UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on January 09, 2014, 07:05:25 PM
-
Many times on this forum we have seen the words evidence and speculation used to explain the same event such is the difference in the individuals perception. There have been claims that there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted and counter claims that there is no such evidence and what it amounts to is merely speculation. By the same token there have been claims that Gerry was seen carrying a child down near the beach at 10pm yet over time this has been shown to have been untrue since the evidence and indeed the proof places him at the tapas restaurant at that time. What starts out in many cases as evidence of one thing often ends up being evidence of another.
It was claimed by davel that most of the forum is based on speculation but I corrected him by stating that although speculation is part and parcel of many discussions, there has to be a sizeable element of evidence contained within the debate for it to be considered legit. A forum based on truth and justice therefore cannot afford itself the luxury of allowing debates to take place merely on the basis of speculation.
You could say one mans truth is another mans speculation.
-
Many times on this forum we have seen the words evidence and speculation used to explain the same event such is the difference in the individuals perception. There have been claims that there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted and counter claims that there is no such evidence and what it amounts to is merely speculation. By the same token there have been claims that Gerry was seen carrying a child down near the beach at 10pm yet over time this has been shown to have been untrue since the evidence and indeed the proof places him at the tapas restaurant at that time. What starts out in many cases as evidence of one thing often ends up being evidence of another.
It was claimed by davel that most of the forum is based on speculation but I corrected him by stating that although speculation is part and parcel of many discussions, there has to be a sizeable element of evidence contained within the debate for it to be considered legit. A forum based on truth and justice therefore cannot afford itself the luxury of allowing debates to take place merely on the basis of speculation.
You could say one mans truth is another mans speculation.
But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence
-
Quote from: John on Today at 07:05:25 PM
In you opinion. Fortunately the truth is somewhat different as this forum is based on evidence and facts with an acceptable level of speculation thrown in where appropriate.
This forum has never tolerated lies or liars.
Thanks for that clarification, John. Does this also apply to certain posters who haven't backed 99% of any assertions (as opposed to opinion) on here so far?
-
But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence
Is that not what speculation is ?
-
Where's the evidence John for a poster to state yesterday that Maddie died from a broken neck and her body was thrown in a bin.
Well excuse me for purporting a theory,
Where is the evidence of abduction, why is it ok for people to promote that theory without any evidence?
-
But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence
Furthermore., why is it acceptable to point the finger at burglars, paedos, gypsies & tractor drivers without a jot of evidence against them.
I call that blatant hypocrisy.
-
Well excuse me for purporting a theory,
Where is the evidence of abduction, why is it ok for people to promote that theory without any evidence?
exactly what I was about to post, WS. And constantly refer to "the abductor" as if it were a proved fact
-
exactly what I was about to post, WS. And constantly refer to "the abductor" as if it were a proved fact
well I object to his phrase "chucked her in the bin"..you don't , so that says a lot about you.
-
exactly what I was about to post, WS. And constantly refer to "the abductor" as if it were a proved fact
Precisely CPN.
The supporters of the Mccanns consistently put forward the abduction as a fact, it isn't.
Then they invite other theories which they want to be put forward, as they may be considered libelous, even though they are theories, merely to attack the poster.
Allegedly of course.
-
You don't half make assumptions - and like to add insults. That phrase is not one I like, actually, or would use myself. That does not detract from the point I made.
yes it does..you supported the post ..disgraceful
-
I've never said it was a fact....again you show your poor attention to detail.. I cannot believe you studied a science
Several actually.
Wrong on that one too.
Your pretense at not supporting the abduction has worn thin along time ago.
-
yes it does..you supported the post ..disgraceful
I supported the idea behind the post, not the language. Surely you can see the difference? If not well....
-
I supported the idea behind the post, not the language. Surely you can see the difference? If not well....
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Another way of saying it!
-
I wasn't going to sentence them.
I have my own opinions, that is all. And as we are often reminded in here, none of us will make any difference to anything anyway so I really don't see a problem myself.
you can say what you like afaiac...as I hope can I... John directed a post towards me saying that this forum is based on evidence...with an acceptable level of speculation... I suppose it depends on who decides what acceptable is
-
you can say what you like afaiac...as I hope can I... John directed a post towards me saying that this forum is based on evidence...with an acceptable level of speculation... I suppose it depends on who decides what acceptable is
So two or three abductors being either paedos or burglars, getaway cars, detailed surveillance operations, drugging Madeleine, notes in reception, practice runs for abduction & a spare key etc etc is all an acceptable level of speculation,
But a quick and simple disposal of body hypothesis is not?
-
you can say what you like afaiac...as I hope can I... John directed a post towards me saying that this forum is based on evidence...with an acceptable level of speculation... I suppose it depends on who decides what acceptable is
Acceptable in which terms, the quantity of speculation or the content of ?
-
So two or three abductors being either paedos or burglars, getaway cars, detailed surveillance operations, drugging Madeleine, notes in reception, practice runs for abduction & a spare key etc etc is all an acceptable level of speculation,
But a quick and simple disposal of body hypothesis is not?
its up to John..it's his forum
-
Acceptable in which terms, the quantity of speculation or the content of ?
probably the level...and keeping to the laws of libel. The internet is in its infancy and there is a lot of libel happening...hopefully this will eventually be sorted
-
Someone made a good point there. Is it acceptable for SY or the Press to speculate about burglars? Or was it acceptable for Jerry Lawton's newspapers to speculate about Sr Monteiro? Can Crimewatch speculate on suspects?
