dog alerts and his misunderstanding of the DNA results. 
Unilaterally? Did he have the authority to make this decision?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 04:22:38 PM
What?  Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCann's,  are you joking?

He came out with the 100% DNA of Madeleine found in the car rubbish.   He was the one who made the McCann's arguido's on the basis of the dog alerts and his misunderstanding of the DNA results.  Of course people started doubting the McCann's they were met with hostility when they were taken in for questioning.

People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 04:23:14 PM
Only in your opinion.  If outraged, why not take it up with the Sun ?

Where did I say I was "outraged"?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:24:10 PM
Hardly the same thing.  The McCanns do not have a criminal record of any kind.  While Amaral was convicted on more counts than one.

So you have faith in those who have no criminal record but not in those who do? You would have been caught out by Myles Bradbury then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 04:25:11 PM
That is right on the Money Kizzy. Their behaviour is really very different from the parents of say the moors /abducted/murdered children.

They did seem concerned enough to wonder what people would say..family at home and workmates.
Ans they did seem Un destraught when Mrs Fenn asked if they needed to call the police.


So how are the McCann's different from other parents of abducted children?   Did Sara Payne cry when appealing to Sarah's abductor?  No she didn't she kept composed,  even said 'I know you love her as we do'  in order to play the abductor and get him to return Sarah.   Did Sara Payne join the search parties?  No, after they had searched for Sarah they didn't go out to search again.   Did April's parents search?  No.   

Mrs. Fenn asked Gerry if he wanted to phone the police,  he said no the police had already been called.

So what else have you to say to describe the McCann's as being nasty uncaring parents?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 04:26:31 PM
Where did I say I was "outraged"?

Your whole attitude over this story has been one of outrage - in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 04:26:45 PM
People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.

The people of Portugal were sympathetic towards them,  that changed for many when Amaral made the arguido's.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 04:31:20 PM
Yes, I know what it means - that why I put it.

As for elucidating - I speak for myself - I don't believe the mcs version of events.

As to list why - I haven't time to sit here all day.

One main belief as the title of the thread - I don't believe a word they say.

As clear as mud ... then of course, it is really taxing when asked to ponder on the inexplicable and provide a cogent reason.
Which in my opinion whether in the singular or the plural, 'sceptic belief' relies heavily on the 'beliefs' as outlined by Amaral which the majority of informed opinion rejected as far back as 2007.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:33:46 PM
People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.

It doesn't matter how many people point that out, they refuse to believe it. In my opinion it's because Gerry and Kate told them it was Anaral's fault so it must be true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 04:35:41 PM
People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.

Indeed. I doubted the McCanns from the outset.
4th May 2007. I had no idea who Amaral was until reading about the libel trial in some rag years later.
I happen to think his thesis is wrong in part.
I don't believe Maddie's corpse was transported in the hire car, for example. Nor do I believe there was an accident.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:37:21 PM
I don't employ that train of thought when I'm on the tube at night, I can tell you that much.
I assume everyone has murderous intent, and they think the same. It's tube rules.

So you are basically emotionally damaged.  Why do you think that is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:40:03 PM
So you are basically emotionally damaged.  Why do you think that is?
PTSD
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:40:27 PM
Unilaterally? Did he have the authority to make this decision?

Yes, he did at the point.  Everything changed three days later.  But then Amaral knew that would happen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 04:41:08 PM
Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.

Please don't take things too personally and get so worked up about them ... it is after all a discussion forum.

I regret you feel I have insulted you, that was not my intention ... but I think you are pretty good at dishing it out for you to be so sensitive ... particularly since you insist in putting words in my mouth never said or implied.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:43:41 PM
So you have faith in those who have no criminal record but not in those who do? You would have been caught out by Myles Bradbury then.

You could say that.

I have no idea of Myles Bradbury.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:44:23 PM

Name calling? 
Particularly given that it was quite obviously a joke.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 04:44:49 PM
Please don't take things too personally and get so worked up about them ... it is after all a discussion forum.

I regret you feel I have insulted you, that was not my intention ... but I think you are pretty good at dishing it out for you to be so sensitive ... particularly since you insist in putting words in my mouth never said or implied.

Pot calling Kettle... you take things very personally and rempve posts which challenge you.

Nice work  .. hahahaha its all you have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:53:58 PM

Name calling? 

So my post was removed because Briettas opinion must stay because she is a mod and not because her opinion is untrue. Perhaps she can add some meat to her watery  gravey by offering some instances.  like someone saying I didn't believe the McCanns because of Amaral  or  I stopped looking for Maddie because Amaral thinks she ,may be dead?  yes? No? 

