Author Topic: Innocentman came forward in 2007!  (Read 52141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #135 on: January 25, 2014, 09:42:38 PM »
It's quite a good one, isn't it?

Have had it up my sleeve for a few days waiting for the right moment...

Like a digital IED 8(0(*

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #136 on: January 25, 2014, 09:43:06 PM »
No red is wrong...weve looked at the stats before  most fatal accidents involve fires...stairs ..you are just plain wrong
@)(++(*

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #137 on: January 25, 2014, 09:43:14 PM »
Why ?
Redblossom is right : most circumstantial evidences point towards unintentional killing.
Have you consulted stats about those particular and certainly most awful accidents ?

I actually modified this post, Anne, to read that statistics are meaningless in any individual case. This we have to bear in mind also and take in the scenario as a whole.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #138 on: January 25, 2014, 09:43:19 PM »
You're not trying to understand what happened to Madeleine, but how the abductor managed to make her vanish.
I'm not sure that your mentor would approve that..

It would be simple to make maddie vanish...a car

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #139 on: January 25, 2014, 09:45:11 PM »
@)(++(*

do you have any stats re fatal accidents...can you come up with a realistic scenario..you cant...we've been through it all before

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #140 on: January 25, 2014, 09:45:41 PM »
You're not trying to understand what happened to Madeleine, but how the abductor managed to make her vanish.
I'm not sure that your mentor would approve that..

I think you over-emphasise my connection with my mentor.

Aside from some amateur attempts at violin playing I have nothing in common with the man.

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #141 on: January 25, 2014, 09:49:31 PM »
Direct quote from mr smith..no spin

You underestimate the ability of our fine journalists to twist.

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #142 on: January 25, 2014, 09:50:20 PM »
Like a digital IED 8(0(*

Let's see if it turns out to be explosive....

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #143 on: January 25, 2014, 09:51:33 PM »
You underestimate the ability of our fine journalists to twist.

 I don't...strange no one mentioned this ability re the Sunday Times article ... that was taken verbatim

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #144 on: January 25, 2014, 09:54:16 PM »
I don't...strange no one mentioned this ability re the Sunday Times article ... that was taken verbatim

That was the Times though! 8(0(* Be honest.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #145 on: January 25, 2014, 09:55:14 PM »
Mikaeel's mother had been known to social services for years and Mikaeel had been in care. Furthermore her lifestyle was pretty outlandish for a mother with several children. She was involved in the drugs world in Edinburgh, a recent boyfriend having been shot and killed in connection with a drugs gang. Not the sort of environment a three year old is best placed in.

I can't comment on the Casey Anthony case as I know very little about it.

Casey Anthony was acquitted by a jury of her peers.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #146 on: January 25, 2014, 09:55:24 PM »
That was the Times though! 8(0(* Be honest.

Yes by two journalist who had already lost a major libel case

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #147 on: January 25, 2014, 09:55:45 PM »
Casey Anthony was acquitted by a jury of her peers.

Not on all charges ?{)(**

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #148 on: January 25, 2014, 09:58:23 PM »
As I said further down the quote, we have to remember that very high levels of proof are required before accusing anyone of the types of crimes the McCanns would have to be involved in if they were guilty of anything. And we don't have any such proof.

Abduction obviously requires proof also , but I believe that to accuse the McCanns of killing or concealing their own child, we need more.
Why don't you drop the "accuse", we're no court here !

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Innocentman came forward in 2007!
« Reply #149 on: January 25, 2014, 09:58:57 PM »
It would be simple to make maddie vanish...a car

Yes, the simplest and best way possible.

Ironic that so much time and effort has gone into discussing scenarios that are altogether much less likely - such as Smithman's evening stroll.