-
Someone made a good point there. Is it acceptable for SY or the Press to speculate about burglars? Or was it acceptable for Jerry Lawton's newspapers to speculate about Sr Monteiro? Can Crimewatch speculate on suspects?
I don't think that Monteiro should have been named in the press for the sake of his family as it's seems to be have been a general enquiry that got blown out of proportion. And where did the UK papers get the name from and how?
But then neither do I see why there should be insuations of lying concerning named individuals on here or elsewhere concerning entering 5A to check on children. For example.
-
Someone made a good point there. Is it acceptable for SY or the Press to speculate about burglars? Or was it acceptable for Jerry Lawton's newspapers to speculate about Sr Monteiro? Can Crimewatch speculate on suspects?
Daily Star about Monteiro,
"The suspect could have taken the child to commit a sex crime before killing her."
So it's ok for that to be printed about him via mass media.
But death to anyone who, on an internet forum with roughly 300 members, says they suspect the McCanns could have disposed of her body.
-
I don't think that Monteiro should have been named in the press for the sake of his family as it's seems to be have been a general enquiry that got blown out of proportion. And where did the UK papers get the name from and how?
But then neither do I see why there should be insuations of lying concerning named individuals on here or elsewhere concerning entering 5A to check on children. For example.
I understand it was the Portuguese Press who first released his name after the stories by his widow appeared. I do remember researching it at the time but couldn't find it in the British Press.
-
I understand it was the Portuguese Press who first released his name after the stories by his widow appeared. I do remember researching it at the time but couldn't find it in the British Press.
Others may remember better than I do. My recollection is that the Portuguese press provided all the details except his name. The UK press provided his name in their largely scribbed versions.
There's a reason for that. Defaming the dead is a criminal offence in Portugal but not in the UK.
-
This is a new thread constructed using earlier off topic posts. Please read the OP before commenting. TY
-
But posters are continually allowed to post speculation without evidence
If you want to prohibit 'speculation without evidence' then you must accept that any discussion about abduction would be off limits
-
If you want to prohibit 'speculation without evidence' then you must accept that any discussion about abduction would be off limits
+1
-
If you want to prohibit 'speculation without evidence' then you must accept that any discussion about abduction would be off limits
As you must accept that any 'speculation without evidence' that all/ any of the tapas group are liars would be off limits
Also, that any 'speculation without evidence' that Kate and Gerry are involved in any way would also be off limits. Additionally that is libellous.
Nigh night
-
As you must accept that any 'speculation without evidence' that all/ any of the tapas group are liars would be off limits
Also, that any 'speculation without evidence' that Kate and Gerry are involved in any way would also be off limits. Additionally that is libellous.
Nigh night
The bullying libel threats are tiresome, give them a rest....the circumstantial evidence of a non abduction outweighs that of an abduction, simple as! Oh, but JMO!
-
As you must accept that any 'speculation without evidence' that all/ any of the tapas group are liars would be off limits
Also, that any 'speculation without evidence' that Kate and Gerry are involved in any way would also be off limits. Additionally that is libellous.
Nigh night
Well, I think if a degree of 'speculation' is allowed, provided there is evidence to support it, then discussion of the possibility that the missing child died in the apartment is permissable given the cadaver dog's alerts there ... and the involvement of the McCanns is almost inevitable in that regard
Concerning the theory of abduction, if we are limiting speculation to evidence based discussion, then I suppose we are left with the man the Smith family saw carrying a child that night
There really is nothing else at this point ... even Scotland Yard acknowledge as much
-
Furthermore., why is it acceptable to point the finger at burglars, paedos, gypsies & tractor drivers without a jot of evidence against them.
I call that blatant hypocrisy.
What is wrong with this? I mean pointing finger at criminals if they already have a criminal record and they were around PDL at the time?
-
Perhaps it would be beneficial to have a sticky thread with all the evidence......which is?
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.
This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
...........................................
So what is the evidence for abduction?
What is the evidence for death?
-
Evidence ends with the McCanns being innocent and speculation takes over when you accuse them of a crime
-
Evidence ends with the McCanns being innocent and speculation takes over when you accuse them of a crime
What is the evidence of the Mccanns innocence?
-
What is the evidence of the Mccanns innocence?
in any democracy there doesn't have to be evidence of innocence..it is presumed..as it should be..i'm sorry Cariad but that's a pathetic post and is typical of the way the mccanns are grossly unfairly treated
-
in any democracy there doesn't have to be evidence of innocence..it is presumed..as it should be..i'm sorry Cariad but that's a pathetic post and is typical of the way the mccanns are grossly unfairly treated
I agree that innocent until proven guilty is the corner stone of our judicial system and is a principal I fully support. However, on a forum, not in a court of law, what is the evidence of their innocence?
-
I agree that innocent until proven guilty is the corner stone of our judicial system and is a principal I fully support. However, on a forum, not in a court of law, what is the evidence of their innocence?
its a ridiculous question to ask,,,if this was the cornerstone of the judicial system then 6 years ago the mccannns would have prepared evidence to show their innocence it isn't and they haven't...and I say again..this type of question reeks of absolute desperation to smear the MccANNS
-
A brief reminder, if one was needed.