My opinion of supporters is always removed.. funny that!

Sorry.  You are wrong.  No Moderator has the time or patience to remove your comments.  Mostly because they are all a bit silly.  So we ignore them.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:57:03 PM
Pot calling Kettle... you take things very personally and rempve posts which challenge you.

Nice work  .. hahahaha its all you have.

No.  Brietta does not do this.  And I will have you if you say this again.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:08:13 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack

                "Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns."

I have seen that claim made by sceptics on a few occasions ... and I cannot tell you how intriguing I find it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:13:25 PM

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!   8@??)( 8@??)(

Posting in an offensive and downright rude manner demeans the poster doing so ... but not nearly as much as applauding the misdemeanour does.

But it is the correct thread for doing so, I think.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 05:18:52 PM
Posting in an offensive and downright rude manner demeans the poster doing so ... but not nearly as much as applauding the misdemeanour does.

But it is the correct thread for doing so, I think.

Rude? oh it wasn't meant to be rude.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 05:25:04 PM
                "Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns."

I have seen that claim made by sceptics on a few occasions ... and I cannot tell you how intriguing I find it.

Is that because you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, because you believe you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, or because you think sceptics lie?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:26:01 PM
That is right on the Money Kizzy. Their behaviour is really very different from the parents of say the moors /abducted/murdered children.

They did seem concerned enough to wonder what people would say..family at home and workmates.
Ans they did seem Un destraught when Mrs Fenn asked if they needed to call the police.

I think you are an asset exemplifying sceptic attitudes and beliefs in the way in which you are capable of dredging up long forgotten mantras of prejudice which appears to bother no one but them.


"Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”  Ian Fenn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8469932/Madeleine-McCann-time-to-forget.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7674.msg358216#msg358216
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:32:12 PM
Unilaterally? Did he have the authority to make this decision?

Sceptics appear to underestimate the importance of the coordinator ... apparently he was little more than an office boy or a filing clerk.
Certainly his boss expressed disquiet about precipitation ... but as far as Amaral is concerned it seems 'a big boy done it and ran away'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 05:35:07 PM
Is that because you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, because you believe you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, or because you think sceptics lie?

All three by the posts. It reallyis too funny...(&^&


"Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”  Ian Fenn

 from a newspaper?

Was that what Gerry went to Mrs Fenns house for? Not a wee cuppa tea wee chat about what she may have seen or heard pehaps? oh sorry that is the sceptic in me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 05:40:56 PM
All three by the posts. It reallyis too funny...(&^&


"Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”  Ian Fenn

 from a newspaper?

Was that what Gerry went to Mrs Fenns house for? Not a wee cuppa tea wee chat about what she may have seen or heard pehaps? oh sorry that is the sceptic in me.

I was thinking of the 'short and to the point' remarks his missus and her bessie mate directed at the poor old lady.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 05:48:19 PM
Sceptics appear to underestimate the importance of the coordinator ... apparently he was little more than an office boy or a filing clerk.
Certainly his boss expressed disquiet about precipitation ... but as far as Amaral is concerned it seems 'a big boy done it and ran away'.
Here we go again 'sceptics do this', 'sceptics do that'. Yes, we get it, you like to tar everyone with the same brush.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 05:49:57 PM
Sceptics appear to underestimate the importance of the coordinator ... apparently he was little more than an office boy or a filing clerk.
Certainly his boss expressed disquiet about precipitation ... but as far as Amaral is concerned it seems 'a big boy done it and ran away'.

I thought that was the McCann stance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:51:36 PM
Here we go again 'sceptics do this', 'sceptics do that'. Yes, we get it, you like to tar everyone with the same brush.

Are you not supplying the tar?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 05:57:25 PM
Are you not supplying the tar?
....and you supply the feathers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 05:57:36 PM
 ^*&&
Are you not supplying the tar?

Tarring everyone with the same brush is goading imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 05:58:26 PM
Rude? oh it wasn't meant to be rude.

You probably wouldn't know Rude if it smacked you in the mouth.  Some would, but I leave that to them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:08:57 PM
^*&&
Tarring everyone with the same brush is goading imo

Oh for God's sake, do yourself a favour.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 06:09:10 PM
The thread is finally producing the results it hoped for.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:15:56 PM
The thread is finally producing the results it hoped for.

