Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 300518 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2475 on: November 06, 2020, 06:50:17 PM »
Only you have said that.   But parents have disposed of their kids for every possible reason under the sun.   

Your post..

I suppose the PJ could consider the disappearance was done for monetary gain

it was you who suggested it....i just remarked how ridiculous it was

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2476 on: November 06, 2020, 06:53:21 PM »
Your post..

I suppose the PJ could consider the disappearance was done for monetary gain

it was you who suggested it ... I just remarked how ridiculous it was
Are you saying the PJ would have never considered whether the disappearance was done for monetary gain?   
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2477 on: November 06, 2020, 06:55:30 PM »
Are you saying the PJ would have never considered whether the disappearance was done for monetary gain?   

I think its  a stupid idea....and cant see even the PJ considering such a stupid idea...and again it wa syou that suggested it not me.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2478 on: November 06, 2020, 06:58:08 PM »
In apartment 5A:
* between 20h16 (typing error in the report shows 21h16) and 20h30 the "cadaver" dog alerted:
- at 20h20 in the area of the wardrobe of the main bedroom
- at 20h22 in the lounge, specifically behind the sofa next to the window that overlooks the street.


That doesnt say what time the dog entered the apartment.....then we still have the fact that the PJ had some doubts about the alerts...then we have eddie repeatedly being called back to the Renault...then we have grime saying he didnt know it was the mccanns car when its plastered with posters of Maddie...that is  a lorra lorra doubt
Look at the structure of the original PJ document, all the searches (including the other apartments) are documented the same way, with an entry time and a termination time.
 
Martin Grime’s video is probably the most famous dog search video in the world. The only other qualified dog handler that has expressed a negative qualified opinion on the searches is Mick Swindles where he states his doubt on cuddlecats alert and only that alert. If you can find testimony from any other qualified dog handler on Martin Grimes procedures in either 5a or the scenic please share it.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2479 on: November 06, 2020, 06:59:15 PM »
Apparently so, the link had photos of Gerry attending.  It's all news to me, but is that so wrong?

I don't see why it should be.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2480 on: November 06, 2020, 07:00:59 PM »
I think its  a stupid idea....and cant see even the PJ considering such a stupid idea...and again it wa syou that suggested it not me.
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared?  I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM. 
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2481 on: November 06, 2020, 07:02:45 PM »
I don't see why it should be.
And it didn't say who was organising this on behalf of the McCanns.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2482 on: November 06, 2020, 07:04:20 PM »
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared?  I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.
It isn't what's possible it's what's probable...are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2483 on: November 06, 2020, 07:05:06 PM »
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared?  I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.

Rob, purlease.  Doctors don't sell there children for financial gain.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2484 on: November 06, 2020, 07:05:43 PM »
Are you saying parents have never sold their children and then claimed they have disappeared?  I can't give you an exact example off the top of my head ATM.

Look at this example will you "Mother Tries To Sell Her Kids On eBay" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mother-tries-to-sell-her-_n_902106
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2485 on: November 06, 2020, 07:07:50 PM »
Rob, purlease.  Doctors don't sell there children for financial gain.
All I'm saying is that before you wrote that, you would have to consider whether it would ever happen.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2486 on: November 06, 2020, 07:11:48 PM »
All I'm saying is that before you wrote that, you would have to consider whether it would ever happen.

Nope.  Jamais.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2487 on: November 06, 2020, 07:12:33 PM »
It isn't what's possible it's what's probable...are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie

Just look at what you wrote you first say "It isn't what's possible it's what's probable", but then ask me "are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie?" 
You are contradicting yourself.  You should have asked me "are you suggesting it's remotely possible PROBABLE the McCanns sold maddie?"
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2488 on: November 06, 2020, 07:15:39 PM »
Nope.  Jamais.
Never ever ever in a million years!
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2489 on: November 06, 2020, 07:17:14 PM »
Just look at what you wrote you first say "It isn't what's possible it's what's probable", but then ask me "are you suggesting it's remotely possible the McCanns sold maddie?" 
You are contradicting yourself.  You should have asked me "are you suggesting it's remotely possible PROBABLE the McCanns sold maddie?"

The recognised expression is, "Remotely Possible."  "Remotely Probable" is a contradiction.