You can't be declared innocent of a crime unless, first charged, judged in a curt of law and then found innocent.
In this case, there is no evidence of an abductor and never was,forensically or otherwise.
People have therefore made their own conclusions over the matter.
once again Stephen you show your complete ignorance...there is no verdict of innocent...only not guilty...it is a pain having to explain basic principles to posters who think they know it all...a good example is oj simpson who was found not guilty in a criminal court but culpable in a civil court
-
A brief reminder, if one was needed.
You can't be declared innocent of a crime unless, first charged, judged in a corrt of law and then found innocent.
In this case, there is no evidence of an abductor and never was,forensically or otherwise.
People have therefore made their own conclusions over the matter.
Whatever the outcome of the case and subsequent appeals, the taint of their neglect of their three children will always hang over their heads, and as was pointed out yesterday, the two surviving children will one day read all this.
That is the price the Mccanns will eventually pay, if nowhere else.
-
once again Stephen you show your complete ignorance...there is no verdict of innocent...only not guilty...it is a pain having to explain basic principles to posters who think they know it all...a good example is oj simpson who was found not guilty in a criminal court but culpable in a civil court
Do you have any concept of the Null Hypothesis system under which the UK courts operate ?
P.S. i NEVER SAID THERE WAS A VERDICT OF INNOCENCE.
Effectively,
H0 : INNOCENCE
H1 : GUILT
By 'disproving' innocence you therefore 'prove' guilt.
-
in any democracy there doesn't have to be evidence of innocence..it is presumed..as it should be..i'm sorry Cariad but that's a pathetic post and is typical of the way the mccanns are grossly unfairly treated
Actually an Alibi is the most common evidence of innocence.
-
its a ridiculous question to ask,,,if this was the cornerstone of the judicial system then 6 years ago the mccannns would have prepared evidence to show their innocence it isn't and they haven't...and I say again..this type of question reeks of absolute desperation to smear the MccANNS
I don't want to smear anyone! I understand that they are innocent until proven guilty, however, I believe that there is reason to consider them suspects.
If my child went missing, I would be the number one suspect. I would provide information that would either exonerate me or rule me in for further investigation. That's how it works.
Being a suspect doesn't automatically make someone the guilty party.
-
Perhaps it would be beneficial to have a sticky thread with all the evidence......which is?
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.
This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
...........................................
So what is the evidence for abduction?
What is the evidence for death?
Good idea...I will see how this can be achieved.
-
I don't want to smear anyone! I understand that they are innocent until proven guilty, however, I believe that there is reason to consider them suspects.
If my child went missing, I would be the number one suspect. I would provide information that would either exonerate me or rule me in for further investigation. That's how it works.
Being a suspect doesn't automatically make someone the guilty party.
Something that has been amply demonstrated by the trail of discarded suspects to date - soon to be joined, no doubt, by Burglar Bill and his gang.
-
Evidence ends with the McCanns being innocent and speculation takes over when you accuse them of a crime
You say accuse but that is untrue. Speculating as to someone's involvement in a yet as unknown crime is a speculation and not an accusation.
-
Good idea...I will see how this can be achieved.
Thanks it would help as a lot of it is forum myths.
-
You say accuse but that is untrue. Speculating as to someone's involvement in a yet as unknown crime is a speculation and not an accusation.
Personally i think every one should be suspect until there is evidence to eliminate people. Personally i do not see EVIDENCE, clear substantiated evidence that is it, EITHER way.
-
If all we can deal with is evidence then we may as well pack up now and declare every living soul on earth innocent.
The McCanns come in for so much criticism because there is CLEAR AND UNDISPUTED evidence based on witness statements that they left Madeleine and the twins alone and vulnerable.
Furthermore
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
-
It brings to mind a quite from a TV series...
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested!
Everyone is in an undetermined state of Guilt/Innocence until they are tested. We have to remember that legally it is a presumption of innocence and not a statement of innocence.
-
You say accuse but that is untrue. Speculating as to someone's involvement in a yet as unknown crime is a speculation and not an accusation.
I would agree with that in principle John but saying someone is lying is not speculation its an accusation. Amaral hasn't speculated hes accused...posters on here have accused
-
I think if you want to speculate then you need to clearly state what FACTS you are basing your speculation upon.
From a legal point of view, speculation that doesn't clearly set out what facts it is based upon whilst also making it clear where the line between facts and speculation ends, runs the risk of being defamatory. Obviously, in the UK, even taking such precautions can be defamatory because we have such stringent laws.
The problem all too often on forums is that people speculate based on suppositions, fictions and sometimes previous speculation that has been taken as fact because it's been repeated so often.
-
I would agree with that in principle John but saying someone is lying is not speculation its an accusation. Amaral hasn't speculated hes accused...posters on here have accused
Amaral has done worse than that. He has accused on the basis of misrepresentation.
If he had kept that confined to the process, he'd have been OK
He didn't ...
-
Amaral has done worse than that. He has accused on the basis of misrepresentation.
If he had kept that confined to the process, he'd have been OK
He didn't ...
and what have you done to Martin Grimes, based upon your 'googling' and nothing more ? 8)-)))
-
Amaral has done worse than that. He has accused on the basis of misrepresentation.