It achieved nothing worth anything. Just words on a screen is all. Supporters are very few and far between now.. and most are very old...so new mods will be brought in eventually or John will fimd his site dissapear.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 06:17:28 PM
It achieved nothing worth anything. Just words on a screen is all. Supporters are very few and far between now.. and most are very old...so new mods will be brought in eventually or John will fimd his site dissapear.

Will or is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:28:01 PM
Will or is?

Well we don't know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 06:35:55 PM
I was thinking of the 'short and to the point' remarks his missus and her bessie mate directed at the poor old lady.

I get the impression Kate has a temper.
She has a propensity to violence, punching & kicking walls.
I think that could, in part, explain what happened to Maddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:37:37 PM
I get the impression Kate has a temper.
She has a propensity to violence, punching & kicking walls.
I think that could, in part, explain what happened to Maddie.

Do stop this, will you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 06:38:33 PM
Do stop this, will you.

Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 06:40:37 PM
Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.


Supporters ought use the thread for their scepticism toward C sutton and Dr Perlin.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 06:43:15 PM

Supporters ought use the thread for their scepticism toward C sutton and Dr Perlin.

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:44:10 PM
Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.

Look Love, we all know who you are, so give it a rest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:44:47 PM
I get the impression Kate has a temper.
She has a propensity to violence, punching & kicking walls.
I think that could, in part, explain what happened to Maddie.


I suppose it is a theory.


I notied she isn't a wallflower in any sence of the meaning.
Calling policemen fking tossers and wishing Amaral"nothing but  fear", but the forgiving the 'abductor' so soon after ...and it could have been paedos- not a loving family who stole her from her bed.... as she lay under  over the covers are both parnets claim different scenarios.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:46:17 PM

Supporters ought use the thread for their scepticism toward C sutton and Dr Perlin.


AND everyone else they do not believe. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:47:51 PM
Look Love, we all know who you are, so give it a rest.

We do?


Oh...

Nobody tells me anything...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 06:50:42 PM
We do?


Oh...

Nobody tells me anything...

That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:52:47 PM
That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted

This could well be true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:53:40 PM
That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted

Indeed I should not be trusted.... to do as I am comanded  8(0(*

Spammers isn't... is it?   can't be  I don't believe it!  Well I never.. whood  da thunk it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 07:04:16 PM
That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted


Thats seven magpies.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 07:06:05 PM
Indeed I should not be trusted.... to do as I am comanded  8(0(*

Spammers isn't... is it?   can't be  I don't believe it!  Well I never.. whood  da thunk it

To gain the 'knowledge', you must allow yourself to be drawn down into the McCann labyrinth, where you will be fed on a daily diet of bullshit, until one day you are led, blinking, back into the light, so that you too can join the thinning ranks of those who truly believe.
And remember, behave and you too might one day become a chalk monitor.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 07:18:04 PM
Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.


Got it all so wrong, haven't you?
It's not about Sceptics beliefs,  those have been expressed ad nauseum.
The thread is about  why and how sceptics sustain those belief s over so many years of not even the slightest suggestion the the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance by the two lengthy police investigations.
Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 07:20:36 PM
Indeed I should not be trusted.... to do as I am comanded  8(0(*

Spammers isn't... is it?   can't be  I don't believe it!  Well I never.. whood  da thunk it

You are simply entertainment value these days.  And not too much of that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 07:25:33 PM

Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.
Please find below list of hypothetical reasons as a response to the hypothetical scenario posited:

Balls of steel.
Obfuscation (red herring, to use the vernacular).
Safe in the knowledge that without a body a conviction would be almost impossible.
Crank up waning public support.
Misplaced hubris.
PR strategist suggestion.
Have to be seen to be still looking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 07:27:41 PM

Got it all so wrong, haven't you?
It's not about Sceptics beliefs,  those have been expressed ad nauseum.
The thread is about  why and how sceptics sustain those belief s over so many years of not even the slightest suggestion the the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance by the two lengthy police investigations.
Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.

They didn't campaign to have the case reopened.
They campaigned for a review. There's a slight difference.
As I said the other day, they could have kept the original 'investigation' ongoing, had they demonstrated their innocence, but they didn't do that, because they couldn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 07:27:58 PM

Got it all so wrong, haven't you?
It's not about Sceptics beliefs,  those have been expressed ad nauseum.
The thread is about  why and how sceptics sustain those belief s over so many years of not even the slightest suggestion the the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance by the two lengthy police investigations.
Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.

