“A Laughable Story”

[Erngath]

There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.

Fortunately neither sceptic not supporters beliefs or opinions have any importance.
What is important is that none of the current police investigations have Madeleines parents as suspects in her disappearance,

[Erngath]

Who said they hid their identity from the McCanns?

Just from the press and can you blame any one?
The " researchers" would be in full speed searching births, marriages, any personal details to be found of anyone.foolish enough to give a name.

[Mr Gray]

There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.

I think we may well have an answer in the next few months..
Amarals theory is an unproven solution so good you support its rejection

[Vertigo Swirl]

If they accept she is ........they have the fund to consider and their reputation.

Ah right.  So the fund is more important to them than gaining any form of closure in your view?  They are going to keep up the pretense of searching by renewing appeals for money from the general public which they will then do what with, in your view?  And how does accepting Madeleine is dead impact on their reputation exactly?

[Vertigo Swirl]

There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.

Perhaps you’d now like to spell those out, which is what I asked you to in my post, or do we have to guess at what you mean?

[Anthro]

There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.

If I may, why is it so important to you to push the dichotomy of so-called supporters and skeptics? Surely, it is not that simplistic?

[G-Unit]

Who said they hid their identity from the McCanns?

Why would the McCanns use anonymous others to speak for them? Deniability?

[G-Unit]

Fortunately neither sceptic not supporters beliefs or opinions have any importance.
What is important is that none of the current police investigations have Madeleines parents as suspects in her disappearance,

Isn't that a supporter belief?

[Mr Gray]

Isn't that a supporter belief?

Could you expalin why you are happy with the label supporter but not sceptic..i doubt you can....seems highly hypocritical to me

[G-Unit]

If I may, why is it so important to you to push the dichotomy of so-called supporters and skeptics? Surely, it is not that simplistic?

It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.

[Mr Gray]

It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.

At last you've got something right

what you don't understand is what a supporter is. the name doesnt bother me .....for me its just someone who doesn't beleive the barmy accident /cover up theory...

[Anthro]

It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.

So, what is the ‘sceptics’ stance with reference to ‘supporters’?

[Erngath]

So, what is the ‘sceptics’ stance with reference to ‘supporters’?

Basically supporters of child neglect, "sheeple" who can't see the real truth, worship the McCanns, are blind sighted by MSM, don't believe that the  McCann have influence on Prime Ministers, the press etc

[Vertigo Swirl]

It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.

You forgot dog worshippers as well.

[Robittybob1]

You forgot dog worshippers as well.

Please leave the dogs outside.