Author Topic: Dr. Roberts latest.  (Read 19005 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2013, 10:15:54 AM »
No problem Angelo.

I just wanted to see the reaction it produced.

You had me worried for a moment there as I thought you had gone over to fantasy land.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline sadie

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2013, 10:24:16 AM »
What a load of piffle Stephen.  SNIP  Stating that there us no evidence was the clincher for me as we all know this is untrue.  There is lots of evidence, the thing that is lacking is proof of a crime.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(

Perceptive and very well put, Angelo

Two triple accolades in one day ...  8((()*/

Offline Chinagirl

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2013, 10:42:52 AM »
If this forum is going to accept for discussion the rantings of an internet poster who has no credentials and no credibility, then it may as well accept Hideho's videos.  Both are equally fraudulent.
A

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2013, 10:45:51 AM »
It is the first line of the op that strikes me

What is the  'connection'   between the 38  persons of interest   mentioned by Scotland Yard   ? 

Is this a  people-trafficing  'gang'  that  they are  talking about  ? 

If they are not,  then we must assume that these  38  people  'of interest'  are individuals  .... and that if one of them  'alone'  is the abductor,  then 37 of them are,  actually,  of no interest whatsoever 

Over two years of  'reviewing' the case  ...  and millions of pounds later  ...  that's where we are  ? 

Offline sadie

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2013, 10:57:06 AM »
BUMPED

If this forum is going to accept for discussion the rantings of an internet poster who has no credentials and no credibility, then it may as well accept Hideho's videos.  Both are equally fraudulent.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(  Another triple accolade




PS We are slowly getting Hidehos videos anyway.  Red occasionally promotes one.

Offline Carana

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2013, 10:59:20 AM »
People in some quarters never questioned the financial aspect when Bennett was calling for a full public inquiry, nor when some were offering a stamp in the belief that that was all it would have taken to reopen the case.

Now that the situation has a real chance of moving forward, many of the same people find an investigation arrangement is a waste of money.

Odd that.


icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2013, 11:10:04 AM »
It appears to be ok on this forum to quote a sceptic.

Which begs the question why was snoop's excellent article removed?

Instead of objecting to the article being  posted at all,    how about addressing it's substance with rational argument  ?

It might make a refreshing change


Offline faithlilly

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2013, 11:11:22 AM »
It appears to be ok on this forum to quote a sceptic.

Which begs the question why was snoop's excellent article removed?

Was it. I missed that.

Excellent call admin  @)(++(*
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 sadie

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2013, 11:15:11 AM »
It appears to be ok on this forum to quote a sceptic.

Which begs the question why was snoop's excellent article removed?
I never even saw snoops article. 
Snoop is brilliant .... a genius at getting to the nub of things .... and expressing it clearly in a minimium of words.  Plain English. 

Why was that removed?  When did it happen, Neeley

Can it be reposted please?

Offline Carana

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2013, 11:18:00 AM »
It is the first line of the op that strikes me

What is the  'connection'   between the 38  persons of interest   mentioned by Scotland Yard   ? 

Is this a  people-trafficing  'gang'  that  they are  talking about  ? 

If they are not,  then we must assume that these  38  people  'of interest'  are individuals  .... and that if one of them  'alone'  is the abductor,  then 37 of them are,  actually,  of no interest whatsoever 

Over two years of  'reviewing' the case  ...  and millions of pounds later  ...  that's where we are  ?


- I seriously doubt that there were 38 people involved in any abduction. Many will be eliminated, but some may have useful information, whether they are withholding any or are genuinely unaware that they may know something significant. Until they are interviewed (or reinterviewed in more depth), what they may or may not know can't be ascertained.

- If there is an abductor / child predator out there, that person could strike again (and may have already done so). Whether or not Madeleine is ever found... surely any potentially (or known) dangerous person is worth tracking down if there are red flags?

- My personal belief is that the objectives of the review go beyond the search for one child. Sometimes the what is in the how: rebuilding mutual confidence, cooperation, best practice based on lessons learned and quite possibly an exchange of know-how... perhaps even a police media service.

Offline sadie

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2013, 11:24:11 AM »
 8@??)(


More than 38 involved in trafficking tho?  ...... and organised abuse?

Not saying that traffickers etc are the ones being looked at, but they might be.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2013, 11:33:33 AM »

- I seriously doubt that there were 38 people involved in any abduction. Many will be eliminated, but some may have useful information, whether they are withholding any or are genuinely unaware that they may know something significant. Until they are interviewed (or reinterviewed in more depth), what they may or may not know can't be ascertained.

- If there is an abductor / child predator out there, that person could strike again (and may have already done so). Whether or not Madeleine is ever found... surely any potentially (or known) dangerous person is worth tracking down if there are red flags?

- My personal belief is that the objectives of the review go beyond the search for one child. Sometimes the what is in the how: rebuilding mutual confidence, cooperation, best practice based on lessons learned and quite possibly an exchange of know-how... perhaps even a police media service.

Carana, I have always admired that your posts are optimistic with regard to mutual respect and co-operation between  all parties concerned in this case   (  I share you optimism  ) 

My point about the 38  people  'of interest'  was that it is misleading  ...   unless they are connected,  then the vast majority are,   actually,  of no interest at all   (  innocent people,  in fact,  who have, inexplicably,  been identified as relevent to the case without  due cause  .... if there  was    cause,  afterall, then they should have been investigated/ eliminated  already  ) 

Offline Carana

Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2013, 11:43:49 AM »
Carana, I have always admired that your posts are optimistic with regard to mutual respect and co-operation between  all parties concerned in this case   (  I share you optimism  ) 

My point about the 38  people  'of interest'  was that it is misleading  ...   unless they are connected,  then the vast majority are,   actually,  of no interest at all   (  innocent people,  in fact,  who have, inexplicably,  been identified as relevent to the case without  due cause  .... if there  was    cause,  afterall, then they should have been investigated/ eliminated  already  )


Thank you.

But what else does one call people who are not suspects, but who may have useful information if not "people of interest" ?


AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2013, 12:22:57 PM »

My point about the 38  people  'of interest'  was that it is misleading  ...   unless they are connected,  then the vast majority are,   actually,  of no interest at all 
It's not obvious that Mr Redwood's communication intends to deliver information, though citing "exact" numbers produces always some illusion. His remarkable conclusion announces, I'm afraid, that the crucial point is to find an acceptable exit.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 12:35:55 PM by AnneGuedes »

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Dr. Roberts latest.
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2013, 12:49:06 PM »
It's not obvious that Mr Redwood's communication intends to deliver information, though citing "exact" numbers produces always some illusion. His remarkable conclusion announces, I'm afraid, that the crucial point is to find an acceptable exit.

I fear you might be right

I am astounded that more than two years,  and millions of pounds later,  we are told that the objective is  'resolution'  rather than  solving  the case  !

What does that  MEAN, exactly  ? 

Are we to be told that  Scotland Yard have  'resolved'  what happened to Madeleine,  without any proof or perpetrator brought to justice  ?