If he had kept that confined to the process, he'd have been OK
He didn't ...
Amaral's book also does a lot of pointing towards certain suggestions, but allowing the reader to read between the lines. There are certain events and 'conversations' which he mentions that can have been put there to try and nudge the reader into reaching certain conclusions. It's a tabloid tactic used by the gutter press when they want to throw a lot of mud without actually having any facts to bring to the table, so I wasn't surprised to see it in Amaral's work.
-
and what have you done to Martin Grimes, based upon your 'googling' and nothing more ? 8)-)))
Pointed out obvious and glaring discrepancies between principles in what Grime himself has written and what Grime has done.
It's not rocket science.
-
Pointed out obvious and glaring discrepancies between principles in what Grime himself has written and what Grime has done.
It's not rocket science.
In your opinion, which is of no more importance than the man in the street. 8)-)))
-
Amaral's book also does a lot of pointing towards certain suggestions, but allowing the reader to read between the lines. There are certain events and 'conversations' which he mentions that can have been put there to try and nudge the reader into reaching certain conclusions. It's a tabloid tactic used by the gutter press when they want to throw a lot of mud without actually having any facts to bring to the table, so I wasn't surprised to see it in Amaral's work.
But how can you know those conversations didn't take place?
-
well I object to his phrase "chucked her in the bin"..you don't , so that says a lot about you.
Dave, you and others do keep goading people with the line "you never tell us your theories" - an obvious trap I think because as soon as someone does you complain vehemently about the language they've used. >@@(*&)
-
Dave, you and others do keep goading people with the line "you never tell us your theories" - an obvious trap I think because as soon as someone does you complain vehemently about the language they've used. >@@(*&)
So do you find that phrase acceptable
-
So do you find that phrase acceptable
Forgive me dave, I should have said " he gently lowered her body into the waste receptacle"
-
But how can you know those conversations didn't take place?
Read my post again. I didn't say those conversations didn't take place. I said that he often includes small pieces of information that have no relevance other than to 'point' in a particular direction. They make the reader come to their own conclusions (or think that they are, when in fact they are being led down a certain path) without committing the author to spelling the conclusion out.
Whilst we're on the subject though, the dialog in his book is artificially constructed and he very rarely attributes a particular line to a particular person. There's a reason for that.
-
Read my post again. I didn't say those conversations didn't take place. I said that he often includes small pieces of information that have no relevance other than to 'point' in a particular direction. They make the reader come to their own conclusions (or think that they are, when in fact they are being led down a certain path) without committing the author to spelling the conclusion out.
Whilst we're on the subject though, the dialog in his book is artificially constructed and he very rarely attributes a particular line to a particular person. There's a reason for that.
Take it up with the appellant court who disagree with you
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2168.0
-
Take it up with the appellant court who disagree with you
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2168.0
Disagrees with me about what?
-
So do you find that phrase acceptable
It's just words. Clumsy perhaps, but just words. Insignificant when you're discussing a case of such seriousness, in my view.
-
Read my post again. I didn't say those conversations didn't take place. I said that he often includes small pieces of information that have no relevance other than to 'point' in a particular direction. They make the reader come to their own conclusions (or think that they are, when in fact they are being led down a certain path) without committing the author to spelling the conclusion out.
Whilst we're on the subject though, the dialog in his book is artificially constructed and he very rarely attributes a particular line to a particular person. There's a reason for that.
It's a book, not a legal document?
-
Disagrees with me about what?
That there was anything wrong with the book.....and that it did actually portray a thesis based on the investigation....not their exact words, read it to see them.....
-
That there was anything wrong with the book.....and that it did actually portray a thesis based on the investigation....not their exact words, read it to see them.....
Someone needs to tell the Judge in Lisbon she's wasting her time then. She appears to think she's presiding over a libel trial.
-
So do we keep speculating or not?
I would have thought so, though I have no evidence on which to base this opinion @)(++(*
-
It's just words. Clumsy perhaps, but just words. Insignificant when you're discussing a case of such seriousness, in my view.
It amazes me what posters will accept just to support someone who has the same viewpoint
-
It amazes me what posters will accept just to support someone who has the same viewpoint
No I think you will find they were defending my right to purport a theory, something we are often requested to do by those on here who share a different viewpoint.
Please tell me the terminology you would rather I had used to describe the action in question.
-
No I think you will find they were defending my right to purport a theory, something we are often requested to do by those on here who share a different viewpoint.
Please tell me the terminology you would rather I had used to describe the action in question.
I think your "theory" oversteps the mark when you have no evidence to support it. I think its a vile thing to say and totally unreasonable...my theory is that it is the product of a disturbed mind... I could say a lot more but unfortunately I don't have the right to purport my theory re you...
-
Furthermore
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
Quote out of context and way before the files were released.
I'm amazed the board moderators tolerate such blatant deception.
-
It amazes me what posters will accept just to support someone who has the same viewpoint
There are dozens and dozens of aspects to this case that amaze me a great deal more than words used on a forum.
Aren't you getting this a little out of perspective?
-
I think your "theory" oversteps the mark when you have no evidence to support it. I think its a vile thing to say and totally unreasonable...my theory is that it is the product of a disturbed mind... I could say a lot more but unfortunately I don't have the right to purport my theory re you...
