Journalist Sonia Poulton promises "The untold story of Madeleine McCann".

[stephen25000]

Quite right, Lace.

From what I can gather, by broadcasting what she has, Poulton has already libelled Kate, in what, 3 or 4 minutes of broadcast film?

Well let's see the mccanns take her to court.

I would like to see the mccanns on the stand, under oath.

[carlymichelle]

Well let's see the mccanns take her to court.

I would like to see the mccanns on the stand, under oath.

its a shame society   is so absorbed now that if someone says something they dont like they sue them dont  you  think??

[stephen25000]

its a shame society   is so absorbed now that if someone says something they dont like they sue them dont  you  think??

and they blame everyone else for what they did wrong.

[Mr Gray]

Well let's see the mccanns take her to court.

I would like to see the mccanns on the stand, under oath.

I don't think that would be any sort of  problem for them......

[ferryman]

its a shame society   is so absorbed now that if someone says something they dont like they sue them dont  you  think??

So if someone accused you of boiling babies alive in midnight Satanic rituals and it wasn't true, you would think it an imposition of society that you should be allowed to sue the person who made the false claim?

Is that right?

[stephen25000]

I don't think that would be any sort of  problem for them......

Really.


 

[stephen25000]

So if someone accused you of boiling babies alive in midnight Satanic rituals and it wasn't true, you would think it an imposition of society that you should be allowed to sue the person who made the false claim?

Is that right?

Another standard mccann supporter tactic.

Bring up a totally irrelevant comparison.


Never seen that before.   %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

[Lace]

Another standard mccann supporter tactic.

Bring up a totally irrelevant comparison.


Never seen that before.   %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

Oh come off it Stephen if someone wrote a book accusing you of something you hadn't done you would be straight to a solicitor.    You complain to admin about things people say to you on this forum let alone writing a book saying what Amaral did.

Look at the outrage of some being called trolls,  oh it's absolutely disgraceful,  do you think they would let a book circulate saying that they had done things they hadn't,  no I don't think so.

[stephen25000]

Oh come off it Stephen if someone wrote a book accusing you of something you hadn't done you would be straight to a solicitor.    You complain to admin about things people say to you on this forum let alone writing a book saying what Amaral did.

Look at the outrage of some being called trolls,  oh it's absolutely disgraceful,  do you think they would let a book circulate saying that they had done things they hadn't,  no I don't think so.

Again, you forget to mention that in this case, the crime is undetermined.

..and let's face it, do potential guilty parties always tell the truth ?

[Benice]

and do you naively believe police all around the world don't adopt similar tactics when they think they have found the person or persons responsible for a crime ?

IMO a guilty person who knew that it was not impossible that DNA evidence could be found at the site where they had placed a dead body would realise the game was over once confronted with the fact that 100% DNA evidence had indeed been found at that site.   The McCanns were not stupid and totally understood that.  If they were guilty they would know they had been caught bang to rights and there was no point in prolonging things.  I'm sure you will agree Stephen that the whole idea behind the PJ's tactic of lying to the McCanns about the DNA was to bring about that very situation

However, the fact that when confronted with 100% DNA match the McCanns did not give up and confess or even come close to a confession in the face of such indisputable evidence  -  should have told the PJ they were barking up the wrong tree.

All that lie succeeded in doing was to make the McCanns think that the PJ had evidence that their beloved daughter was dead and to react as any innocent parent of a missing child would on hearing such terrible news.   

[stephen25000]

IMO a guilty person who knew that it was not impossible that DNA evidence could be found at the site where they had placed a dead body would realise the game was over once confronted with the fact that 100% DNA evidence had indeed been found at that site.   The McCanns were not stupid and totally understood that.  If they were guilty they would know they had been caught bang to rights and there was no point in prolonging things.  I'm sure you will agree Stephen that the whole idea behind the PJ's tactic of lying to the McCanns about the DNA was to bring about that very situation

However, the fact that when confronted with 100% DNA match the McCanns did not give up and confess or even come close to a confession in the face of such indisputable evidence  -  should have told the PJ they were barking up the wrong tree.

All that lie succeeded in doing was to make the McCanns think that the PJ had evidence that their beloved daughter was dead and to react as any innocent parent of a missing child would on hearing such terrible news.

I don't agree with you.

and you are on here defending the mccanns.

[pathfinder73]

IMO a guilty person who knew that it was not impossible that DNA evidence could be found at the site where they had placed a dead body would realise the game was over once confronted with the fact that 100% DNA evidence had indeed been found at that site.   The McCanns were not stupid and totally understood that.  If they were guilty they would know they had been caught bang to rights and there was no point in prolonging things.  I'm sure you will agree Stephen that the whole idea behind the PJ's tactic of lying to the McCanns about the DNA was to bring about that very situation

However, the fact that when confronted with 100% DNA match the McCanns did not give up and confess or even come close to a confession in the face of such indisputable evidence  -  should have told the PJ they were barking up the wrong tree.

All that lie succeeded in doing was to make the McCanns think that the PJ had evidence that their beloved daughter was dead and to react as any innocent parent of a missing child would on hearing such terrible news.

WHY IS ADRIAN PROUT IN PRISON FOR A CRIME HE DID NOT COMMIT! Adrian was convicted on the 5th Feb 2010 to 18 years in prison. How did the JURY find ADRIAN GUILTY after the JUDGE ASKED the prosecution, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, it is usually in front of me. NO EVIDENCE, NO BODY, NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE! His Wife Kate Prout dissappered on the 5th November 2007, she is still a missing person! ADRIAN was arrested and then remained on bail for 15 months then released without charge, one month later he was arrested for KATE'S murder. He was on remand in Prison for one month until granted bail, from then on he spent his time with his family. NOW DUE TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ADRIAN CAN NO LONGER SPEND TIME WITH THE PEOPLE HE LOVES! Please sign this petition to help release Adrian Prout Thank you Debbie

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/innocence-for-adrian-prout/

[Benice]

I don't agree with you.

and you are on here defending the mccanns.

Erm no - actuallly I was discussing the point you raised about the tactics employed by police forces when questioning someone they believed to be guilty.

If you don't agree that the tactics employed by the PJ (i.e. lying about the 100% DNA evidence)  was decided upon in the belief that it could well elicit confessions - then what IYO was their purpose in deciding to lie to the McCanns?   Personally I can't think of any other reason than the one I've given - but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

[pathfinder73]

Erm no - actuallly I was discussing the point you raised about the tactics employed by police forces when questioning someone they believed to be guilty.

If you don't agree that the tactics employed by the PJ (i.e. lying about the 100% DNA evidence)  was decided upon in the belief that it could well elicit confessions - then what IYO was their purpose in deciding to lie to the McCanns?   Personally I can't think of any other reason than the one I've given - but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Show me the body and prove it. Who was supposed to say that to the PJ?

[Benice]

Show me the body and prove it. Who was supposed to say that to the PJ?

What has that got to do with tactics (which involve lying to suspects) employed by the police when questioning people who they have decided are guilty of a crime.