'
No, the Thread title quite clearly says   Sceptics beliefs ?'
Your lack of comprehension explains much.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 07:30:26 PM
Please find below list of hypothetical reasons as a response to the hypothetical scenario posited:

Balls of steel.
Obfuscation (red herring, to use the vernacular).
Safe in the knowledge that without a body a conviction would be almost impossible.
Crank up waning public support.
Misplaced hubris.
PR strategist suggestion.
Have to be seen to be still looking.

He who rides the tiger is afraid to dismount.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Admin on April 13, 2019, 09:03:33 PM
Our moderators do an incredible job every day so a little word to any poster who feels that they are entitled to push the limits... DON'T!!

PS.  This is not up for debate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:34:43 PM

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!   8@??)( 8@??)(
I’ll have what she’s having.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:44:48 PM
They didn't campaign to have the case reopened.
They campaigned for a review. There's a slight difference.
As I said the other day, they could have kept the original 'investigation' ongoing, had they demonstrated their innocence, but they didn't do that, because they couldn't.
Have you ever heard of a criminal begging for a police review of his or her own crimes?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 09:50:54 PM
Have you ever heard of a criminal beggimg for a police review of his or her own crimes?
Only most of them. Prison is full of 'innocent' people.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 09:52:38 PM
Have you ever heard of a criminal beggimg for a police review of his or her own crimes?

Jeremy Bamber for one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:53:06 PM
Only most of them. Prison is full of 'innocent' people.
OK I phrased that incorrectly. Have you ever heard of any non convicted criminals begging for a police review into their alleged crimes?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:54:09 PM
Jeremy Bamber for one.
He’s got nothing to lose has he?  He’s in prison for life with no chance of being released.  The McCanns were free as birds with no one actively investigating them, please explain.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
OK I phrased that incorrectly. Have you ever heard of any non convicted criminals begging for a police review into their alleged crimes?

Go on you are dying to tell us... Who?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 09:56:35 PM
He’s got nothing to lose has he?  He’s in prison for life with no chance of being released.  The McCanns were free as birds with no one actively investigating them, please explain.

You asked for an example. I presented one. Not my fault you worded the question incorrectly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 09:57:06 PM
OK I phrased that incorrectly. Have you ever heard of any non convicted criminals begging for a police review into their alleged crimes?
Can't say I have. I do admit that there would be an element of turkeys voting for Christmas.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
Can't say I have. I do admit that there would be an element of turkeys voting for Christmas.

But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 10:17:37 PM
But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.

You have the backing of celebrities, pope, royalty,presidents, Prime ministers all falling over themselves once they were contacted... That is quite  a 'wing man' to have. All standing up for poor parents. and well then the supporters- that staunch army of people who think doctors are above reproach. A PR sucess story. What could possibly go wrong?    ah the Supreme  court thingy. ouch!

The philpots  wanted a press pack inteview not to find the bstrd who burned their children alive(well they didn't have to they knew already) but thanked the police and firebrigade etc for all their help- Oh  how that turned out. The police didn't tell anyone the parents were under suspicion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:29:27 PM
But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.
So they got away with it but instead decided to risk reinevestigation because..?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 10:31:21 PM
But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.

Didn't quite pan out like that for Leonor Cipriano in Amaral's previous missing child case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:38:07 PM
He’s got nothing to lose has he?  He’s in prison for life with no chance of being released.  The McCanns were free as birds with no one actively investigating them, please explain.

They can't.
I knew that tiger quote would appear.. (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:39:41 PM
So they got away with it but instead decided to risk reinevestigation because..?


Read the reasons given.
Enough to make you weep !

Or fall about laughing.!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:43:21 PM
So they got away with it but instead decided to risk reinevestigation because..?

They wanted a review, as has been explained.
What were they supposed to do?  They couldn't just disappear into obscurity. This is the worlds most high profile missing persons case. How would that look to those bank rolling the fund?

Fund Donor -"There's no police force looking for Maddie! Really! Why not campaign to have the case reopened?"

McCanns- " Oh, err, no, it's ok, we've got private eyes & still have 2 remaining children, we'll just make do with them"

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:45:12 PM

Read the reasons given.
Enough to make you weep !

Or fall about laughing.!
The only reason that would make any sort of sense is that they are both psychopaths, who enjoy extremely high risk actions and constantly drawing attention to their more criminal behaviour .  Spammy probably thinks they are, but most sceptics on here do seem to baulk at describing them as such, for some reason.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:45:44 PM
Didn't quite pan out like that for Leonor Cipriano in Amaral's previous missing child case.