I think your "theory" oversteps the mark when you have no evidence to support it.
Where is this mark defined?
I think its a vile thing to say and totally unreasonable...
Abduction and sexual assault by paedophiles.
my theory is that it is the product of a disturbed mind...
Paedophiles tearing little girls private parts.
I could say a lot more but unfortunately I don't have the right to purport my theory re you...
Come on then princess do your worst, give me all you got. show us the real you.
-
I think your "theory" oversteps the mark when you have no evidence to support it. I think its a vile thing to say and totally unreasonable...my theory is that it is the product of a disturbed mind... I could say a lot more but unfortunately I don't have the right to purport my theory re you...
So it's irritating when people don't put a theory forward, yet you are appalled when someone does? You've complained that I won't theorize and now you've spent all day throwing WS's theory back in his face.
If I weren't such a sweet, trusting soul, I'd wonder whether you nag for a theory just to allow you to be repulsed at the workings of a mind that could produce such a thing.
-
Quote out of context and way before the files were released.
I'm amazed the board moderators tolerate such blatant deception.
No, it's from when Kate requested to see the LP files & is in her book.
-
[erasure]
-
I think your "theory" oversteps the mark when you have no evidence to support it.
Where is this mark defined?
I think its a vile thing to say and totally unreasonable...
Abduction and sexual assault by paedophiles.
my theory is that it is the product of a disturbed mind...
Paedophiles tearing little girls private parts.
I could say a lot more but unfortunately I don't have the right to purport my theory re you...
Come on then princess do your worst, give me all you got. show us the real you.
The whole two hours of posts whizzing back and forth would be deleted as being off topic so is a complete waste of time..plus I dont wish to add to your troubles
-
The whole two hours of posts whizzing back and forth would be deleted as being off topic so is a complete waste of time..plus I dont wish to add to your troubles
Getting your knickers in a twist about a simple phrase, Man up.
-
So it's irritating when people don't put a theory forward, yet you are appalled when someone does? You've complained that I won't theorize and now you've spent all day throwing WS's theory back in his face.
If I weren't such a sweet, trusting soul, I'd wonder whether you nag for a theory just to allow you to be repulsed at the workings of a mind that could produce such a thing.
I think its appalling to suggest the McCanns would do such a thing...particularly as spam has no evidence to support his claim...in fact his claim that Maddie died (I don't think he used the word "may") before may 3rd has been shown to be false several times.
-
Quote out of context and way before the files were released.
I'm amazed the board moderators tolerate such blatant deception.
The AG's report - upon which the McCanns are relying in Lisbon - specifically indicates no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence about anything.
-
I think its appalling to suggest the McCanns would do such a thing...particularly as spam has no evidence to support his claim...in fact his claim that Maddie died (I don't think he used the word "may") before may 3rd has been shown to be false several times.
I didn't claim anything as fact davel, that's the fact you choose to ignore.
-
Getting your knickers in a twist about a simple phrase, Man up.
insults aren't so effective in the virtual world...unless of course you have insecurities
-
insults aren't so effective in the virtual world...unless of course you have insecurities
Funny, you tend to throw personal insult about alot don't you. Particuarly when someone dares to suggest something you disagree with.
-
The AG's report - upon which the McCanns are relying in Lisbon - specifically indicates no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence about anything.
I have stated many times that a renewed investigation opens up the possibility of all options, including the (technical) possibility that something might come to light (at present unknown) that might implicate the McCanns or any of their friends.
But that is vastly different from stating a blatant lie such as that the enquiry was shelved with huge suspicion hovering over any of the group of 9.
Outright and blatantly false.
-
Since the 'Maddie in the bin' theory I purported caused so much outrage for it's content & not providing supporting evidence, I feel it incumbant upon me to portray the sources of my theory,
1) Madeleine's possible death before leaving the apartment,
I form the basis of this theory from the McCanns media interviews as follows,
GerryMcCann: Aug 10, 2007 Sky News Interview.
“everything we have done, during the last hundred days, is focussed on, errr... the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”
So Gerry has doubt as to her being alive before leaving the apartment, something which surely could only come from some sort of prior knowledge since it is seriously unlikely somone would murder her and leave with her body.
Radio Five Live Breakfast Interview May 1st 2008
'what evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgement of that."
Gerry, it would appear, knows of no evidence to suggest Madeleine is anything other than dead.
Kate McCann: Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010
"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."
A few years later and Kate is even more certain in saying they would be lying if they said she was alive.
Again, something that could only come from prior knowledge.
2) Smithman.
I then utilised the Smiths sighting of an inert child being carried by a man with a 60-80% resemblence to Mr McCann. From this I propose during this hypothesis that the man seen was actually Gerry McCann carrying his deceased child.
3) Method of diposal.
And finally the bin, in Kates book she states:
"Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
So less than 12 hours since Madeleine was apparently seen being carried away by Bundleman, Kate believed her daughter could possibly be found inside a big dumpster type bin,
Infact she considers it so likely that she pleads with God for her not to be in there.
From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went.
-
I think its appalling to suggest the McCanns would do such a thing...particularly as spam has no evidence to support his claim...in fact his claim that Maddie died (I don't think he used the word "may") before may 3rd has been shown to be false several times.
So why ask for theories then?
