Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?

[Eleanor]

Been there three yrs on the trot,not sure if we like it yet.

Really?  I'm impressed.  And it takes some to impress me.

[barrier]

If you get the trots, I'd steer clear of the place

Its knowing what to avoid,went to Sharm 4 yrs in a row,never suffered once.

[Eleanor]

If you get the trots, I'd steer clear of the place

You have so made me laugh tonight.

[jassi]

I do...as it happens..I'll have alook.

Just buy a bottle to try, it might not be to your taste. What my son would have called a glugger.

[Mr Gray]

Just buy a bottle to try, it might not be to your taste

if its dry white it will be fine...you dont expect a reisling to be dry but ive had some german ones that  were really good...but the australians do wine so well

[barrier]

So going by  last nights post's can it be said a character can be formed in the minds eye of a poster,I'd think not,last night was a put up job.

[Holly Goodhead]

An interesting suggestion;

snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009

Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?

I can't see anything relevant to the thread in the link you've posted?

You can see the sort of divisions you see here in all other cases eg whether or not Bamber is guilty or a miscarriage of justice.  Same for others still serving sentences eg Rettendon murders and Luke Mitchell.  Even when convictions are quashed the debates rages on eg David Bain. 

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.  In the case of David Bain I've read reports by two eminent judges; one is skewed towards moj the other skewed towards guilt.  Maybe personality traits but I've not really seen any evidence for this.  I think it just comes down to what weight individuals place on the various pieces of info and this will obviously tip the scales one way or the other. 

At the end of the day there can only be one truth re MM's disappearance.  An analogy might be religion where again there can only be one truth: creationism v evolution.  But where individuals sit here tends to have been influenced by their upbringing ie family and school as opposed to forming their own opinions about high profile and contentious crimes.

[Mr Gray]

I can't see anything relevant to the thread in the link you've posted?

You can see the sort of divisions you see here in all other cases eg whether or not Bamber is guilty or a miscarriage of justice.  Same for others still serving sentences eg Rettendon murders and Luke Mitchell.  Even when convictions are quashed the debates rages on eg David Bain. 

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.  In the case of David Bain I've read reports by two eminent judges; one is skewed towards moj the other skewed towards guilt.  Maybe personality traits but I've not really seen any evidence for this.  I think it just comes down to what weight individuals place on the various pieces of info and this will obviously tip the scales one way or the other. 

At the end of the day there can only be one truth re MM's disappearance.  An analogy might be religion where again there can only be one truth: creationism v evolution.  But where individuals sit here tends to have been influenced by their upbringing ie family and school as opposed to forming their own opinions about high profile and contentious crimes.

I think what you say is true in some cases where the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. I think in this case the evidence sceptics use does not stand up to scrutiny and is flawed. All the evidence used to make the McCanns arguidos was later not confirmed. Ie there was no evidence to support the accusations which appears still to be the case. Pedro do Carmo of the PJ said the McCanns are not suspects and there's no evidence against them.
Your analogy of creationism shows that some will passionately believe something which is patently untrue and believe there is evidence to support it when there's not.
It's a very good analogy

[Holly Goodhead]

I think what you say is true in some cases where the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. I think in this case the evidence sceptics use does not stand up to scrutiny and is flawed. All the evidence used to make the McCanns arguidos was later not confirmed. Ie there was no evidence to support the accusations which appears still to be the case. Pedro do Carmo of the PJ said the McCanns are not suspects and there's no evidence against them.
Your analogy of creationism shows that some will passionately believe something which is patently untrue and believe there is evidence to support it when there's not.
It's a very good analogy

I don't see this case being any different to the other cases I've looked at.  Have you looked at any other cases in any sort of detail?

There are many who view the T9 as having some involvement and its by no means limited to the likes of those here on social media.  Eg Pat Browne, criminal profiler and Craig Murry, former British diplomat to name just two. 

The fact you perceive something a certain way which causes you to form certain beliefs doesn't make you right when you're unable to prove them. 

I believe MM was abducted by person(s) unknown to her and I don't believe in any deity, neither of which I can prove so this doesn't make me right.  It just means I have formed opinions and beliefs which many others will disagree with and they are perfectly entitled to do so. 

