The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns

[C.Edwards]

You simply do not understand simple logic do you.
You make the presumption always of the guilt of the McCanns.
But the two people who actually DO KNOW (even better than the Judge) whether they were involved or not are in fact the McCanns.

Logically then if they KNOW that they are not involved then they can know that an abduction occurred or do you think Madeleine is still wandering the streets of PDL?

There is nothing irrational as you absurdly claim about a couple stating what they know. It is simply your presumption that they are lying which is not allowing you to see the illogicality of your own statements.

Your shouty rants make no difference. Stay calm.

If your evidence for an abduction is that the two people who stand to lose most if it's ever proven if wasn't an abduction say it was an abduction (but then mysteriously never tell us why they know!) then...

Well alrighty then. Makes perfect sense to me 

[gilet]

Your shouty rants make no difference. Stay calm.

If your evidence for an abduction is that the two people who stand to lose most if it's ever proven if wasn't an abduction say it was an abduction (but then mysteriously never tell us why they know!) then...

Well alrighty then. Makes perfect sense to me 

Such petulance on your part! Calling my post a "shouty rant" because I highlight three vital words. Oooo Matron!

As for the remaining content of your post. Once again you totally miss the point.

I am not offering evidence at all. I am merely explaining why in the eyes of the McCanns (if innocent of the claims Amaral makes about them without evidence to back those claims) then they are in the perfect position to KNOW themselves that the most likely scenario was an abduction. It is not a matter of evidence, it is simply a matter of knowledge on their part. The fact you cannot grasp this simple logic is of not great concern either to me or I suspect to the McCanns.

[C.Edwards]

Such petulance on your part! Calling my post a "shouty rant" because I highlight three vital words. Oooo Matron!

As for the remaining content of your post. Once again you totally miss the point.

I am not offering evidence at all. I am merely explaining why in the eyes of the McCanns (if innocent of the claims Amaral makes about them without evidence to back those claims) then they are in the perfect position to KNOW themselves that the most likely scenario was an abduction. It is not a matter of evidence, it is simply a matter of knowledge on their part. The fact you cannot grasp this simple logic is of not great concern either to me or I suspect to the McCanns.

And what you are failing to grasp, dear bodywarmer, is that the McCanns would also know if they were guilty of nefarious deeds. There is still no resolution. They are still, collectively, Schroedinger's cat.

[C.Edwards]

But much is, isn't it?

I wouldn't like to say without more information. Show me some and I'll let you know.

[gilet]

I wouldn't like to say without more information. Show me some and I'll let you know.

Asking me to post/repost libel now? No chance. I know that is illegal.

[ferryman]

Such petulance on your part! Calling my post a "shouty rant" because I highlight three vital words. Oooo Matron!

As for the remaining content of your post. Once again you totally miss the point.

I am not offering evidence at all. I am merely explaining why in the eyes of the McCanns (if innocent of the claims Amaral makes about them without evidence to back those claims) then they are in the perfect position to KNOW themselves that the most likely scenario was an abduction. It is not a matter of evidence, it is simply a matter of knowledge on their part. The fact you cannot grasp this simple logic is of not great concern either to me or I suspect to the McCanns.

No matter the context, when one person accuses, the person/people accused will know beyond doubt whether he/she/they is/are innocent.

And if the accused is/are innocent, you would expect the reaction to be one of combative opposition to the accusation, especially if the ultimate cost of caving in is all loss of hope for a lost. loved and cherished child.

[C.Edwards]

Asking me to post/repost libel now? No chance. I know that is illegal.

Oh do behave.  If you simply quote the section concerned it's clear to all that you are quoting it as an example of what you feel is libel.  Otherwise you're just making a lot of noise and failing to demonstrate your point.  If there are things that you feel are libellous, you should be highlighting them and/or bringing them to the attention of the mods.

[gilet]

Oh do behave.  If you simply quote the section concerned it's clear to all that you are quoting it as an example of what you feel is libel.  Otherwise you're just making a lot of noise and failing to demonstrate your point.  If there are things that you feel are libellous, you should be highlighting them and/or bringing them to the attention of the mods.

You are correct. And that is the way I have dealt with the issues. I have pointed out such posts to them in the past.

I will not be bothering to point them out to you though as even you have admitted that is not the proper thing to do.

I do find it quite funny that you are pretending that such posts don't exist though.

[stephen25000]

I notice the regularity of those claiming libel against the Mccanns, but often  they themselves are libeling others.

 8-)(--)

[gilet]

I notice the regularity of those claiming libel against the Mccanns, but often  they themselves are libeling others.

 8-)(--)

I advise you to report any libel by anyone to the moderators. I doubt you will find any from me though.

[C.Edwards]

I advise you to report any libel by anyone to the moderators. I doubt you will find any from me though.

The only thing that's struck me as a bit much recently is DCI's signature.  I haven't seen anything on here in days that has made me think, oh my, that's libellous to the McCanns but then that's because I have a different perspective.  I'm not trying to entrap you - I'm happy to join you in condemning anything truly libellous of the mccanns.

[John]

To clarify, the forum takes great care and indeed  pride in not allowing libellous posts to stand when they are posted.  This applies irrespective of who they relate to.  Posts suggesting otherwise will always be removed as they are considered to be nothing more than mischief making.

[Chinagirl]

C. Edwards:  The McCanns are liars - that's been evidenced.

Please supply this evidence, otherwise you have made a libellous claim.

[Redblossom]

C. Edwards:  The McCanns are liars - that's been evidenced.

Please supply this evidence, otherwise you have made a libellous claim.

Do keep up

[C.Edwards]

C. Edwards:  The McCanns are liars - that's been evidenced.

Please supply this evidence, otherwise you have made a libellous claim.

Change the record Chinagirl. Let them come after me if they want to try and pursue that one!

Start off here: http://aninspectorcallsyou.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/libel-diarygerry-mccann-as-witness-of.html and here: http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2010/01/kate-and-gerry-mccann-liars.html and here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3177-what-s-in-a-name and here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2440-madeleine-accounts-of-the-truth-dr-martin-roberts and here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2984-uneasy-lies-the-head and here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1969-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-by-dr-martin-roberts...

See I've got bored with this now. It's too easy.

The whole setting out of the libel claim is a lie - you can see with your own eyes from the Amsterdam pictures if nothing else that they're a long way from the emotional ruined wrecks they claim to be.