Where is the evidence of a stranger entering 5A? Fingerprints? Hair? DNA? Broken shutters/windows/doors? Anything?
-
I have stated many times that a renewed investigation opens up the possibility of all options, including the (technical) possibility that something might come to light (at present unknown) that might implicate the McCanns or any of their friends.
But that is vastly different from stating a blatant lie such as that the enquiry was shelved with huge suspicion hovering over any of the group of 9.
Outright and blatantly false.
It's not false, it's a matter of opinion.
-
Funny, you tend to throw personal insult about alot don't you. Particuarly when someone dares to suggest something you disagree with.
Mine aren't insults they are my actual feelings towards people... If I call someone stupid..thats because I think they have said something stupid....
-
I have stated many times that a renewed investigation opens up the possibility of all options, including the (technical) possibility that something might come to light (at present unknown) that might implicate the McCanns or any of their friends.
But that is vastly different from stating a blatant lie such as that the enquiry was shelved with huge suspicion hovering over any of the group of 9.
Outright and blatantly false.
Who has stated this supposed outright blatant lie here ferryman?
-
So why ask for theories then?
Where is the evidence of a stranger entering 5A? Fingerprints? Hair? DNA? Broken shutters/windows/doors? Anything?
there may well have been dna on the bedclothes..the pj didn't check...figerprints...gloves ...hair... shaven head...hat.....it seem the door lock wasn't to secure
-
I think its appalling to suggest the McCanns would do such a thing...particularly as spam has no evidence to support his claim...in fact his claim that Maddie died (I don't think he used the word "may") before may 3rd has been shown to be false several times.
The first week of the case (and up to the point when the finger was pointed at RM and the case stopped being discussed like other cases) TV did mention possibilities like this, though naturally nobody suggested Madeleine's parents may have been responsible. But bins were mentioned.
-
there may well have been dna on the bedclothes..the pj didn't check...figerprints...gloves ...hair... shaven head...hat.....it seem the door lock wasn't to secure
there may well have been dna on the bedclothes..
Pure speculation.
-
there may well have been dna on the bedclothes..the pj didn't check...figerprints...gloves ...hair... shaven head...hat.....it seem the door lock wasn't to secure
None found though, which is quite important when trying to implicate someone.
-
Quote out of context and way before the files were released.
I'm amazed the board moderators tolerate such blatant deception.
You make it sound like some massive deception, its not....it wasnt "way before" the files were released, just a few weeks, around 7 July or so IIRC when the Mccanns were challenged by LP on having the right to all their investigation files....and it was also after the Public Prosecutors summary and their arguido status lifted! 30 June IIRC
And I suppose you expect the boards moderators to know all these little details do you?
You dont have to exagerate and dramatise to make your points you know.
-
Martin Brunt also mentioned bins in his programme Christmas Eve 2007.
-
Martin Brunt also mentioned bins in his programme Christmas Eve 2007.
Kate McCann Madeleine.
"Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
(End Quote)
So less than 12 hours since Madeleine was apparently seen being carried away by Bundleman, Kate believed her daughter could possibly be found inside a big dumpster type bin,
Infact she considers it so likely that she pleads with God for her not to be in there.
From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went.
-
None found though, which is quite important when trying to implicate someone.
from what I have read the pj didnt do a thorough dna sweep of the bed clothes...just looked at obvious marks. Instead of being kept the sheets were sent to the laundry
-
Since the 'Maddie in the bin' theory I purported caused so much outrage for it's content & not providing supporting evidence, I feel it incumbant upon me to portray the sources of my theory,
1) Madeleine's possible death before leaving the apartment,
I form the basis of this theory from the McCanns media interviews as follows,
GerryMcCann: Aug 10, 2007 Sky News Interview.
“everything we have done, during the last hundred days, is focussed on, errr... the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted”
So Gerry has doubt as to her being alive before leaving the apartment, something which surely could only come from some sort of prior knowledge since it is seriously unlikely somone would murder her and leave with her body.
Radio Five Live Breakfast Interview May 1st 2008
'what evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgement of that."
Gerry, it would appear, knows of no evidence to suggest Madeleine is anything other than dead.
Kate McCann: Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010
"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."
A few years later and Kate is even more certain in saying they would be lying if they said she was alive.
Again, something that could only come from prior knowledge.
2) Smithman.
I then utilised the Smiths sighting of an inert child being carried by a man with a 60-80% resemblence to Mr McCann. From this I propose during this hypothesis that the man seen was actually Gerry McCann carrying his deceased child.
3) Method of diposal.
And finally the bin, in Kates book she states:
"Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
So less than 12 hours since Madeleine was apparently seen being carried away by Bundleman, Kate believed her daughter could possibly be found inside a big dumpster type bin,
Infact she considers it so likely that she pleads with God for her not to be in there.
From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went.
"Maddie in the bin" theory?
The first person to propose that was Dr Amaral.
In his book, he relates that he is called away from a meeting in the early hours by his distraught wife, who has found the body of their pet dog with a head injury. She pleads with him to quit the investigation, but he calms and reassures her.
Then he attempts to dispose of the corpse of the dog by digging a hole to bury it, but finds the ground hard to dig. He realises how much 'easier' it would be to hide, rather than bury, the dog!
Hey presto!
Amaral's theory of what Gerry did with the body of Madeleine was formed.
