Hindsight: Some posters just cannot get their heads around the concept.

[gilet]

Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast. Sardonic is a great word.

You had not addressed the point about leaving toddlers alone in an unsecured home, as you claim, if you had, I wouldnt have had to raise it, and point out to you doing it is neither, as you claimed, common or unacceptable,  as you said in your reply to Lyall,  so its no use backtracking now. The fact that it went over your head is not my problem. Your comment had nothng to do with the topic of this thread, IE Hindsight.

 But have it your way, as you will, if it pleases you, you can have the last word.Think Im done here.
 

There is no sarcasm in my posts, and the fact you don't identify any seems to confirm this.

I have fully addressed the point about leaving children in an unlocked apartment in another post. If you read the whole thread instead of just the occasional post you will see that.

I have no idea what your rather garbled paragraph about activities neither being common or unacceptable (surely an error?). Nor is it possible to work out what supposedly went over my head with or without hindsight? A translation into punctuated English would be appreciated.

[Mo Stache]

Again the assumption that someone was there. Merely an assumption.

Meanwhile the McCann's and associates had trampled the scene before the local constabulary arrived.

Seeing the McCann's stayed there and their DNA/forensic footprint would have naturally been there to begin with, it was the addition of the 'other' contaminants i.e. the local constabulary who arrived and destroyed the crime scene that was the problem.

Think about it. You are on holiday, your DNA/forensic footprint is in the apartment. It would be very easy to eliminate yours and still find the person who entered the apartment without permission, if it were not for the contamination of the police who entered and destroyed any possibility of identifying the perpetrators forensic footprint.

[stephen25000]

There it is in essence.


Your get out clause for the McCann's behaviour,hindsight.

Trouble with that was it wasn't just one night,they did it several nights in a row,whilst out drinking and eating.


You are attacking me personally by referring to me as a 'spammer' and being 'vindictive'.


You aren't going to change my mind on this, and as to the NSPCC guidelines they were well entrenched and have nothing to do with the internet.

[stephen25000]

Those claiming that the cause of Madeleine being missing was because of an unlocked door, please explain how an unlocked door without the presence of an abductor resulted in her disappearance. Remember - walk and wander has been eliminated by the police.   

The unlocked door facilitated the abduction, but without the abductor she would not be missing!!! She would still be in an unlocked apartment.

Well let's see proof of abduction. >@@(*&)

[gilet]

But your opening post on the thread is very much defending the parents on this issue.

You seem to be dedicated to constructing a defence for them, but then you have to admit the defence only works if doors aren't left unlocked.

But a door was left unlocked, so what's the point of suffering in the trench on this front?

It's puzzling.

In that my opening post is entirely about the failings of a poster who is attacking the McCanns without any acceptance that he is attacking them without acknowledging that he is doing so with the benefit of hindsight which they did not have, you are correct it is supportive of the McCanns.

I am not dedicated to constructing a defence for them as my full acceptance, which I have expressed previously in this thread, that there is at least an equal likelihood that another crime (which cannot be mentioned for reasons of potential libel) could be the explanation for the disappearance of as abduction.

I am, though, dedicated to ensuring that people in this case understand the importance of the concept of hindsight when reading posts which are written with that benefit, a benefit which the McCanns transparently did not have.

I am also dedicated to inquiring of posters who make claims without any apparent understanding of the fact that they are posting with that benefit continue to do so when it is explained how it leads to clear flaws in their arguments.

That the McCanns were absent or even that a door was left unlocked does not in any way mean that the blame for the disappearance is automatically the entire fault of the McCanns. I am dedicated to pointing out the flaws in such non sequiturs. I have shown that abduction could have taken place when the McCann were present and that the blame at least in part lies with any abductor if such exists. It is wholly incorrect for certain posters to make such claims and it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out the flaws in those claims, not simply for the good conduct of debate but also to ensure that the debate is conducted on the basis of truth.

[gilet]

It has not been proved anyone entered the McCann's apartment.

Equally it has not been proved that no-one entered the apartment. Your post is therefore wholly meaningless.

[gilet]

It's not inaccurate. You've just agreed it was not acceptable to leave doors unlocked before 2007.

Sorry, it is inaccurate and your use of a smiley face does not make any difference to that fact.

[gilet]

Again the assumption that someone was there. Merely an assumption.

Meanwhile the McCann's and associates had trampled the scene before the local constabulary arrived.

Again the assumption that no abductor was there. Merely an assumption.

Meanwhile the first coppers on the ground damaged the crime scene before the crime scene examiners arrived (viz the dog hairs for example).

[Mo Stache]

Stephen - in the NSPCC's campaign to protect children, do you think they would be more worried about the fact that the McCann's left the door unlocked OR that someone entered the property without permission and removed Madeleine?

The NSPCC deals mainly in child abuse and protection of vulnerable children. Their definition of 'cruelty' and 'neglect' is not the same meaning you and most of the people pushing this neglect issue attach to it.

There is no evidence (evidence - stand up in a court of law) that Madeleine was abused. Leaving a door unlocked is not a reason for the NSPCC to prosecute parents for neglect. So why do you feel the need to keep mentioning the NSPCC guidelines as if the McCann's can be prosecuted for not taking advice? If the NSPCC thought the McCann's had abused or neglected Madeleine, dont you think they would have taken action years ago?

[stephen25000]

Again the assumption that no abductor was there. Merely an assumption.

Meanwhile the first coppers on the ground damaged the crime scene before the crime scene examiners arrived (viz the dog hairs for example).

i.e. No proof of abduction.

[stephen25000]

Equally it has not been proved that no-one entered the apartment. Your post is therefore wholly meaningless.

Not at all.

Without an abduction, the McCann story falls apart at the seams.

[Mo Stache]

Well let's see proof of abduction. >@@(*&)

If not an abduction (which I believe Scotland Yard have the evidence of) then how did she go missing Stephen?

If you don't believe she was abducted, please provide proof of your theory. 

[stephen25000]

Stephen - in the NSPCC's campaign to protect children, do you think they would be more worried about the fact that the McCann's left the door unlocked OR that someone entered the property without permission and removed Madeleine?

The NSPCC deals mainly in child abuse and protection of vulnerable children. Their definition of 'cruelty' and 'neglect' is not the same meaning you and most of the people pushing this neglect issue attach to it.

There is no evidence (evidence - stand up in a court of law) that Madeleine was abused. Leaving a door unlocked is not a reason for the NSPCC to prosecute parents for neglect. So why do you feel the need to keep mentioning the NSPCC guidelines as if the McCann's can be prosecuted for not taking advice? If the NSPCC thought the McCann's had abused or neglected Madeleine, dont you think they would have taken action years ago?

without someone in the apartment your whole premise falls to pieces.

[Mo Stache]

There it is in essence.


Your get out clause for the McCann's behaviour,hindsight.

Trouble with that was it wasn't just one night,they did it several nights in a row,whilst out drinking and eating.


You are attacking me personally by referring to me as a 'spammer' and being 'vindictive'.


You aren't going to change my mind on this, and as to the NSPCC guidelines they were well entrenched and have nothing to do with the internet.

You said it yourself; NSPCC guidelines are just that, guidelines and not law.

[stephen25000]

If not an abduction (which I believe Scotland Yard have the evidence of) then how did she go missing Stephen?

If you don't believe she was abducted, please provide proof of your theory.

I am not the one relying solely on abduction.


Am I.  >@@(*&)