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

[faithlilly]

I finally got round to watching this. No firm conclusion was reached, and I think that's the only conclusion possible because I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure what happened. One of them explained really well why people feel uneasy about the parents.

It’s interesting that after 14 years and a sustained campaign to convince the public of the parent’s innocence people still feel that way.

[Eleanor]

So no point in watching it then.  Thank God for that.

[jassi]

It’s interesting that after 14 years and a sustained campaign to convince the public of the parent’s innocence people still feel that way.

So much so that the subject is effectively banned from Digital Spy  for being so contentious.

[faithlilly]

So much so that the subject is effectively banned from Digital Spy  for being so contentious.

I’ve never known such a divisive case.

[barrier]

I’ve never known such a divisive case.

Never the twain shall meet, Madeleine who?

[barrier]

So much so that the subject is effectively banned from Digital Spy  for being so contentious.

There are one or two chat forums which the threads get locked regularly when there is actually something to chew on.

[G-Unit]

It’s interesting that after 14 years and a sustained campaign to convince the public of the parent’s innocence people still feel that way.

Simply repeating something ad infinitum clearly doesn't work.

[Eleanor]

Simply repeating something ad infinitum clearly doesn't work.

Obviously not.

[faithlilly]

Simply repeating something ad infinitum clearly doesn't work.

In fact sometimes it has the opposite effect and makes people curious.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Simply repeating something ad infinitum clearly doesn't work.

It works in reverse too you know.  Simply releasing sweary 90 minute podcasts which conclude that there’s something fishy about the McCanns or posting interminably about your “doubts” online isn’t going to result in changing the minds of those charged with investigating the case, nor of all the people who have concluded that Madeleine was most likely abducted.

[jassi]

In fact sometimes it has the opposite effect and makes people curious.

And plenty of material readily  available for those seeking it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And plenty of material readily  available for those seeking it.

Much of it (like the podcast) opinionated crud.

[G-Unit]

It works in reverse too you know.  Simply releasing sweary 90 minute podcasts which conclude that there’s something fishy about the McCanns or posting interminably about your “doubts” online isn’t going to result in changing the minds of those charged with investigating the case, nor of all the people who have concluded that Madeleine was most likely abducted.

I don't think the podcast was trying to convince anyone of anything, they were just offering their opinions.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think the podcast was trying to convince anyone of anything, they were just offering their opinions.

Who do you think is trying to convince anyone of anything by “simply repeating things ad finitum” out of interest?  Please supply cites for your reasoning.

[kizzy]

I don't think the podcast was trying to convince anyone of anything, they were just offering their opinions.

Exactly - very fairly as well I thought.