Have you ever wondered where it came from?
The proper detective work of Mark Harrison:
The report considers the viability of burial on the beach and the likely
movement of a body if it entered the sea. It also considers the likely incident
of such a disposal choice and any local impact factors that make this a more
or less likely event with the aim to inform decisions on any searches.
Praia Da Luz Beach.
In simple terms the beach is in a natural inlet and bounded by cliffs.
The winds are generally from the west and create low energy waves of less
than 2m. This is significant regarding any body disposal scenario from the
shore as the wave energy is not sufficient to "take a body" out to sea. Instead
a body would most likely trave1 eastwards in a re circulating motion along the
shoreline until it was trapped by the rock outcrop to the east of the beach or
consumed by marine life. ti the entry point was the rock outcrop itself to the
east of the beach then the body would most likely continue in a re circulating
motion along the shoreline until it again encountered a bamer to its passage,
the most eastward of this would be 5km away at Ponta Da Piedade near
Lagos.
Sub Surface Burial on P D Luz Beach
For Body Disposal Purposes The Beach Can Be Separated And
Discussed Into 6 Areas.
Figure 2.The boulders in the rock falls are too large
to man handle. Vegetative growth suggests rock
falls have been in situ for some time. The low energy
wave action would not move any of the boulders. It
is possible a small child could be secreted amongst
the rocks in natural voids.
Figure 3.The cliff edge at the base of the beach is at
an angle that inhibits soil removal. The shale re fills
any hole dug and is unsuitable to achieve a burial.
Figure4.At the base of the cliff are wave cuts where
the bedrock has been eroded by wave action. Here
sand can be easily dug but after a few centimetres
the digger reaches the bed rock, preventing a
successful burial.
Figure 5.The beach cusps or berms are mounds of
sand made by wind action. These cusps form at the
limit of the tides reach and would only be recovered
in storm conditions. Digging on the cusps is easy but to achieve as
more than a few centimetres depth is very difficult to
the fine sand granules refill the hole
Figure 6.The dark sand in this image shows the
intertidal area. Here digging and burial could
possibly be achieved although it would be through a
mixture of grave1 and water. However any burial
would be quickly exposed by wave action and
ultimately taken into the sea.
To be clear, Harrison himself never formed any firm opinion of his own about what might have happened to Madeleine, and Amaral's outright lie that he did is (in my opinion) the most serious lie of all the lies in Amaral's book.
-
there may well have been dna on the bedclothes..the pj didn't check...figerprints...gloves ...hair... shaven head...hat.....it seem the door lock wasn't to secure
...and by the time they did everything had been scrupulously cleaned.
-
Kate McCann Madeleine.
"Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
So less than 12 hours since Madeleine was apparently seen being carried away by Bundleman, Kate believed her daughter could possibly be found inside a big dumpster type bin,
Infact she considers it so likely that she pleads with God for her not to be in there.
From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went.
Who said "From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went." WS? Is that you saying that?
-
Who said "From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went." WS? Is that you saying that?
Yes that's my opinion.
-
from what I have read the pj didnt do a thorough dna sweep of the bed clothes...just looked at obvious marks. Instead of being kept the sheets were sent to the laundry
Doesn't really matter what they did or didn't do, none was found, therefore nothing to use in a detection.
-
"Maddie in the bin" theory?
The first person to propose that was Dr Amaral.
Definitely not true. It was discussed the first week, precisely because she disappeared without any trace.
With one exception evidence-wise we know no more know than we did then.
-
Definitely not true. It was discussed the first week, precisely because she disappeared without any trace.
With one exception evidence-wise we know no more know than we did then.
How depressing.
-
Kate McCann Madeleine.
"Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
So less than 12 hours since Madeleine was apparently seen being carried away by Bundleman, Kate believed her daughter could possibly be found inside a big dumpster type bin,
Infact she considers it so likely that she pleads with God for her not to be in there.
From this I deduced that Kate knew it was where she went.
Yes that bin quote stands out for me and fits my theory of where Madeleine was first hidden by Smithman. And the rocha negra area stands out and there was opportunity to move there in the dark with nobody about. I would like to know more about the search declining from the top of the cliff face due to safety. That is a place where a body could lay hidden and undetected IMO. I know the dogs searched the beach/bottom face.
-
The bin theory was discussed heavily by channel 4's dispatches. They sent a team of British detectives to highlight how the investigation would have been conducted had SY been involved from the off iirc.
This article reproduced by the daily mail appears yo have originally been from Oct 2007.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488211/The-Maddie-Files-Five-experts-explain-police-missed-vital-chances--body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488211/The-Maddie-Files-Five-experts-explain-police-missed-vital-chances--body.html)
Yes, a very fair and balanced programme I think. That and Panorama are the only times terrestrial TV ever shut out the spin.
-
Yes, a very fair and balanced programme I think. That and Panorama are the only times terrestrial TV ever shut out the spin.
There was another done by RTE Ireland, called Mystery Still Surrounds the Mccanns....removed from all places it was on..l I will check RTE website see if still available after all these years
-
There was another done by RTE Ireland, called Mystery Still Surrounds the Mccanns....removed from all places it was on..l I will check RTE website see if still available after all these years
Mystery surrounds Mystery Still Surrounds the McCanns >@@(*&)
I couldn't find it anyway. No worries, Red.
