Author Topic: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence  (Read 151808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1245 on: March 23, 2018, 11:33:48 AM »
We don't know then do we?

We do because both Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the alerts to cadaver... Trying to show they haven't is a tad ridiculous.... Imo

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1246 on: March 23, 2018, 11:35:45 AM »
Incorrect.  We know far more about the original PJ investigation thanks to the copious case files released to the public.  We know next to nothing about the current investigation.  Big difference.

And we know all the evidence used to declare the mccanns arguidos by yje original investigation was not confirmed. We know the original investigation  misunderstood  the forensic evidence

Offline barrier

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1247 on: March 23, 2018, 12:38:22 PM »
How can you possibly be in a position to make any judgement at all about what they may or may not have been looking for?

It wasn't for a live and findable child I'd venture.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1248 on: March 23, 2018, 12:43:34 PM »
We don't know then do we?

No. What I'm trying to say is that it's not accurate to assert that they'd accepted that Eddie did in fact react to "cadaver odour".

Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1249 on: March 23, 2018, 01:00:43 PM »
It wasn't for a live and findable child I'd venture.
So does that mean that the searches were "in pursuit of nothing" or is it possible that looking for a live and findable child was not the purpose of that particular search, but something else entirely which you know nothing about?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Angelo222

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1250 on: March 23, 2018, 01:03:10 PM »
You don't seem to have any knowledge or opinion... It's clear from the recent accounts they have taken the case to the ECHR IMO

Just another delaying tactic by the parents of a missing child who gave b....r all thought to her human rights when they left her alone with her twin toddler siblings night after night.  It's rather hypocritical of them now to attempt to seek human rights imo but then no real surprise if I'm honest. 😏
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1251 on: March 23, 2018, 01:05:43 PM »
I doubt they would care if their children read the book...... The twins would recognise it for the rubbish it is... Imo

If they didn't care then the twins would be free to use the internet, instead their parents breathe down their necks while they surf.

I find that quite amusing.

They do care, according to Mother Hubbard, Emma Loach & Dave Trickey.

SO – What did they say about the book?

SH answers they were worried about what the people would think and, if they did nothing, the people would think the book was telling the truth. They spoke of the effect on the search for Madeleine, the public attention diverted. They didn't want to waste energy on this issue. They spoke about the way to protect the twins from what was in the book.


ID – What are the worries about the twins and what's done to protect them from the internet?

EL says the twins aren't allowed to surf on the Internet; there are no discussions about the book in front of them, though Madeleine issue is discussed a lot.

ID - says the issue here is the effect, on the twins, of the Amaral book and the documentary. In your professional opinion what do you have to say?
DT says he is a specialist in child trauma. He has worked with ten families in cases involving abduction. (note: unfortunately nobody asked what kind of abduction) He saw the twins some weeks after Madeleine disappeared. They were asking where she was. He helped to answer that question. He says it is fundamental for a child to believe the world is safe and secure. Thanks to their age, the twins were protected from the book.
 
He has two preoccupations: 1) anything affecting the parents will have an impact on the children and 2) the twins will have increasing access to books, etc. He adds that it is easy to monitor young children but not teenagers. He is afraid that when the twins eventually read the Amaral book they will question their parents. This could have an enormous impact on them.

Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1252 on: March 23, 2018, 01:06:50 PM »
Just another delaying tactic by the parents of a missing child who gave b....r all thought to her human rights when they left her alone with her twin toddler siblings night after night.  It's rather hypocritical of them now to attempt to seek human rights imo but then no real surprise if I'm honest. 😏
IMO, it's never too late to make try and make amends for past ill-judged actions, perhaps that is the driving force behind all of this for the last 11 years?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Angelo222

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1253 on: March 23, 2018, 01:38:35 PM »
IMO, it's never too late to make try and make amends for past ill-judged actions, perhaps that is the driving force behind all of this for the last 11 years?

Then again it could just be guilt.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1254 on: March 23, 2018, 01:50:57 PM »
Then again it could just be guilt.
Of course, that's what I meant.  Making amends for past ill-judged actions, driving their actions would in large part be a sense of guilt.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 03:42:28 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1255 on: March 23, 2018, 04:07:25 PM »
We do because both Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the alerts to cadaver... Trying to show they haven't is a tad ridiculous.... Imo
Can you actually find one and we will look at what they say please?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1256 on: March 23, 2018, 04:11:41 PM »
No. What I'm trying to say is that it's not accurate to assert that they'd accepted that Eddie did in fact react to "cadaver odour".

Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance.
"Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance"; acceptance by whom?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline jassi

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1257 on: March 23, 2018, 04:24:17 PM »
"Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance"; acceptance by whom?

The process of law is adversarial whereby if you don't contest something, then by default you are accepting it.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1258 on: March 23, 2018, 04:35:08 PM »
"Nor that not defending the point was somehow acceptance"; acceptance by whom?

It was in answer to a previous post of yours:

If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=452880;topic=9213.1170

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1259 on: March 23, 2018, 04:41:22 PM »
It was in answer to a previous post of yours:

If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=452880;topic=9213.1170
It was the judges who called it an accepted fact or whatever the term was.  "Undisputed fact". 
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.