She's free now. I trust the McCanns will be in contact with her to offer support in the search for Joana.
They'd get along famously IMO, Like peas in a pod.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:46:42 PM
They wanted a review, as has been explained.
What were they supposed to do?  They couldn't just disappear into obscurity. This is the worlds most high profile missing persons case. How would that look to those bank rolling the fund?

Fund Donor -"There's no police force looking for Maddie! Really! Why not campaign to have the case reopened?"

McCanns- " Oh, err, no, it's ok, we've got private eyes & still have 2 remaining children, we'll just make do with them"
Which Fund donor are you imagining having this conversation with the McCanns?  Were you aware of fund donors putting pressure on the McCann prior to the review?  If so, do you have cites?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:50:06 PM
The only reason that would make any sort of sense is that they are both psychopaths, who enjoy extremely high risk actions and constantly drawing attention to their more criminal behaviour .  Spammy probably thinks they are, but most sceptics on here do seem to baulk at describing them as such, for some reason.

I don't think they're psychopaths. I just think they are up to their bleeding necks in it.

I happen to think that the McCann's behaviour is consistent with that of a couple united in covering up a tragedy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:51:24 PM
I don't think they're psychopaths. I just think they are up to their bleeding necks in it.

I happen to think that the McCann's behaviour is consistent with that of a couple united in covering up a tragedy.


Up to their necks in what?

What is "it"?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:54:14 PM
Which Fund donor are you imagining having this conversation with the McCanns?  Were you aware of fund donors putting pressure on the McCann prior to the review?  If so, do you have cites?

Could be any one of them. It's only a hypothetical.

Rebekah Brooks was quite persuasive in calling for a review, as I recall.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:55:07 PM

Up to their necks in what?

What is "it"?

Not abduction.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:55:25 PM
I don't think they're psychopaths. I just think they are up to their bleeding necks in it.

I happen to think that the McCann's behaviour is consistent with that of a couple united in covering up a tragedy.
12 years of constantly “being up to their necks in it” and neither has cracked, what amazingly strong and determined people they must be, and how loyal their friends must be too. It’s quite unbelievable really...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:57:14 PM
12 years of constantly “being up to their necks in it” and neither has cracked, what amazingly strong and determined people they must be, and how loyal their friends must be too. It’s quite unbelievable really...

They don't convince me, never have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:59:20 PM

Never will either.

Maddie will never be found alive, &, if in the unlikely event that she is found dead, I bet she'll still be 3.

I'd bet my house on it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:59:37 PM
They don't convince me, never have.


Have you ever doubted your belief that they are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance or have you remained steadfast to your belief since May 2007?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:59:47 PM
Could be any one of them. It's only a hypothetical.

Rebekah Brooks was quite persuasive in calling for a review, as I recall.
And how did that all come about?  Was it as a result of Kate’s massively successful book that she wrote to keep the case high profile and to keep funding an investigation into their daughter’s disappearance and which she actively sought to have serialised in the biggest selling newspaper in the country ?  Again, strangely pathological behaviour for an allegedly guilty woman. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:00:43 PM
They don't convince me, never have.
They must be gutted that they haven’t convinced some anonymous geezer who goes by the name of Wonderfulspam on the internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:02:57 PM
Never will either.

Maddie will never be found alive, &, if in the unlikely event that she is found dead, I bet she'll still be 3.

I'd bet my house on it.
I think it’s a rather tasteless thing to be betting on but nevertheless I too think it’s unlikely she will ever be found either alive or dead, but that doesn’t make the parents guilty.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 11:04:03 PM

Have you ever doubted your belief that they are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance or have you remained steadfast to your belief since May 2007?

Nope, never a moments doubt.
Nothing the McCanns have ever said or done, nor two forces saying 'Not Suspects', has ever caused me even the slightest uncertainty in my conviction.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:06:47 PM
Nope, never a moments doubt.
Nothing the McCanns have ever said or done, nor two forces saying 'Not Suspects', has ever caused me even the slightest uncertainty in my conviction.
You sound like a zealot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 11:06:59 PM
And how did that all come about?  Was it as a result of Kate’s massively successful book that she wrote to keep the case high profile and to keep funding an investigation into their daughter’s disappearance and which she actively sought to have serialised in the biggest selling newspaper in the country ?  Again, strangely pathological behaviour for an allegedly guilty woman.

Some b........ ex inspector wrote a rather successful book about the case, which she needed to counter.
Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 11:08:58 PM
Nope, never a moments doubt.
Nothing the McCanns have ever said or done, nor two forces saying 'Not Suspects', has ever caused me even the slightest uncertainty in my conviction.

