The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns

[AnneGuedes]

I suspect that if Amaral wins the McCanns, or more specifically the fund, will have little money left in it to sue anyone.

A poster, a certain KMC, warned me, as being on top of the list, to be careful if I valued my home !
That sounds prehistoric times, doesn't it ?

[ferryman]

The Lindbergh case haunted my infancy, I remember, in a house by the sea, looking at a certain window with beating, tapping, rapping shutters and imagining a shadow suddenly hiding the moonlight.. Now it's back because actually the Lindbergh baby wasn't abducted !

But surely you see how immensely flawed that line of reasoning is.

You are suggesting that because, on one occasion, a claimed abduction turned out to be bogus, every other occasion has to be like it.

Why?

[jassi]

But surely you see how immensely flawed that line of reasoning is.

You are suggesting that because, on one occasion, a claimed abduction turned out to be bogus, every other occasion has to be like it.

Why?

The Sharron Matthews case was also bogus, of course.

[faithlilly]

A poster, a certain KMC, warned me, as being on top of the list, to be careful if I valued my home !
That sounds prehistoric times, doesn't it ?

I am so glad you continue to resist this type of blatant intimidation Anne.

[Lyall]

The Lindbergh case haunted my infancy, I remember, in a house by the sea, looking at a certain window with beating, tapping, rapping shutters and imagining a shadow suddenly hiding the moonlight.. Now it's back because actually the Lindbergh baby wasn't abducted !

You may be right there too.

[AnneGuedes]

But surely you see how immensely flawed that line of reasoning is.

You are suggesting that because, on one occasion, a claimed abduction turned out to be bogus, every other occasion has to be like it.

Why?

I'm suggesting nothing, Ferryman. I only know of 3 famous abductions from bed, the first one being the Lindbergh baby, which finally was no abduction. The second one is the Kent toddler, which rather rapidly, in spite of seemingly jemmied shutters and window, appeared not to  be. What about the third ?

[Aiofe]

Well said. Look at the JFK assassination - it's the 50th anniversary this month and people still discuss it all over the internet.

With a criminal in jail and no other identified targets. This is different. Here we have personal targetting of two private people. The McAlpine case shows that this can be quickly stopped.

[Aiofe]

I've no idea what they're up to, I just know after Crimewatch there's a lot more members now in the groups run by the ringleaders we all know. A heck of a lot more.

It happens every time the publicity ramps up. That is the risk. The trick of the McAlpine Case is that it strikes at the membership and their ability to defame harass bully and troll.

[pathfinder73]

With a criminal in jail and no other identified targets. This is different. Here we have personal targetting of two private people. The McAlpine case shows that this can be quickly stopped.

I'm not targeting the McCann's - I don't know them. I'm just investigating the files and trying to search for the Truth for Madeleine. If evidence or suspicions goes against them - it's not my fault - it's their in the files.

[Aiofe]

I suspect that if Amaral wins the McCanns, or more specifically the fund, will have little money left in it to sue anyone.


With pro bono and possibly CFA from CR there is little cost. A few letters before action requiring the fora to hand over the membership lists. The information I stupidly posted yesterday was extracted from the SQL database of the 3A's server- the courts would hand that to CR giving IPs and email addresses. Then all that is required is to choose the twenty most prolific posters and send libe claims that are meant to sustain and sens LBA with a £50 get out to the rest. CR would make its money back from the £50 settlers- it has all been discussed.

[AnneGuedes]

The Sharron Matthews case was also bogus, of course.

I was somehow sorry for these people. They thought it was enough to appear on TV  cuddling a teddy bear..

[Aiofe]

I'm not targeting the McCann's - I don't know them. I'm just investigating the files and trying to search for the Truth for Madeleine. If evidence or suspicions goes against them - it's not my fault - it's their in the files.

If at any time you say anything mildly defamatory about the McCanns, you could be one of the £50 pounders.

[Lyall]

If at any time you say anything mildly defamatory about the McCanns, you could be one of the £50 pounders.

So why didn't they bother so far?

[Aiofe]

So why didn't they bother so far?

Before the McAlpine case the feeling was that Twitter was too big and the fora were to small to bother about.

McAlpine showed a way to do it for little outlay.

[AnneGuedes]

I'm not targeting the McCann's - I don't know them. I'm just investigating the files and trying to search for the Truth for Madeleine. If evidence or suspicions goes against them - it's not my fault - it's their in the files.

Yes the files and the very many audio interviews and documentaries are the best of shields, if malice isn't at stake however. But how could it ? What people want is just the truth, nothing more.