Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

So. If the McCanns told the truth was the nanny telling lies?

"I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone...We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.
 
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm

For a senior citizen you really are very childish IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yet  CB's trivial inconsistencies become major.

such as?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So. If the McCanns told the truth was the nanny telling lies?

"I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone...We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.
 
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm

What is this quote from? 

[G-Unit]

For a senior citizen you really are very childish IMO.

When unable to respond to a point attack the poster. Very mature.

[Vertigo Swirl]

When unable to respond to a point attack the poster. Very mature.

Isn't that what you're doing then?  Calling me "very mature" implying that I am not?  Very mature. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

So. If the McCanns told the truth was the nanny telling lies?

"I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone...We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.
 
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm

It is IMO incredibly childish to assume that EITHER the McCanns were lying OR that the nanny was lying.  It's immature because it shows that the person making the accusation is unable or unwilling to consider any other possibility such as - the nanny was mistaken, or that the Daily Mail (that bastion of accuracy and truth) simply misreported what she actually said.  But no, to a childish mind it must mean someone was lying, no other explanation will do.   

[G-Unit]

It is IMO incredibly childish to assume that EITHER the McCanns were lying OR that the nanny was lying.  It's immature because it shows that the person making the accusation is unable or unwilling to consider any other possibility such as - the nanny was mistaken, or that the Daily Mail (that bastion of accuracy and truth) simply misreported what she actually said.  But no, to a childish mind it must mean someone was lying, no other explanation will do.

You failed to notice, I assume. that I offered other possible explanations in my posts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You failed to notice, I assume. that I offered other possible explanations in my posts.

I quoted the post of yours I commented on.  There was a binary choice between the McCanns and the nanny telling truth or lies.  Point me to the post where you proffer "mistaken" or "misreporting" as an explanation.

[Mr Gray]

A lot of peculiar things were said and we don't know if they were true, or made up for attention or money. Truth in this case is very hard to identify imo.

Just as we don't know how accurate the statements are in the files..

[Mr Gray]

Wolters certainly claims that Madeleine was murdered but has provided nothing to support that claim. I think for the time being we are correct to be sceptical of anything he says.

When an official spokesman for the German investigation makes, such a powerful statement I think it's highly significant.... I can't see him making such a statement without evidence to support it.
I think only those in total denial can't accept that

[Mr Gray]

Wolters certainly claims that Madeleine was murdered but has provided nothing to support that claim. I think for the time being we are correct to be sceptical of anything he says.

It's quite laughable that when Amaral says CB is a patsy sceptics accept it as fact

[Wonderfulspam]

When an official spokesman for the German investigation makes, such a powerful statement I think it's highly significant.... I can't see him making such a statement without evidence to support it.
I think only those in total denial can't accept that

No charges dave.

Just accept it.

[Mr Gray]

No charges dave.

Just accept it.

What I should accept is that those who can't accept that Wolters has the evidence he claims are just plain daft and not bother responding to them

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sceptics are unable to come to terms with the fact that three police forces are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction.  They will never be able to get over it so need to invent all sorts of daft nonsense in order to rationalise it to themselves.  What they refuse to understand is that even if CB is never charged it does not mean that the only other possibility is that the parents dunnit.  The police will still continue to view the disappearance as an abduction right up until the day Gerry and Kate McCann hand themselves in to the police which is a day that will never come as they didn’t do it.

[Wonderfulspam]

What I should accept is that those who can't accept that Wolters has the evidence he claims are just plain daft and not bother responding to them

What you need to accept is that just because Wolters says he has evidence, doesn't mean he actually has.

You've fallen into a trap set for Brueckner.

The level of cope here by supporters is hilarious.

Denial- Brueckner will still be charged one day.

Anger - lashing out at everyone who warned you Wolters didn't actually have anything.

Bargaining- Maybe the paedo photo is inadmissible for some reason.

If you can just make it to the acceptance that you've been sold London Bridge, stage, you might start to feel a bit better.