Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Mr Gray]

Thank you for the text.

‘The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing.  But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court.  "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.’

Then

‘ McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy.  "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth.’

So they agreed to a test then demurred....just as I posted.

I think that post proves beyond all doubt that sceptic logic does not hold up to scrutiny

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think that post proves beyond all doubt that sceptic logic does not hold up to scrutiny

It definitely proves they find it easy to dismiss certain facts to suit their agenda.

[faithlilly]

I think that post proves beyond all doubt that sceptic logic does not hold up to scrutiny

You do realise that the quotes in Brietta’s post are from media reports, albeit selectively quoted to give a rather dishonest angle to the material that they are reporting, but media reports nonetheless.

[Robittybob1]

Oh dearie me ... none so blind etc etc

I think she was reading "the fine print" "between the lines"

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that it’s 2020 not 2007, and a burglar/rapist/paedophile is the chief suspect not the McCanns.  The way some people carry on, it’s like time stood still for them 13 years ago.

[Brietta]

Sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that it’s 2020 not 2007, and a burglar/rapist/paedophile is the chief suspect not the McCanns.  The way some people carry on, it’s like time stood still for them 13 years ago.

I think time has indeed stood still for some people.  If not, why keep repeating exactly the same redundent arguments in vogue back then whatever changes are taking place in the real world where everyone else has moved on.

The existence of burglars has been studiously ignored.
The existence of a man entering holiday properties and assaulting little girls has been denied.

Policia Judiciaria alleged prime suspect 2013 Euclides Monterio was derided.
Scotland Yard activity in 2014 was derided.
Now that we can see with the emergence of Brueckner exactly where those police investigations were heading ~ that too is being derided.

I find it interesting but also incredibly sad.

[faithlilly]

I think time has indeed stood still for some people.  If not, why keep repeating exactly the same redundent arguments in vogue back then whatever changes are taking place in the real world where everyone else has moved on.

The existence of burglars has been studiously ignored.
The existence of a man entering holiday properties and assaulting little girls has been denied.

Policia Judiciaria alleged prime suspect 2013 Euclides Monterio was derided.
Scotland Yard activity in 2014 was derided.
Now that we can see with the emergence of Brueckner exactly where those police investigations were heading ~ that too is being derided.

I find it interesting but also incredibly sad.

Yet Wolter says that the Portuguese police still have the parents in their sights...and lest we forget, they have primacy in this case..not the UK or indeed Germany.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If the Portuguese still have the McCanns in their sights, it seems they are quite content to gaze upon their beauty from afar forevermore without lifting a finger to bring them to justice.  Lazy articles!

[The General]

Oh dearie me ... none so blind etc etc

You don't have to answer if you don't want to ... what sort of grades in English did you achieve in education ... I'm curious because I've not really met anyone who evidences such an inability in English comprehension before.

I can overlook the ironically poor grammar, but let's keep it on topic guys.

The General.

[Mr Gray]

Thank you for the text.

‘The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing.  But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court.  "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.’

Then

‘ McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy.  "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth.’

So they agreed to a test then demurred....just as I posted.

this is an example of taking statements out of context  which totally changes their meaning and imo is  a constant tactic of sceptics to implicate the Mccanns.

If the McCanns were asked...would you take  a lie detector they may have replied..

If we were asked by the PJ,..if they were admissable...if they were reliable...then yes we would take one.

In reality this is an expalnanation of why they wouldnt take a test but faith has twisted it into  an offer to take

[Mr Gray]

Yet Wolter says that the Portuguese police still have the parents in their sights...and lest we forget, they have primacy in this case..not the UK or indeed Germany.

Do you have a cite of wolters saying this or is it just more tabloid gossip taken out of context

[kizzy]

To take a li detector surely would have been in the best interest of the mccs to prove to the world they were innocent in any wrongdoing. Also for there reputation.IMO

Yet they chose to go the long way round causing damage suing people/media promoting GA book in their legal battle with him.

When a simple lie detector test could show you were not involved ...or what could possibly go wrong.IMO.

Why only take one if admissible in court when IMO they knew they wouldn't be going to court.

Two simple things were rejected lie detector reconstruction. IMO.

gmcc was adamant they had no involvement in any wrongdoing to Maddie ..yet the one thing that could have proved that was refused.


The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.

But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.

[Mr Gray]

To take a li detector surely would have been in the best interest of the mccs to prove to the world they were innocent in any wrongdoing. Also for there reputation.IMO

Yet they chose to go the long way round causing damage suing people/media promoting GA book in their legal battle with him.

When a simple lie detector test could show you were not involved ...or what could possibly go wrong.IMO.

Why only take one if admissible in court when IMO they knew they wouldn't be going to court.

Two simple things were rejected lie detector reconstruction. IMO.

gmcc was adamant they had no involvement in any wrongdoing to Maddie ..yet the one thing that could have proved that was refused.


The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.

But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.

Do you still not understand... polygraphs are unreliable and would prove nothing. That is an absolute fact. Not opinion

[Eleanor]

Can't you all see the reaction. 

McCanns pass Lie Detector Test.

Lie Detector Tests aren't reliable and inadmissible anyway.

[Mr Gray]

Can't you all see the reaction. 

McCanns pass Lie Detector Test.

Lie Detector Tests aren't reliable and inadmissible anyway.

Kizzy seems think the test would be proof...it isn't ...she's mistaken..she needs to get her facts right before making accusations