-
Mystery surrounds Mystery Still Surrounds the McCanns >@@(*&)
I couldn't find it anyway. No worries, Red.
Yeah
You guys have done a great job of creating myths and spreading disgusting propaganda and disinformation about them.
You have made a mystery out of nothing.
Propaganda! I wonder who was leading the suckering in of you all? They knew how to whip you all up emotionally ... and make you sooo suspicious of everything and nothing
Time you all started thinking for yourselves and questioning why YOU are out of line with the thinking of the experts.
I wonder how much the leaders, who suckered you in, were paid? What benefits were they getting?
-
Yeah
You guys have done a great job of creating myths and spreading disgusting propaganda and disinformation about them.
You have made a mystery out of nothing.
Propaganda! I wonder who was leading the suckering in of you all? They knew how to whip you all up emotionally ... and make you sooo suspicious of everything and nothing
Time you all started thinking for yourselves and questioning why YOU are out of line with the thinking of the experts.
I wonder how much the leaders, who suckered you in, were paid? What benefits were they getting?
Nobody suckers me in Sadie ?{)(**
-
Yeah
You guys have done a great job of creating myths and spreading disgusting propaganda and disinformation about them.
You have made a mystery out of nothing.
Propaganda! I wonder who was leading the suckering in of you all? They knew how to whip you all up emotionally ... and make you sooo suspicious of everything and nothing
Time you all started thinking for yourselves and questioning why YOU are out of line with the thinking of the experts.
I wonder how much the leaders, who suckered you in, were paid? What benefits were they getting?
Err it was a documentary done by rte ireland...i didnt have any input btw...take it up with the tv station!!!
@)(++(*
-
Yeah
You guys have done a great job of creating myths and spreading disgusting propaganda and disinformation about them.
You have made a mystery out of nothing.
Propaganda! I wonder who was leading the suckering in of you all? They knew how to whip you all up emotionally ... and make you sooo suspicious of everything and nothing
Time you all started thinking for yourselves and questioning why YOU are out of line with the thinking of the experts.
I wonder how much the leaders, who suckered you in, were paid? What benefits were they getting?
See 10
10. “You debunk conspiracies because you’re a paid disinformation agent.”
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-usual-retorts-conspiracy-theorists%E2%80%99-top-10-misconceptions-of-debunkers.1202/ (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-usual-retorts-conspiracy-theorists%E2%80%99-top-10-misconceptions-of-debunkers.1202/)
-
"Channel 4's Dispatches sent five British experts in criminal investigation to Praia da Luz to assess the state of the inquiry. Between them, they have 134 years of experience in dealing with serious crimes, such as abduction, murder and paedophilia."
"Professor David Canter, Director of Investigative Psychology at Liverpool University, is one of Britain's foremost behavioural profilers."
"Our team included Professor Dave Barclay, a leading forensic scientist who has worked on 215 'cold case' murders in the past six years."
"Chris Stevenson was the Detective Chief Superintendent who caught Ian Huntley in the hunt for the murderer of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and was our team leader."
"Search expert Gary Lig, previously from West Yorkshire Police, has advised on search plans in more than 100 murders and disappearances."
"our final expert, police media specialist Matt Tapp, who handled the media for the Soham murder inquiry."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488211/The-Maddie-Files-Five-experts-explain-police-missed-vital-chances--body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488211/The-Maddie-Files-Five-experts-explain-police-missed-vital-chances--body.html)
Hardly a bunch of crackpots is it Sadie? I thought the British police were supposed to be second to none?
Whether you agree with their views or not is another matter but to dismiss the notion of Madeleine's body being placed in a PDL bin is clearly foolhardy. There is nothing to suggest that this did or did not happen but given the fact that bins were available in the vicinity and those same bins were emptied without a proper search beforehand it is not unreasonable to explore the possibility of this happening.
Attacking other forum members and accusing them of being suckered in by these professionals is IMO out of order. The program did not claim to know what happened to Madeleine and in fact the article even ends with Prof. Canter saying in his opinion abduction is the most likely scenario.
I would imagine Wonderfulspam based his theory on the lack of evidence regarding any abduction and applied it to an alternate scenario that could possibly have happened if time was of the essence.
That's definitely a myth @)(++(*
-
Nobody suckers me in Sadie ?{)(**
Well as a Lyall, you are from noble and sacred blood as part of the Sinclair Clan ... aren't you? Templars and all that. And the Secret Societies involving some of their number.
They still exist 700 years on ... after Robert The Bruce and the Crusades
Psst: Where have you hidden the Holy Grail and all your fortune. Nova Scotia or Scotland or where? Are you a friend of Dan Brown?
Only pulling your leg. 8(0(* @)(++(*
-
Well as a Lyall, you are from noble and sacred blood as part of the Sinclair Clan ... aren't you? Templars and all that. And the Secret Societies involving some of their number.
They still exist 700 years on ... after Robert The Bruce and the Crusades
Psst: Where have you hidden the Holy Grail and all your fortune. Nova Scotia or Scotland or where? Are you a friend of Dan Brown?
Only pulling your leg. 8(0(* @)(++(*
I donated it to Goncalo 8)-)))
(only joking. I definitly have no fortune 8(8-)))
-
How many forensic experts, if any, checked how many bins over how many days, starting from when?