And imo the McCanns have been absolute fools in attempting to silence their critics through libel law.  Of course Carter-Ruck were happy to oblige it is after all what they do for a living but in whose best interest?   

[G-Unit]

I don't see this case being any different to the other cases I've looked at.  Have you looked at any other cases in any sort of detail?

There are many who view the T9 as having some involvement and its by no means limited to the likes of those here on social media.  Eg Pat Browne, criminal profiler and Craig Murry, former British diplomat to name just two. 

The fact you perceive something a certain way which causes you to form certain beliefs doesn't make you right when you're unable to prove them. 

I believe MM was abducted by person(s) unknown to her and I don't believe in any deity, neither of which I can prove so this doesn't make me right.  It just means I have formed opinions and beliefs which many others will disagree with and they are perfectly entitled to do so. 

And imo the McCanns have been absolute fools in attempting to silence their critics through libel law.  Of course Carter-Ruck were happy to oblige it is after all what they do for a living but in whose best interest?

I'm still in agreement with the PJ. There's not enough evidence to decide what happened to Madeleine. Theories are all very well, but the vast majority of them ignore existing evidence ot include speculation. I can see possibilities, but like Rowley I can see no difinitive evidence showing what happened on May 3rd 2007.

[barrier]

I'm still in agreement with the PJ. There's not enough evidence to decide what happened to Madeleine. Theories are all very well, but the vast majority of them ignore existing evidence ot include speculation. I can see possibilities, but like Rowley I can see no difinitive evidence showing what happened on May 3rd 2007.

Its a view I also hold and which I've oft repeated the ending will pan out along the lines of imo:

"Person or persons unknown removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts."

SY and PJ may have their evidence but its limited imo and can't be brought before any court.

[Mr Gray]

I don't see this case being any different to the other cases I've looked at.  Have you looked at any other cases in any sort of detail?

There are many who view the T9 as having some involvement and its by no means limited to the likes of those here on social media.  Eg Pat Browne, criminal profiler and Craig Murry, former British diplomat to name just two. 

The fact you perceive something a certain way which causes you to form certain beliefs doesn't make you right when you're unable to prove them. 

I believe MM was abducted by person(s) unknown to her and I don't believe in any deity, neither of which I can prove so this doesn't make me right.  It just means I have formed opinions and beliefs which many others will disagree with and they are perfectly entitled to do so. 

And imo the McCanns have been absolute fools in attempting to silence their critics through libel law.  Of course Carter-Ruck were happy to oblige it is after all what they do for a living but in whose best interest?

I'm not sure you have looked at this case in much detail. I'm guided by the evidence and there's no real evidence against the McCanns and IMO lots of evidence to show they weren't involved. You perpetuate the myth that the McCanns silence their critics... That's far from the truth. They have used libel law to prevent false allegations of criminal behaviour... That's quite normal. Murat has done the same... Both here and in Portugal.. Do you think he's foolish too.
People are free to express their opinion within the law. My criticism of sceptics is that their beliefs are not based on real evidence as far as I can see

[barrier]

I'm not sure you have looked at this case in much detail. I'm guided by the evidence and there's no real evidence against the McCanns and IMO lots of evidence to show they weren't involved. You perpetuate the myth that the McCanns silence their critics... That's far from the truth. They have used libel law to prevent false allegations of criminal behaviour... That's quite normal. Murat has done the same... Both here and in Portugal.. Do you think he's foolish too.
People are free to express their opinion within the law. My criticism of sceptics is that their beliefs are not based on real evidence as far as I can see

There is no real evidence,ask Rowley.

[Mr Gray]

There is no real evidence,ask Rowley.

My point is there's no real evidence against the McCanns... I think they had no choice but to go to the ECHR and I think it will be very interesting to see what happens

[Robittybob1]

My point is there's no real evidence against the McCanns... I think they had no choice but to go to the ECHR and I think it will be very interesting to see what happens

When you say "McCanns" are you including the rest of the Tapas 9 in that descriptor?

If some researcher concludes the T9  are involved, could it be that the McCanns are innocent leaving the blame on the others (or T7)?