Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 300377 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1740 on: October 22, 2020, 12:01:48 PM »
Then you’d be wrong.

no you are wrong...

I can see exactly what happened

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1741 on: October 22, 2020, 12:02:55 PM »
They are neither Reliable or legal In Law.  So what would be the point?

Well, they hoped GA would have a miserable life etc etc, and started the trail of the libel trial and still doing it by way of ECHR ....what easier way than  LDT to shut GA up once an for all.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 10:16:55 AM by Angelo222 »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1742 on: October 22, 2020, 12:06:35 PM »
Well, they hoped GA would have a miserable life etc etc, and started the trail of the libel trial and still doing it by way of ECHR ....what easier way than  LDT to shut GA up once an for all.

if it would have proved anything Im sure they would have done it...but you cant seem to grasp it wouldnt prove anything
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 10:17:45 AM by Angelo222 »

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1743 on: October 22, 2020, 12:07:16 PM »
no you are wrong...

I can see exactly what happened

Do you have that cite yet from Brueckner’s lawyer’s Facebook page?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 12:10:14 PM by Eleanor »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1744 on: October 22, 2020, 12:08:56 PM »
Well, they hoped GA would have a miserable life etc etc, and started the trail of the libel trial and still doing it by way of ECHR ....what easier way than  LDT to shut GA up once an for all.

You honestly believe that Sceptics in general would have accepted a Pass on this Test?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1745 on: October 22, 2020, 12:10:08 PM »
if it would have proved anything Im sure they would have done it...but you cant seem to grasp it wouldnt prove anything

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-07-mn-59734-story.html
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor


Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1747 on: October 22, 2020, 12:16:30 PM »
Are Lie Detector Tests acceptable in American Courts of Law?

Are they ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1748 on: October 22, 2020, 12:18:32 PM »
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-07-mn-59734-story.html

Kizzy has claimed it would prove something...she's wrong..it wouldn't..it's intelligence.
I haven't even bothered to read your link...I'm sure it will prove what I have just said.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1749 on: October 22, 2020, 12:24:26 PM »
Do you have that cite yet from Brueckner’s lawyer’s Facebook page?

i have found this one re the phone calls...im sure when I have tim eI can find the one about the UK lawyers.

its posts hes made from his FB page..they are linked back to his page

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1750 on: October 22, 2020, 12:25:56 PM »
I would as to me it would be the natural thing to do if you knew you were not involved in anything.

Especially the situation they found themselves in. I would be appalled to think I was a suspect in what happened to my daughter.

The so-called abduction would also be credible IMO.

Just out of curiosity how many on here would refuse to do one if they were in the mccs position.

According to the Sun the question arose because;

"Thousands of Sun readers wanted to know why they had not taken a polygraph test over missing daughter Madeleine, four."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html

There's no explanation of how the Sun were contacted by these thousands of readers, and I can find nothing in previous editions which mentions the subject. Armed with this 'fact', however the Sun managed to get a quote from an unnamed source;

“If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, they would.

“They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police but, as of today, they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities. Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.”
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html

The source immediately restricts the circumstances under which they would agree to take a test; only if the police were involved. As neither the UK nor Portuguese police used the tests because they were inadmissible in court, that wasn't going to happen.

Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1751 on: October 22, 2020, 12:26:59 PM »
Kizzy has claimed it would prove something...she's wrong..it wouldn't..it's intelligence.
I haven't even bothered to read your link...I'm sure it will prove what I have just said.

Well, I couldn't agree more with this.


WASHINGTON —  Police departments investigating reports of missing or abducted children should assume foul play and quickly ask parents to submit to polygraph tests, according to a new Justice Department report.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1752 on: October 22, 2020, 12:28:31 PM »
Kizzy has claimed it would prove something...she's wrong..it wouldn't..it's intelligence.
I haven't even bothered to read your link...I'm sure it will prove what I have just said.

In my opinion it doesn’t...in fact quite the opposite.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 08:01:25 PM by Brietta »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1753 on: October 22, 2020, 12:29:17 PM »
i have found this one re the phone calls...im sure when I have tim eI can find the one about the UK lawyers.

its posts hes made from his FB page..they are linked back to his page

Don’t worry I’ll wait.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #1754 on: October 22, 2020, 12:30:57 PM »
According to the Sun the question arose because;

"Thousands of Sun readers wanted to know why they had not taken a polygraph test over missing daughter Madeleine, four."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html

There's no explanation of how the Sun were contacted by these thousands of readers, and I can find nothing in previous editions which mentions the subject. Armed with this 'fact', however the Sun managed to get a quote from an unnamed source;

“If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, they would.

“They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police but, as of today, they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities. Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names.”
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/we-ll-do-lie-test-the-sun-21-09-07-t3058.html

The source immediately restricts the circumstances under which they would agree to take a test; only if the police were involved. As neither the UK nor Portuguese police used the tests because they were inadmissible in court, that wasn't going to happen.

Those thousands of Sun readers asked a question (allegedly) and got an answer. Kate and Gerry were not happy to do anything to help clear their names. They had conditions. End of story.


quoting the sun again...no credibility.


the way I see it they were asked if the would take  a polygraph....gerry answered..

if the PJ asked us to
If they were admissable
if they were reliable
 

Some have taken this as an agreemnet to take  atest.

IMO it absolutely isnt. Its expalining why they wouldnt take the test. Its all about context. IMO the McCans never agreed to a test and therefore never changed their mind. Unless aposter can come up with proof they agreed to take a test everything is specualtion