Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.

[Lace]

Because some people really don't like the McCanns very much at all & they believe that the pair are as guilty as hell, perhaps.

I reckon it's because of that.

Listen to yourself.   BELIEVE THAT THE PAIR ARE AS GUILTY AS HELL,    well in this country it is innocent until proven guilty.   SY have said they are not suspects in the investigation.

No one has the right to throw continual abuse at a family just because they BELIEVE they are guilty,  it is how things were done in the dark ages.

[jassi]

Don't exaggerate, dislike is not hatred

[faithlilly]

There's just no accounting for blind, irrational hatred.

Not blind hatred ferryman, just cool, clear logic.

[Alfred R Jones]

Do you have any idea what Andy Redwood is thinking? I don't think so.

I do actually - he has told us he is investigating a stranger abduction and that is why the focus of attention has been on various PT nationals who were made arguidos (ie: persons of interest) earlier in the year.   

[ferryman]

Not blind hatred ferryman, just cool, clear logic.

Here's one to test your cool, clear logic, Faith

After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area. 

Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie

I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).

The penultimate sentence and paragraph of Mark Harrison's third and final report.

Who was lying?

Harrison or Amaral?

[Alfred R Jones]

Don't exaggerate, dislike is not hatred

If someone dislikes someone so much that they spend a part of each day, every day, for seven years reminding the world what they dislike about someone and why, is that still just common or garden dislike in your view, or perhaps something a bit more serious?

[Benice]

Not blind hatred ferryman, just cool, clear logic.

IMO 'cool clear logic' is the last thing that many sceptics display.   Quite the opposite in fact.

What is 'logical' about admiring and looking up to a corrupt ex policeman with a criminal conviction for lying to the court in an attempt to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman?  And why would anyone admire a proven adulterer who defrauded his own brother?

That isn't logic - it's the bizarre ability of so many sceptics to convince themselves that  'black is actually white',  time after time,  because all  the evidence shows that logically speaking Amaral is the last person in the world to trust, admire or believe - on any level.

That's self-delusion - not logic.




 

[Mr Gray]

If someone dislikes someone so much that they spend a part of each day, every day, for seven years reminding the world what they dislike about someone and why, is that still just common or garden dislike in your view, or perhaps something a bit more serious?

obsession comes to mind

[Alfred R Jones]

IMO 'cool clear logic' is the last thing that many sceptics display.   Quite the opposite in fact.

What is 'logical' about admiring and looking up to a corrupt ex policeman with a criminal conviction for lying to the court in an attempt to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman?  And why would anyone admire a proven adulterer who defrauded his own brother?

That isn't logic - it's the bizarre ability of so many sceptics to convince themselves that  'black is actually white',  time after time,  because all  the evidence shows that logically speaking Amaral is the last person in the world to trust, admire or believe - on any level.

That's self-delusion - not logic.

One might add - what is logical about assuming that the compilers of the troll dossier are about to be called to be cross-questioned about the death of Brenda Leyland as stated in the opening post of this thread?  It's completely, absurdly illogical but Faithlilly thought the OP was sufficiently interesting and important to post here!  Cool, clear logic my Aunt Fanny.

[sadie]

Back on Brenda Layland

This guy says a lot of sense

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/


The people who spread the early disinformation and black propaganda about The Mccanns for others (suckers tbh) to libellously spread, will vanish and leave the suckers to wallow. 


Already they are wiping stuff wholesale from the internet. 


They will look after themselves


The suckers will pick up the punishments.  Sorry, but the signs are there that it is true.

[stephen25000]

Back on Brenda Layland

This guy says a lot of sense

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/


The people who spread the early disinformation and black propaganda about The Mccanns for others (suckers tbh) to libellously spread, will vanish and leave the suckers to wallow. 


Already they are wiping stuff wholesale from the internet. 


They will look after themselves


The suckers will pick up the punishments.  Sorry, but the signs are there that it is true.

It is the compilers of the dossier and the assorted trolls associated with that who need to watch out sadie.

Their activities led to Sky News questioning a woman who had not been charged with any crime or investigated for one.

[Jean-Pierre]

It is the compilers of the dossier and the assorted trolls associated with that who need to watch out sadie.

Their activities led to Sky News questioning a woman who had not been charged with any crime or investigated for one.

Really, Stephen.

Could you just point me to the law which prohibits a journalist asking questions?

And also of the "offence" that may have been committed by the compilers of the dossier?

That will be helpful in setting the frame of reference for further debate on the issue. 

[Mr Gray]

Oh Dave, so predictable in your unadulterated love of all things McCann.

The case starts and rests with them.

Its a celestial teapot argument which is a sign that you have lost the argument..

[stephen25000]

Really, Stephen.

Could you just point me to the law which prohibits a journalist asking questions?

And also of the "offence" that may have been committed by the compilers of the dossier?

That will be helpful in setting the frame of reference for further debate on the issue.

Let's see what happens at the inquest.

The journalist in this case went to Brenda Leyland on the basis of a lie, I.e. the police were investigating her.

They weren't of course.

Now I'lll throw this in your court.

What would you do if Sky News had harassed your mother and subsequently she had died  after considerable intrusion and public identification ?
 
and who gave the dossier writers the authority to do what they did ?

It  certainly wasn't altruism as they are die hard McCann backers.

[stephen25000]

Its a celestial teapot argument which is a sign that you have lost the argument..

I've lost no argument Dave.

However, I wish you a safe journey between the orbits of Earth and Mars.