Groundhog Day? What if anything can we agree about?

[mercury]

Is what this case discussion is about.

Why is this?

I am referring to subjects that, on some back reading and research of older threads, seem to just come up time and time again because presumably there is no consensus.? threads and oages and pages. It also all tends to seep into any and all discussions all the time. It is tiresome and energy wasting.And a waste of bandwidth.

I am just wondering, is there anything at all people from different sides actually agree about?
Seems like a constant battlefield discussing facts if people come from a biased viewpoint, that the Mccanns are innocent or the Mccanns are not innocent/involved/culpable/bullied/ dont know/wont be bullied either way


Surely facts are facts
Anyone who professes to want only facts, that is not the blinded 100 per cent convinced ones, has to go by the facts, and not invent them or massage or embroider them, agreed?
The bunch I have most difficulty with  is the ones that INSIST the Mccanns are innocent and nothing should be questioned, te most closed minded  and often most abusive of the lot

There's not that many insisting with any vehemence they are guilty...its a case of protesting too much

68

[G-Unit]

Amaral is often accused of ignoring any facts which make his theory unlikely. Some people do exactly the same with any facts which make the abduction theory unlikely. I don't see how any agreement is possible unless arguments rest on facts rather than speculation and opinion.

[Alfred R Jones]

The problem is "sceptics" are prepared to believe the most unlikely of things about the McCanns in order to make their theories work - [ moderated ]

[stephen25000]

The problem is "sceptics" are prepared to believe the most unlikely of things about the McCanns in order to make their theories work - [ moderated ]

Where has this 'hit and abuse' come from 

Likewise, without a shred of evidence to support it, you and your fellow believers devoutly spout abduction.

[Alfred R Jones]

Do you know what happened to  Madeleine ?

And it's Groundhog Day once again.

[stephen25000]

And it's Groundhog Day once again.

Really.

Now what do we hear day after day from the mccann supporters ?

Shall I give you a clue ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Really.

Now what do we hear day after day from the mccann supporters ?

Shall I give you a clue ?

What is the point of this Stephen?

[mercury]

Amaral is often accused of ignoring any facts which make his theory unlikely. Some people do exactly the same with any facts which make the abduction theory unlikely. I don't see how any agreement is possible unless arguments rest on facts rather than speculation and opinion.

Agree there. it has not passed my attention that many threads are killed by "unanswered" questions, just left hanging.

[mercury]

The problem is "sceptics" are prepared to believe the most unlikely of things about the McCanns in order to make their theories work - [ moderated ]

Now now Alfred, slinging the blame onto  one "side". This does not address the problem I brought up about discussions on this forum (mainly to do with addressing facts)

[G-Unit]

The problem is "sceptics" are prepared to believe the most unlikely of things about the McCanns in order to make their theories work - [ moderated ]

It's not a case of believing unlikely things, it's a case of being open minded. All kinds of people have done any number of terrible things, so effective policemen remember the ABC method. Assume nothing, believe no-one, check everything. Assuming that someone is innocent is a fundamental mistake.

Given the evidence that the twins slept unnaturally deeply on 3rd May, for example, it would be foolish to exclude the possibility that they were given something to make them sleep so deeply. The next question is who had the  means, the opportunity and a motive to do it? The means would have to be intravenous because other methods are uncertain and complicated, so probably something in food or drink. The opportunities we know about are high tea and the snack given to all three children before bed. High tea would have to be investigated as to opportunity; ie who cooked, served, was it possible to know which children got which food and drink. The motives are; abduction later or a trouble-free dinner.

[xtina]

the one clear fact ...that i would assume everyone would agree on ...is the mccs themselves left maddie to her fate ....

whatever the reason ...children [babies] should not be left alone ...

especially in a foreign country...maddie has gone at the hands of the mccs ...

either way you look at it.

[mercury]

the one clear fact ...that i would assume everyone would agree on ...is the mccs themselves left maddie to her fate ....

whatever the reason ...children [babies] should not be left alone ...

especially in a foreign country...maddie has gone at the hands of the mccs ...

either way you look at it.

Even that is something people here argue about, ie it was perfectly OK to do so, million over the years did it, it does not mean the kids were unattended, it was Ok as they were sleeping, if the child woke up the parents will have seen and heard her on the balcony!! (because you know, their eyes were glued on it all evening) and that Nspcc guidelines about leaving babies and children alone are a shackle for parents (one poster called their guidelines lethal! - talk about making white mean black)

 



PS G-Unit, I'd never heard of the ABC method. Thanks!

[John]

the one clear fact ...that i would assume everyone would agree on ...is the mccs themselves left maddie to her fate ....

whatever the reason ...children [babies] should not be left alone ...

especially in a foreign country...maddie has gone at the hands of the mccs ...

either way you look at it.

They have accepted that they did wrong and made a huge judgement error.  Young children should never be left alone for any length of time under any circumstances.

www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone/

[pathfinder73]

It's not a case of believing unlikely things, it's a case of being open minded. All kinds of people have done any number of terrible things, so effective policemen remember the ABC method. Assume nothing, believe no-one, check everything. Assuming that someone is innocent is a fundamental mistake.

Given the evidence that the twins slept unnaturally deeply on 3rd May, for example, it would be foolish to exclude the possibility that they were given something to make them sleep so deeply. The next question is who had the  means, the opportunity and a motive to do it? The means would have to be intravenous because other methods are uncertain and complicated, so probably something in food or drink. The opportunities we know about are high tea and the snack given to all three children before bed. High tea would have to be investigated as to opportunity; ie who cooked, served, was it possible to know which children got which food and drink. The motives are; abduction later or a trouble-free dinner.

Believing no-one is the smart way not like Peggy who believes they are all honest. How do you know they are honest? You start by believing nobody is and work from there. If things fit with other statements or facts then yes they are telling the truth but when things don't then you will find the leads that need further investigating e.g. the many discrepancies between Kate & DP.

[G-Unit]

Even that is something people here argue about, ie it was perfectly OK to do so, million over the years did it, it does not mean the kids were unattended, it was Ok as they were sleeping, if the child woke up the parents will have seen and heard her on the balcony!! (because you know, their eyes were glued on it all evening) and that Nspcc guidelines about leaving babies and children alone are a shackle for parents (one poster called their guidelines lethal! - talk about making white mean black)

 



PS G-Unit, I'd never heard of the ABC method. Thanks!

Neither had I until I was watching one of those police programmes and one of them mentioned it. Makes perfect sense, and is my stance exactly.