Such faith.
Never to have doubted your conviction for even a moment.
Remarkable!



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 11:09:22 PM
You sound like a zealot.
Ditto
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 11:14:08 PM
Such faith.
Never to have doubted your conviction for even a moment.
Remarkable!
Same could be said for you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 11:20:29 PM
Same could be said for you.

I don't think so!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:27:57 PM
Ditto
No I don’t.   When have I ever said that I never had a moment’s doubt or had unshakable belief that I was right?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:32:15 PM
Some b........ ex inspector wrote a rather successful book about the case, which she needed to counter.
Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened.
Strange that, seeing as how so much of it is used as sceptic fodder for more of their doubts and suspicions and criticisms. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 14, 2019, 08:22:35 AM
No I don’t.   When have I ever said that I never had a moment’s doubt or had unshakable belief that I was right?

So you argue from a point of scepticism,welcome to the dark side.(https://i.imgur.com/mv2RziO.png) (https://lunapic.com)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 14, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Some b........ ex inspector wrote a rather successful book about the case, which she needed to counter.
Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened.


You say - Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened. end quote.

Well wouldn't yours if you had been accused of faking an abduction and hiding your child's body?

Kate got their side of the story out there.    A very good defence script too that would find them innocent in court.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on April 14, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
So you argue from a point of scepticism,welcome to the dark side.(https://i.imgur.com/mv2RziO.png) (https://lunapic.com)
No, I argue from a point of logic, I am not DarTh Vader, his character was that of a despot, a zealot if you like who had 100% unshakeable faith in his abilities and opinions.  E ven though he was not very nice, like most people he turned out to have a heart after all, which only became apparent on his death bed.  Perhaps there is hope for some sceptics yet.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 14, 2019, 11:31:01 AM

You say - Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened. end quote.

Well wouldn't yours if you had been accused of faking an abduction and hiding your child's body?

Kate got their side of the story out there.    A very good defence script too that would find them innocent in court.
(&^&

Going by past court appearances - are you kidding me?   Their version would get pulled apart- whooshing and moving doors searching for a child in her bedroom after telling people she is missing/abducted... good god  ^*&& 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 14, 2019, 11:42:14 AM
(&^&

Going by past court appearances - are you kidding me?   Their version would get pulled apart- whooshing and moving doors searching for a child in her bedroom after telling people she is missing/abducted... good god  ^*&&

What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 14, 2019, 12:52:30 PM
Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 03:41:19 PM
Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!

Do sceptics still believe in 'blood platter'??

The area to which you refer has been exhaustively tested by forensic scientists and comprehensive results obtained which are detailed in the files.

Absolutely concise and unmistakable forensic findings were the result and guess what? ... no blood splatter ... or an iota showing that Madeleine or anyone else came to the slightest harm there ... or anywhere else in the apartment.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 03:43:20 PM
Do sceptics still believe in 'blood platter'??

The area to which you refer has been exhaustively tested by forensic scientists and comprehensive results obtained which are detailed in the files.

Absolutely concise and unmistakable forensic findings were the result and guess what? ... no blood splatter ... or an iota showing that Madeleine or anyone else came to the slightest harm there ... or anywhere else in the apartment.

Now who mentioned blood splatter - other than you?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 03:45:44 PM
Now who mentioned blood splatter - other than you?

Do please try to keep up with the flow of the discussion ... your deflections are tiresome.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 03:48:46 PM
Do please try to keep up with the flow of the discussion ... your deflections are tiresome.

No deflection. YOU are the one who mentioned blood splatter as a deflection, not me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 14, 2019, 03:55:37 PM
Do sceptics still believe in 'blood platter'??

The area to which you refer has been exhaustively tested by forensic scientists and comprehensive results obtained which are detailed in the files.

Absolutely concise and unmistakable forensic findings were the result and guess what? ... no blood splatter ... or an iota showing that Madeleine or anyone else came to the slightest harm there ... or anywhere else in the apartment.

It's blood spatter.  Splatter is the 'act' of displacing fluid, not the pattern formed on surfaces by doing so.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 04:07:47 PM
No deflection. YOU are the one who mentioned blood splatter as a deflection, not me

Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520653#msg520653

What was it prompted the post above?
What was it that prompted the forensic team to check out that area for blood?
What prompts fora discussion on 'blood splatter'? https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/madeleine-blood-spatter-analysis-1/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336675#msg336675

(http://holliegreigjustice.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/e45e4-b