Author Topic: Sceptics beliefs ?  (Read 55001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #705 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?
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20744
  • Total likes: 3255
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #706 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 09:44:01 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #707 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!
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20744
  • Total likes: 3255
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #708 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. 

« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 01:50:24 AM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #709 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.

 
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #710 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.  Im cool with that.   Im 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. 
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Brietta

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #711 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.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #712 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.  Im cool with that.   Im 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.

Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline jassi

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #713 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.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   Into year 13 and still no solution.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20744
  • Total likes: 3255
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #714 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.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Brietta

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #715 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.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline jassi

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #716 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.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   Into year 13 and still no solution.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20744
  • Total likes: 3255
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #717 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.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #718 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?

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #719 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. 
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything