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: Robittybob1 on August 15, 2018, 10:24:34 PM
-
Is there such a thing as a sceptic?
Is there a definition?
Why are sceptics sceptics?
What are their points of distinction?
If you consider yourself a sceptic would you like to explain the reasons why?
190
-
Is there such a thing as a sceptic?
Is there a definition?
Why are sceptics sceptics?
What are their points of distinction?
If you consider yourself a sceptic would you like to explain the reasons why?
The definition of a sceptic is someone who has doubts about things that other people believe. Everyone is a sceptic in certain circumstances in my opinion.
-
can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence?
-
can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence?
Can you be sceptical of Grime whilst at the same time not believe he made anything up or faked any evidence?
-
Can you be sceptical of Grime whilst at the same time not believe he made anything up or faked any evidence?
You can be sceptical regarding the accuracy of the dog alerts, and their worth in this case, but to be sceptical of Grime himself implies some level of distrust in him as a person, based on his honesty and integrity - IMO. Now back to. you, I know you don’t answer questions, but here’s hoping...!
-
The definition of a sceptic is someone who has doubts about things that other people believe. Everyone is a sceptic in certain circumstances in my opinion.
the mccanns say they put the children to bed...checked them at regular intervals...and found maddie gone and the window open at around 10...a sceptic is someone who does not believe that.
-
You can be sceptical regarding the accuracy of the dog alerts, and their worth in this case, but to be sceptical of Grime himself implies some level of distrust in him as a person, based on his honesty and integrity - IMO. Now back to. you, I know you don’t answer questions, but here’s hoping...!
I don't know what you mean by inaccurate dog alerts, but Grime's honesty, integrity, professional reputation and career prospects are closely related to the performance of his dogs and his interpretation of it in my opinion.
John Stalker was sceptical of the McCanns and their friends. Did he believe they made something up or faked some evidence?
-
I don't know what you mean by inaccurate dog alerts, but Grime's honesty, integrity, professional reputation and career prospects are closely related to the performance of his dogs and his interpretation of it in my opinion.
John Stalker was sceptical of the McCanns and their friends. Did he believe they made something up or faked some evidence?
and grime has told us the alerts have no evidential value reliability.
-
A pointless thread imo as we will not agree on the definition of a sceptic....
-
It is easy to be sceptical in the McCann case given the changes in stories, the conflicting versions of events, the invisible woman and the refusal to cooperate with police while in Portugal and when the group returned home to England. In fact, I would call the behaviour unprecedented in the annals of child disappearance cases.
-
and grime has told us that the alerts have no evidential value reliability.
He didn't tell you they were inaccurate, that was your own idea.
-
He didn't tell you they were inaccurate, that was your own idea.
If they were, accurate they would have evidential reliability.
-
It is easy to be sceptical in the McCann case given the changes in stories, the conflicting versions of events, the invisible woman and the refusal to cooperate with police while in Portugal and when the group returned home to England. In fact, I would call the behaviour unprecedented in the annals of child disappearance cases.
In your opinion... Afaiac.... The McCann's account is truthful... There is no accident and no cover up... And from your posts you agree with me
-
A pointless thread as we will not agree on the definition of a sceptic....
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Then again, anyone who expects someone in their right mind to accept the definition of 'sceptic' used by supporters of the McCanns hasn't thought things through imo.
-
the mccanns ay they put the children to bed...checked them at regular intervals...and found maddie gone and the window open at around 10...a sceptic is someone who does not believe that.
A sceptic is some one who doesn't agree with that, they never checked on Madeleine from circa 9:05pm until circa 10 pm, in fact no one did, its all in the files.
-
The title of this thread was a copy of a line in another thread. ""Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there" Thanking whoever said that first.
Everyone of us might have our own degree of scepticism.
I think I'm a sceptic, but I know my views are not accepted by anyone else, so it might be fair to say we are all different.
"Work on from there" - can we define the bits we are most sceptical about?
My scepticism: For me I never thought Gerry and Kate were working for the same goal.
-
If they were, accurate they would have evidential value
It is assumed they are accurate it just can’t be proved they are.
-
A sceptic is some one who doesn't agree with that,they never checked on Madeleine from circa 9:05pm until circa 10 pm,in fact no one did,its all in the files.
There might be those who are sceptical that Madeleine was alive and well at 9:05 too.
-
A pointless thread as we will not agree on the definition of a sceptic....
Why aren't you a sceptic?
-
There might be those who are sceptical that Madeleine was alive and well at 9:05 too.
True,there are also those that are sceptical in just what SY are doing.
-
im skeptical about the mccans claims at the time that everybody in the uk did what the mccans did ie leaving toddlers alone
-
Why aren't you a sceptic?
Because I don't see any evidence to suggest they are guilty of hiding a body..... Because all the evidence I've seen and read points to their innocence... Because the two police forces involved di not regard them as suspects
-
If they were, accurate they would have evidential reliability.
In my opinion Grime didn't say that because he thought the alerts were inaccurate. He said it because alerts on their own don't prove anything. As part of a body of corroborating evidence as in the Gilroy case they can be very useful.
-
In my opinion Grime didn't say that because he thought the alerts were inaccurate. He said it because alerts on their own don't prove anything. As part of a body of corroborating evidence as in the Gilroy case they can be very useful.
i dont think davel understands the whole working of police etc just IMO
-
In my opinion Grime didn't say that because he thought the alerts were inaccurate. He said it because alerts on their own don't prove anything. As part of a body of corroborating evidence as in the Gilroy case they can be very useful.
If they could be considered accurate they would prove something
-
some supporters hate the dogs imho barrier
-
im skeptical about the mccans claims at the time that everybody in the uk did what the mccans did ie leaving toddlers alone
I don't think the McCanns said "everyone".
-
It is assumed they are accurate it just can’t be proved they are.
Assumed by whom... Don't think that's true at all
-
Because I don't see any evidence to suggest they are guilty of hiding a body..... Because all the evidence I've seen and read points to their innocence... Because the two police forces involved di not regard them as suspects
Well that is a point neither do I think they hid her
-
It is assumed they are accurate it just can’t be proved they are.
Could we have a cite.... For... It is assumed they are accurate
-
Could we have a cite.... For... It is assumed they are accurate
Grime mentioned it and his word is gospel.
-
If they could be considered accurate they would price something
I assume you meant 'prove' rather than 'price'. I believe Keela's alerts were confirmed. Evidence was gathered and it showed human DNA, but it didn't prove anything of use to the case.
-
I assume you meant 'prove' rather than 'price'. I believe Keela's alerts were confirmed. Evidence was gathered and it showed human DNA, but it didn't prove anything of use to the case.
Are you sceptical of the McCann claims they had no part in the disappearance of Madeleine?
-
Are you sceptical of the McCann claims they had no part in the disappearance of Madeleine?
In my opinion something's not quite right. What it might be I don't know.
-
In my opinion something's not quite right. What it might be I don't know.
Di you believe Kate found the window open.... It's a simple question
-
Di you believe Kate found the window open.... It's a simple question
Is there anything to corroborate Kate’s claim?
-
Di you believe Kate found the window open.... It's a simple question
The simple answer is that I don't know.
-
The simple answer is that I don't know.
So you are, a sceptic
-
Grime mentioned it and his word is gospel.
Could we have a cite... Accurate in what respect
-
So you are, a sceptic
I think honest is a better description.
-
I think honest is a better description.
I think you have misunderstood... Do you believe Kate is being truthful in saying the window was open... If gunit doesn't know if kate is being honest then she is a sceptic..
I believe Kate is telling the truth... And I am being honest
-
I think you have misunderstood... Do you believe Kate is being truthful in saying the window was open... If gunit doesn't know if kate is being honest then she is a sceptic..
I believe Kate is telling the truth... And I am being honest
So it boils down to belief?
-
So it boils down to belief?
We have discussed this before... Belief based on an appreciation of the evidence..
Almost the whole of justice is based on belief... What the jury believes.. Ciprianos conviction was based on belief... One judge believed she was not guilty
-
I think you have misunderstood... Do you believe Kate is being truthful in saying the window was open... If gunit doesn't know if kate is being honest then she is a sceptic..
I believe Kate is telling the truth... And I am being honest
What I'd like to know is why more of the Tapas 7 didn't see it open.
-
What I'd like to know is why more of the Tapas 7 didn't see it open.
The point is... Do you believe Kate? That would make someone a sceptic
-
Who decided it's limited wholly and solely to the McCann's?
-
Is there such a thing as a sceptic?
Is there a definition?
Why are sceptics sceptics?
What are their points of distinction?
If you consider yourself a sceptic would you like to explain the reasons why?
Robs opening gambit,no mention of constraints.
-
Who decided it's limited wholly and solely to the McCann's?
Well it's a bit stupid if it isn't... We are, all sceptics or supporters of somethings so what do you think posters here mean by sceptics and supporters
-
Well it's a bit stupid if it isn't... We are, all sceptics or supporters of somethings so what do you think posters here mean by sceptics and supporters
Exactly. A nonsense thread then discussing a word which can be applied to anyone. If you want to discuss 'McCann sceptics' to the exclusion of all other sceptics you can, but it isn't the thread topic.
-
Exactly. A nonsense thread then discussing a word which can be applied to anyone. If you want to discuss 'McCann sceptics' to the exclusion of all other sceptics you can, but it isn't the thread topic.
I think most realised what Rob meant... Otherwise it would have no relevance to the forum
-
Exactly. A nonsense thread then discussing a word which can be applied to anyone. If you want to discuss 'McCann sceptics' to the exclusion of all other sceptics you can, but it isn't the thread topic.
So from now on when posters talk of supporters you think they need to qualify that with McCann supporters... In case others think they are talking about football
-
Who decided it's limited wholly and solely to the McCann's?
The thread is on the McCann board.
Some time ago it was discussed and decided there would be posters who could be referred to as 'supporters' and it was decided there would be others who would be referred to as 'sceptics'.
For me the compromise came out of a puerile discussion which pandered to the lowest common denominator, but in my opinion long standing members particularly those who contributed to the discussion are aware of the nomenclature ... and if they are not ... they haven't been paying attention.
Therefore when a thread on the McCann board uses either term in my opinion it is logical to make particular assumptions.
-
Robs opening gambit,no mention of constraints.
Well it was a quote from someone's post on another thread. I must trace its origin for it wasn't my original phrase but I liked it . "Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there" Who wrote that first?
Found it: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg480118#msg480118 Blame Vertigo Swirl for not defining the word "sceptic".
-
Well it was a quote from someone's post on another thread. I must trace its origin for it wasn't my original phrase but I liked it . "Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there" Who wrote that first?
Found it: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg480118#msg480118 Blame Vertigo Swirl for not defining the word "sceptic".
The word sceptic has been used extensively on the forum... How come some posters have only just, realised what it means
-
Well, being someone who does not claim to have a thesis, or knows what happened because I once went to Portugal on holiday. I am happy to state that I am an unbeliever of anything the Tapas -in particular K&G claims happened they way it happened.
Does this make me a bad person- hell no, but reading what 'supporters' say you would think It was I who was the cause of MBM's childcare arrangements and MY fault she 'disappeared'.
The responsibility for MBM's disappearance is purely down to the parents. Supporters can shout loud, and make all sorts of silly claims but facts are facts!
Being sceptics of the PJ, the PDL community, the country, the judicial system- shows the Tapas up as the people they are. ^*&&
They were the first sceptics and their behaviour created more against them lol
-
The word sceptic has been used extensively on the forum... How come some posters have only just, realised what it means
Brietta defined the terms perfectly as relates to this forum. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.msg480332#msg480332 Wonderful clarity.
-
I don't know what you mean by inaccurate dog alerts, but Grime's honesty, integrity, professional reputation and career prospects are closely related to the performance of his dogs and his interpretation of it in my opinion.
John Stalker was sceptical of the McCanns and their friends. Did he believe they made something up or faked some evidence?
I didn’t say inaccurate dog alerts and you didn’t answer my question for the second time of asking, why should you presume to ask me further questions instead?
-
Assumed by whom... Don't think that's true at all
Assumed by McCann sceptics obviously.
-
Well it was a quote from someone's post on another thread. I must trace its origin for it wasn't my original phrase but I liked it . "Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there" Who wrote that first?
Found it: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg480118#msg480118 Blame Vertigo Swirl for not defining the word "sceptic".
LOL, yeah blame me, fancy not making it clear I wasn’t talking about climate change sceptics.
-
I don't know what you mean by inaccurate dog alerts, but Grime's honesty, integrity, professional reputation and career prospects are closely related to the performance of his dogs and his interpretation of it in my opinion.
John Stalker was sceptical of the McCanns and their friends. Did he believe they made something up or faked some evidence?
John Stalker believes Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8392.msg418520#msg418520
-
The word sceptic has been used extensively on the forum... How come some posters have only just, realised what it means
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. Sceptics are less likely to be fooled by scammers, PR people, advertisers or self-interested politicians.
On forums discussing the McCann case it has been given a different meaning. It's used as a criticism of those who don't believe without question every word uttered by the McCann couple.
I have no problem agreeing that I'm a sceptical person, but I have no intention of accepting a label with an entirely different meaning dreamed up by posters on the internet.
-
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. Sceptics are less likely to be fooled by scammers, PR people, advertisers or self-interested politicians.
On forums discussing the McCann case it has been given a different meaning. It's used as a criticism of those who don't believe without question every word uttered by the McCann couple.
I have no problem agreeing that I'm a sceptical person, but I have no intention of accepting a label with an entirely different meaning dreamed up by posters on the internet.
Well put it this way G-unit I don't mind you being sceptical, but I don't like people who tell lies about me and those who don't answer the question being discussed. Are they traits of a sceptic?
-
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. Sceptics are less likely to be fooled by scammers, PR people, advertisers or self-interested politicians.
On forums discussing the McCann case it has been given a different meaning. It's used as a criticism of those who don't believe without question every word uttered by the McCann couple.
I have no problem agreeing that I'm a sceptical person, but I have no intention of accepting a label with an entirely different meaning dreamed up by posters on the internet.
Again you misunderstand... I'm a sceptical person... That's why I question the alerts.... In question everything... Look at all the evidence... And I believe the McCann's, are telling the truth
-
Again you misunderstand... I'm a sceptical person... That's why I question the alerts.... In question everything... Look at all the evidence... And I believe the McCann's, are telling the truth
Shouldn't that be I find the McCanns are telling the truth. Become a gnostic.
-
Shouldn't that be I find the McCanns are telling the truth. Become a gnostic.
No it shouldn't... I'm a sceptical person... I question everything....but having weighed up all the evidence I'm sure the McCann's are innocent
-
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. Sceptics are less likely to be fooled by scammers, PR people, advertisers or self-interested politicians.
On forums discussing the McCann case it has been given a different meaning. It's used as a criticism of those who don't believe without question every word uttered by the McCann couple.
I have no problem agreeing that I'm a sceptical person, but I have no intention of accepting a label with an entirely different meaning dreamed up by posters on the internet.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that intelligent people accept everything the McCanns say WITHOUT QUESTION? Out of imterest do you ever read what we write and think “actually. they’ve got a point” or is everything we write completely ignorant and deluded as far as you’re concerned...?
-
Well put it this way G-unit I don't mind you being sceptical, but I don't like people who tell lies about me and those who don't answer the question being discussed. Are they traits of a sceptic?
I;m not sure what you're saying, sorry.
-
Well put it this way G-unit I don't mind you being sceptical, but I don't like people who tell lies about me and those who don't answer the question being discussed. Are they traits of a sceptic?
Are you talking about G-unit or all sceptics who post on here Robittybob1. That wasn't a nice post IMO whoever you were talking about.
-
I;m not sure what you're saying, sorry.
Well see if you can answer this one. What does Martin Grime say about the two times Eddie barks while in the dining room at the Villa?
I honestly don't know what he says but surely he should have said something.
And additionally do you think I have said Martin Grime faked alerts?
Are you talking about G-unit or all sceptics who post on here Robittybob1. That wasn't a nice post IMO whoever you were talking about.
It wasn't nice because I feel hurt by G-unit's accusations against me, and then her never responding to my correction of what she says (I feel as if I'm being libelled and then ignored, so I'm hurt.)
-
Well see if you can answer this one. What does Martin Grime say about the two times Eddie barks while in the dining room at the Villa?
I honestly don't know what he says but surely he should have said something.
And additionally do you think I have said Martin Grime faked alerts?
It wasn't nice because I feel hurt by G-unit's accusations against me, and then her never responding to my correction of what she says (I feel as if I'm being libelled and then ignored, so I'm hurt.)
Sorry I don't know what G-Unit has said so I can't really comment. We all appreciate you Robittybob1 (well I do).
-
Are you talking about G-unit or all sceptics who post on here Robittybob1. That wasn't a nice post IMO whoever you were talking about.
Put up a question to debate I won't hide away. Tell me off if you have to and I'll consider your criticism, but I won't tell lies about anyone (I might in error, point it out, but I promise to correct if that was the case).
Sorry I don't know what G-Unit has said so I can't really comment. We all appreciate you Robittybob1 (well I do).
Thank you Sunny.
-
Put up a question to debate I won't hide away. Tell me off if you have to and I'll consider your criticism, but I won't tell lies about anyone (I might in error, point it out, but I promise to correct if that was the case).
Thank you Sunny.
I hope I can say the same for myself. Sometimes I have to shoot off after making a post and silly me I feel guilty as by the time I am back from work the post was lost within pages and pages of stuff.
-
I hope I can say the same for myself. Sometimes I have to shoot off after making a post and silly me I feel guilty as by the time I am back from work the post was lost within pages and pages of stuff.
I don't know how others cope with that but I have set up a link to "Show posts" and so I can go back to the last post I wrote on each thread.
Go to your own profile, and click on show posts, and make that link one of your Favourites.
-
I don't know how others cope with that but I have set up a link to "Show posts" and so I can go back to the last post I wrote on each thread.
Go to your own profile, and click on show posts, and make that link one of your Favourites.
Thanks for that Robittybob1. I have found what you mean on my profile page.
Now I can find my posts and read any replies I have (or subsequent posts at least if mine has gone un noticed) 8((()*/
-
Well see if you can answer this one. What does Martin Grime say about the two times Eddie barks while in the dining room at the Villa?
I honestly don't know what he says but surely he should have said something.
And additionally do you think I have said Martin Grime faked alerts?
It wasn't nice because I feel hurt by G-unit's accusations against me, and then her never responding to my correction of what she says (I feel as if I'm being libelled and then ignored, so I'm hurt.)
I had no intention of hurting your feelings Rob and I apologise if I upset you.
I neither know nor care what Grime said, so why would I answer your question? I thought I had made it quite clear that I have no interest in discussing the dog alert videos. You said the PJ faked alerts.
snip/
I now say without doubt the PJ faked alerts
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg479931#msg479931
-
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that intelligent people accept everything the McCanns say WITHOUT QUESTION? Out of imterest do you ever read what we write and think “actually. they’ve got a point” or is everything we write completely ignorant and deluded as far as you’re concerned...?
As far as I am aware, from observations . I don't think any of the sceptic members care about the level of your intelligence, or bother about why you support the McCanns and care even less about what you think we should think... 8**8:/: Is it important to you to know our feelings? What would you do with that information? are you reaching out to us? .... lol
-
I had no intention of hurting your feelings Rob and I apologise if I upset you.
I neither know nor care what Grime said, so why would I answer your question? I thought I had made it quite clear that I have no interest in discussing the dog alert videos. You said the PJ faked alerts.
snip/
I now say without doubt the PJ faked alerts
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg479931#msg479931
I will accept your apology.
OK I still struggle that you can say "I neither know nor care what Grime said" for what he said is treated with great respect on this forum. I was warned by another moderator not to libel Grime. So basically we have to treat everything he says as important.
Thanks
-
How can any sceptic claim not to know of care what Grime said? Surely how he interpreted his dogs’ alerts are of utmost interest and importance to ALL McCann sceptics?!
-
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that intelligent people accept everything the McCanns say WITHOUT QUESTION? Out of imterest do you ever read what we write and think “actually. they’ve got a point” or is everything we write completely ignorant and deluded as far as you’re concerned...?
Well, despite your intelligence you never seem to notice inconsistencies that other intelligent people have noticed. When faced with evidence in the form of contradictory statements you either deny that it is evidence or you offer explanations which you seem to have invented.
-
Well, despite your intelligence you never seem to notice inconsistencies that other intelligent people have noticed. When faced with evidence in the form of contradictory statements you either deny that it is evidence or you offer explanations which you seem to have invented.
Is that criticism levelled at "[Vertigo Swirl], Davel, Brietta, etc or just to VS?
-
How can any sceptic claim not to know of care what Grime said? Surely how he interpreted his dogs’ alerts are of utmost interest and importance to ALL McCann sceptics?!
There you go bunching everyone into that place in your head- we are all the same -think the same etc.
tsk tsk.
On this forum, if you really paid attention. none of the skeptics have claimed the dogs alerted to MBM's cadaver/blood. So arguing Grime doesn't know what he is doing is nether here nor there.
It doesn't matter what Grime said- because we can't change what he said, nor would we want to. We accept what he said- but it still doesn't matter. It is what it is. Perhaps circumstantial evidence in this case? who knows.
I would have thought the supporters and the family would have been more interested that MBM may have been murdered in that apartment by [choose your monster here- I dare not mention paedophiles] and stuffed into that cupboard...
But they seem to want to stick to the story about being snatched from bed by a loving caring childless couple... yeah whatever... ^*&&
-
There you go bunching everyone into that place in your head- we are all the same -think the same etc.
tsk tsk.
On this forum, if you really paid attention. none of the skeptics have claimed the dogs alerted to MBM's cadaver/blood. So arguing Grime doesn't know what he is doing is nether here nor there.
It doesn't matter what Grime said- because we can't change what he said, nor would we want to. We accept what he said- but it still doesn't matter. It is what it is. Perhaps circumstantial evidence in this case? who knows.
I would have thought the supporters and the family would have been more interested that MBM may have been murdered in that apartment by [choose your monster here- I dare not mention paedophiles] and stuffed into that cupboard...
But they seem to want to stick to the story about being snatched from bed by a loving caring childless couple... yeah whatever... ^*&&
And how do you know that didn't happen?
-
And how do you know that didn't happen?
Well, taking a stab at guessing... would loving caring childless couple not want a baby - there was one in a cot. and I wonder why they would do the whole jemmied shutter thing... AND drag her off in a very cold night with no warm clothes or shoes. They would have gone prepared. if they were loving/caring. and then there is that EVIDENCE we seek that it did happen. that story was put out to remove the bad image of being abducted by paedophiles from her bed while parents were out drinking free wine... It wasn't a good advert when trying to get money from people for the fund.
-
Well, taking a stab at guessing... would loving caring childless couple not want a baby - there was one in a cot. and I wonder why they would do the whole jemmied shutter thing... AND drag her off in a very cold night with no warm clothes or shoes. They would have gone prepared. if they were loving/caring. and then there is that EVIDENCE we seek that it did happen. that story was put out to remove the bad image of being abducted by paedophiles from her bed while parents were out drinking free wine... It wasn't a good advert when trying to get money from people for the fund.
Two year olds aren't babies either.
-
Well, despite your intelligence you never seem to notice inconsistencies that other intelligent people have noticed. When faced with evidence in the form of contradictory statements you either deny that it is evidence or you offer explanations which you seem to have invented.
That is a laughable accusation which I challenge you now to prove, with cites.
-
Two year olds aren't babies either.
Pedantic when there is no need to be? Two year olds are 2 years younger than 4 year olds. Still classed as babies by some people. BUT if forum mods insist on correcting and deleting posts then I must behaving an impact of sorts. ^*&&
My point is: a loving.caring couple would normally go for younger children than 4 year olds. THEY could also pop along the coast and buy/abduct a 'refugee' child...
-
Oh Dear... what have we here I wonder.. not allowed to reciprocate opinions. Being corrected when other posters struggle with grammar Oh my! I do feel honoured for such attention. ^*&& I do love being a sceptic. It is empowering!
-
Pedantic when there is no need to be? Two year olds are 2 years younger than 4 year olds. Still classed as babies by some people. BUT if forum mods insist on correcting and deleting posts then I must behaving an impact of sorts. ^*&&
My point is: a loving.caring couple would normally go for younger children than 4 year olds. THEY could also pop along the coast and buy/abduct a 'refugee' child...
Goading will be edited out, It takes my time.
-
Goading will be edited out, It takes my time.
That's ok Rob.. this is your life. Mine is somewhat different from yours. You just carry on- enjoy! ^*&&
-
That's ok Rob.. this is your life. Mine is somewhat different from yours. You just carry on- enjoy! ^*&&
You are right about that. Cheers.
-
Well, despite your intelligence you never seem to notice inconsistencies that other intelligent people have noticed. When faced with evidence in the form of contradictory statements you either deny that it is evidence or you offer explanations which you seem to have invented.
I have not yet received cites to back up this IMO unfair accusation and will keep on demanding them until cites are forthcoming or this post is removed.
-
I will accept your apology.
OK I still struggle that you can say "I neither know nor care what Grime said" for what he said is treated with great respect on this forum. I was warned by another moderator not to libel Grime. So basically we have to treat everything he says as important.
Thanks
The things that Grime did and said are things he had done many times before. I expect Mark Harrison had been present on other occasions when Grime worked his dogs. The whole operation was carried out according to their instructions.
Some people think they know enough to set themselves up as judges of Grime's work. I don't, so have no interest in examining it looking at things which these people think are 'wrong'. In my opinion they can't possibly judge because they don't know enough about the subject.
It's not a case of treating everything Grime says as important. It's a case of not making unfounded accusations such as calling him a liar or incompetent.
-
The things that Grime did and said are things he had done many times before. I expect Mark Harrison had been present on other occasions when Grime worked his dogs. The whole operation was carried out according to their instructions.
Some people think they know enough to set themselves up as judges of Grime's work. I don't, so have no interest in examining it looking at things which these people think are 'wrong'. In my opinion they can't possibly judge because they don't know enough about the subject.
It's not a case of treating everything Grime says as important. It's a case of not making unfounded accusations such as calling him a liar or incompetent.
If only we could have the same even-handed approach to everyone involved in this case.
-
I have not yet received cites to back up this IMO unfair accusation and will keep on demanding them until cites are forthcoming or this post is removed.
I'm not trawling through the forum for cites, so I'll just say in my opinion. Anyone interested can probably find examples for themselves.
-
If only we could have the same even-handed approach to everyone involved in this case.
If you mean me, perhaps you can provide cites demonstrating my lack of even handedness?
-
I'm not trawling through the forum for cites, so I'll just say in my opinion. Anyone interested can probably find examples for themselves.
You have made unfair accusations against Vertigo Swirl for which you are not prepared to give any cites or evidence.
A most unfair way of posting and I would imagine against forum rules.
-
If you mean me, perhaps you can provide cites demonstrating my lack of even handedness?
IMO criticism of Grime is perfectly valid... I have a lot more to say but it really is not important.... Those that matter understand
-
You have made unfair accusations against Vertigo Swirl for which you are not prepared to give any cites or evidence.
A most unfair way of posting and I would imagine against forum rules.
Let's settle the matter there please.
-
Well, despite your intelligence you never seem to notice inconsistencies that other intelligent people have noticed. When faced with evidence in the form of contradictory statements you either deny that it is evidence or you offer explanations which you seem to have invented.
That's a totally inaccurate post... There are inconsistencies in the, statements but I and others, think there are innocent explanations for them... And again as the McCann's are clearly not being investigated both police forces agree with our point of view
-
Opinion Davel. opinion G-unit.
-
You have made unfair accusations against Vertigo Swirl for which you are not prepared to give any cites or evidence.
A most unfair way of posting and I would imagine against forum rules.
I apologise for my posts which are directed to VS. I didn't intend to single him/her out though. I was discussing his assertion about intelligent people so I was still referring to all of them. Finding cites by all of them would be a huge job.
Inconsistencies in the McCann's story are there. Fact. Explanations such as translation errors, interpreter mistakes or the state of mind of the McCanns are not facts, they are speculations in my opinion.
-
I apologise for my posts which are directed to VS. I didn't intend to single him/her out though. I was discussing his assertion about intelligent people so I was still referring to all of them. Finding cites by all of them would be a huge job.
Inconsistencies in the McCann's story are there. Fact. Explanations such as translation errors, interpreter mistakes or the state of mind of the McCanns are not facts, they are speculations in my opinion.
No one has denied the inconsistencies in the statements so your claim is false... You THINK... the inconsistencies are important... I don't.... It appears both investigating police forces are not investigating the McCann's which suggests they agree with me...that's evidence to support my view... Who agrees with you
-
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. Sceptics are less likely to be fooled by scammers, PR people, advertisers or self-interested politicians.
On forums discussing the McCann case it has been given a different meaning. It's used as a criticism of those who don't believe without question every word uttered by the McCann couple.
I have no problem agreeing that I'm a sceptical person, but I have no intention of accepting a label with an entirely different meaning dreamed up by posters on the internet.
I think this thread is, and could only have been, posted to be divisive.
-
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. Sceptics are less likely to be fooled by scammers, PR people, advertisers or self-interested politicians.
On forums discussing the McCann case it has been given a different meaning. It's used as a criticism of those who don't believe without question every word uttered by the McCann couple.
I have no problem agreeing that I'm a sceptical person, but I have no intention of accepting a label with an entirely different meaning dreamed up by posters on the internet.
As very much an individual, I bristle when having a label of any kind attached to me ... but were someone to do a word count of posts on the forum containing a version of "supporter" I think it might be safe to put the mortgage on it far outrunning "sceptic" ... and it sure would if the word count included deleted posts.
The discussion though, does indeed highlight exactly how puerile much of what goes on in the internet is. I think that may be your main problem with this particular thread.
-
I said a long time ago that it is possible IMO for the PJ to have planted cadaver odour to encourage a confession... Unlikely but possible.. Imo
Earth being invaded by aliens is possible too. Hardly helpful to the debate though is it?
-
Is there such a thing as a sceptic?
Is there a definition?
Why are sceptics sceptics?
What are their points of distinction?
If you consider yourself a sceptic would you like to explain the reasons why?
People can be a supporter and a sceptic, just depends on the subject.
-
Earth being invaded by aliens is possible too. Hardly helpful to the debate though is it?
I'm not interested in debating it... Just supporting rob in it being a possibility... Glad you agree
-
People can be a supporter and a sceptic, just depends on the subject.
Shall I remind you what the subject is
-
Shall I remind you what the subject is
A better question might be, can one be a supporter and a sceptic at the same time?
-
A better question might be, can one be a supporter and a sceptic at the same time?
of course
-
Please desist from bickering and stay on the topic of the thread or risk deletion. Thank you.
-
I know the dictionary definition of 'sceptic' and am happy to say I am a sceptical person. I'm not prepared to say I'm a 'McCann sceptic' however, as defined by their supporters. That's because of the assumptions they make about those they label 'sceptics'. It's used as a term of abuse throughout the forum in my opinion.
-
I know the dictionary definition of 'sceptic' and am happy to say I am a sceptical person. I'm not prepared to say I'm a 'McCann sceptic' however, as defined by their supporters. That's because of the assumptions they make about those they label 'sceptics'. It's used as a term of abuse throughout the forum in my opinion.
I have always said Madeleine was abducted - from outside the apartment. Woke, wandered, abducted scenario.
I have never said Madeleine died in the apartment, but I have always maintained that there was another girl that died elsewhere and she was the source of the cadaver odour.
No one agrees with my theory, very few understand the complexity of my theory.
-
A better question might be, can one be a supporter and a sceptic at the same time?
That would depend on the theory you operate to.
-
Members know that it is against the rules to make critical comments towards other members. Please desist. TY
-
I know the dictionary definition of 'sceptic' and am happy to say I am a sceptical person. I'm not prepared to say I'm a 'McCann sceptic' however, as defined by their supporters. That's because of the assumptions they make about those they label 'sceptics'. It's used as a term of abuse throughout the forum in my opinion.
I think you are, totally mistaken... I don't see the label McCann sceptic as being a term of abuse... It merely means someone who does not believe the McCann's version of events
-
I think you are, totally mistaken... I don't see the label McCann sceptic as being a term of abuse... It merely means someone who does not believe the McCann's version of events
As of this moment there is still a missing child who disappeared in as yet unexplained circumstances, the McCann version of events is just that an untested version of events, whats to believe or disbelieve about that?
-
I think you are, totally mistaken... I don't see the label McCann sceptic as being a term of abuse... It merely means someone who does not believe the McCann's version of events
I could prove that it has been used as a term of abuse, but it seems to be against the forum riles. Anyone interested can type 'sceptic' into the search box and read the results for themselves. Most of the comments I read imply a lot more than the definition you have offered.
-
I could prove that it has been used as a term of abuse, but it seems to be against the forum riles. Anyone interested can type 'sceptic' into the search box and read the results for themselves. Most of the comments I read imply a lot more than the definition you have offered.
Then prove it..... On the whole I don't see it ss a term of abuse... Jassi has just referred to herself as a sceptic on another thread
-
Then prove it..... On the whole I don't see it ss a term of abuse... Jassi has just referred to herself as a sceptic on another thread
I'm not allowed to prove it, but it's there in my opinion if you want to see it. Jassi, like me, is an individual. We have no connection with each other except, it seems, in the minds of others.
-
Who said you have any connection... And what do you mean by connection... You certainly seem to have similar views on the case... That's a connection
If there's no connection why quote Jassi to me? The 'connection' is in your mind, not something that actually exists.
-
If there's no connection why quote Jassi to me? The 'connection' is in your mind, not something that actually exists.
The connection for me is I consider you both sceptics
-
The connection for me is I consider you both sceptics
You seem to be arguing that a connection exists because you say so.
-
You seem to be arguing that a connection exists because you say so.
I am not arguing anything... I said I consider you both sceptics
-
Let's be clear, this thread is not an excuse for members to have a go at each other and if this persists I will close it down and delete it.
Mods Please Note!
-
I would quite like to know why my Declaration of Independence has been removed.
-
Wring again.. I posted that as jassi described herself as a sceptic then she did not regard it as insulting
Why is it relevant? Is it because we are, in your opinion, connected? Allow me to spell it out for you. Jassi and I aren't connected, so what Jassi says has no relevance to what I say on the subject of 'sceptics'.
-
I would quite like to know why my Declaration of Independence has been removed.
you might have missed my comment to you because it was deleted we have known each other on forums for 11 and a half years i feel connected to you
-
Why is it relevant? Is it because we are, in your opinion, connected? Allow me to spell it out for you. Jassi and I aren't connected, so what Jassi says has no relevance to what I say on the subject of 'sceptics'.
exactly we are not sheep we have our own minds
-
I would quite like to know why my Declaration of Independence has been removed.
Was it an independent Declaration of Independence?
-
Why is it relevant? Is it because we are, in your opinion, connected? Allow me to spell it out for you. Jassi and I aren't connected, so what Jassi says has no relevance to what I say on the subject of 'sceptics'.
I consider you connected due to you both being sceptics... IMO... I am allowed freedom of thought..
Perhaps you misunderstand.. I'm not suggesting you have any other connection apart from both being sceptics
-
Was it an independent Declaration of Independence?
You shall never know , since it has disappeared.
-
You shall never know , since it has disappeared.
oh well, looks like the whole thread is doomed. ""Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there" certainly got the keyboards hot.
-
oh well, looks like the whole thread is doomed. ""Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there" certainly got the keyboards hot.
Didn't it just whilst the alternate thread got us talking about music. Perhaps that is because some of the supporters are getting het up on this thread. I wonder why?
-
I consider you connected due to you both being sceptics... IMO... I am allowed freedom of thought..
Perhaps you misunderstand.. I'm not suggesting you have any other connection apart from both being sceptics
You were wrong to suggest that those you consider to be sceptics share the same outlook.
-
You were wrong to suggest that those you consider to be sceptics share the same outlook.
Would they all have something in common?
-
Would they all have something in common?
Is there a need to,how about a sunny disposition on life.
-
You were wrong to suggest that those you consider to be sceptics share the same outlook.
Cite for me suggesting that
-
Would they all have something in common?
I liken it to walking the same side of the street but not in step, or even always in the same direction.
-
Would they all have something in common?
Would all supporters have to have something in common as well?
-
Would all supporters have to have something in common as well?
More so than us sceptics, I would say.
-
More so than us sceptics, I would say.
right we so called skeptics have our own minds
-
The one thing people who challenge the Tapas and their stories on this forum is; we like to know what happened- WE don't claim to know like many supporters. Which, in my case, makes for real entertainment.
-
The one thing people who challenge the Tapas and their stories on this forum is; we like to know what happened- WE don't claim to know like many supporters. Which, in my case, makes for real entertainment.
IMO.. There's lots of evidence of intelligence... It's opinion so not worth arguing about.... It eas, after all a sceptics disgusting post that started the problems
-
Cite for me suggesting that
You said 'sceptic' wasn't a term of abuse iyo and quoted Jassi to support your claim.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.msg480930#msg480930
When I asked why you said we were connected because we are 'both sceptics'.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=profile;u=1778;area=showposts;start=0
In my opinion you were trying to suggest that I, a sceptic iyo, should accept the label of sceptic because Jassi, a sceptic in both your opinions, uses it to describe him/herself. If that isn't what you were suggesting, why did you quote Jassi to me?
-
You said 'sceptic' wasn't a term of abuse iyo and quoted Jassi to support your claim.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.msg480930#msg480930
When I asked why you said we were connected because we are 'both sceptics'.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=profile;u=1778;area=showposts;start=0
In my opinion you were trying to suggest that I, a sceptic iyo, should accept the label of sceptic because Jassi, a sceptic in both your opinions, uses it to describe him/herself. If that isn't what you were suggesting, why did you quote Jassi to me?
Imo.. You are a sceptic... That is not a term of abuse...you now appear to be harrassing me... I'm allowed an opinion of you... I can state that opinion as long as it's not abusive .
-
Would they all have something in common?
They might and they might not. That;s the problem which underlies applying labels to people. It can lead to unfounded assumptions being made about them..
-
IMO.. There's lots of evidence of intelligence... It's opinion so not worth arguing about.... It eas, after all a sceptics disgusting post that started the problems
Was it Davel or was it your seemingly constant producing of it on various threads that "started the problems".
Alice made one post and I agree it was disgusting but you have shared it more than once and been pontificating about it ever since IMO.
-
They might and they might not. That;s the problem which underlies applying labels to people. It can lead to unfounded assumptions being made about them..
Labels have been used for a long tilime by many posters... It seems the only time you have a problem with it is if it's, applied to you...
-
Was it Davel or was it your seemingly constant producing of it on various threads that "started the problems".
Alice made one post and I agree it was disgusting but you have shared it more than once and been pontificating about it ever since IMO.
I repeated it because despite being reported... And at least one mod seeing it... It eas not removed
-
I repeated it because despite being reported... And at least one mod seeing it... It eas not removed
Did you actually report it or did you just post it up on the threads a few times Davel?
Personally IMO two wrongs don't make a right. I agree that Alice's post should be removed but I also think this post
Then prove it..... On the whole I don't see it ss a term of abuse... Jassi has just referred to herself as a sceptic on another thread
should be removed too since the reply giving evidence was.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.msg480930#msg480930
-
Did you actually report it or did you just post it up on the threads a few times Davel?
Personally IMO two wrongs don't make a right. I agree that Alice's post should be removed but I also think this post
should be removed too since the reply giving evidence was.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.msg480930#msg480930
I didnt say I had reported it...VS did
-
Did you actually report it or did you just post it up on the threads a few times Davel?
Personally IMO two wrongs don't make a right. I agree that Alice's post should be removed but I also think this post
should be removed too since the reply giving evidence was.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.msg480930#msg480930
then complain to the mods
-
They might and they might not. That;s the problem which underlies applying labels to people. It can lead to unfounded assumptions being made about them..
your post using the term supporters........so its ok for you to use labels
Quote
I know the dictionary definition of 'sceptic' and am happy to say I am a sceptical person. I'm not prepared to say I'm a 'McCann sceptic' however, as defined by their supporters. That's because of the assumptions they make about those they label 'sceptics'. It's used as a term of abuse throughout the forum in my opinion.
-
your post using the term supporters........so its ok for you to use labels
Quote
I know the dictionary definition of 'sceptic' and am happy to say I am a sceptical person. I'm not prepared to say I'm a 'McCann sceptic' however, as defined by their supporters. That's because of the assumptions they make about those they label 'sceptics'. It's used as a term of abuse throughout the forum in my opinion.
So are you saying that sceptic as a "term of abuse throughout the forum" then Davel?
AH OK Davel missed your quote on that. Mind I have to say having read G-Unit's examples it appears that she is correct in her assessment.
I see this working both ways as there is a lot of hostility here that you don't see when reading it as a non member.
-
So are you saying that sceptic as a "term of abuse throughout the forum" then Davel?
no ..you are wrong again..thats gunits post..read it again
-
Labels have been used for a long tilime by many posters... It seems the only time you have a problem with it is if it's, applied to you...
I've never been keen on being labelled. or of labelling others. Labels rarely tell us anything useful and can be harmful in my opinion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people
-
I've never been keen on being labelled. or of labelling others. Labels rarely tell us anything useful and can be harmful in my opinion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people
but you have referred to those who beleive the mccanns as supporters
-
then give us some instances of it being used as a term of abuse...cite.
G-Unit already put up a post with a list of very distasteful quotes of supporters abusing sceptics and the word sceptic. This post was removed by someone. Why on earth should I take the time to search again if my post will be removed as G-Unit's was Davel?
-
i havent seen the word sceptic used as a derogatory term...and as you cant supply cites...thats the end of it. we do however have an example here today of a very abusive post by jassi towrds supporters..as you ahve seen but chosen to ignore....how biased
I do not agree with what Jassi posted but then I do not agree with what I have read from the supporters.
-
your post using the term supporters........so its ok for you to use labels
Quote
I know the dictionary definition of 'sceptic' and am happy to say I am a sceptical person. I'm not prepared to say I'm a 'McCann sceptic' however, as defined by their supporters. That's because of the assumptions they make about those they label 'sceptics'. It's used as a term of abuse throughout the forum in my opinion.
Do you deny being a McCann supporter?
-
I've never been keen on being labelled. or of labelling others. Labels rarely tell us anything useful and can be harmful in my opinion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people
I trust you will cease referring to “supporters “ on this forum then?
-
Do you deny being a McCann supporter?
Is that a joke.... Have you read any of my posts
That's the difference between us...I'm quite happy to be open
and have the courage of my convictions.
-
Do you deny being a McCann supporter?
I consider myself a supportive person but feel the label “supporter” is used as a term of abuse and therefore wish to dissociate myself from this term, as I find it distasteful, offensive and extremely upsetting.
-
Do you deny being a McCann supporter?
I'm more than happy to be labelled a McCann supporter.
-
I trust you will cease referring to “supporters “ on this forum then?
It's been approved as an acceptable term on this forum. If you don't like it, please feel free to go somewhere else.
-
It's been approved as an acceptable term on this forum. If you don't like it, please feel free to go somewhere else.
So has sceptics so gunit should do the same in your view
-
right we so called skeptics have our own minds
Some do.
-
It is easy to be sceptical in the McCann case given the changes in stories, the conflicting versions of events, the invisible woman and the refusal to cooperate with police while in Portugal and when the group returned home to England. In fact, I would call the behaviour unprecedented in the annals of child disappearance cases.
The police viewed it as extremely suspicious and rightly so IMO. What I find rather puzzling though is why supporters accept it all with such a tiny pinch of salt but then many also think Leonor Cipriano to be the embodiment of virtue when in fact she is a fantasist and a compulsive liar.
-
The police viewed it as extremely suspicious and rightly so IMO.
The initial investigation did... But not so both present investigations.. Imo
-
The police viewed it as extremely suspicious and rightly so IMO.
The initial investigation had a very poor understanding if the evidence imo
Leading it in the wring direction.. Imo
-
It is easy to be sceptical in the McCann case given the changes in stories, the conflicting versions of events, the invisible woman and the refusal to cooperate with police while in Portugal and when the group returned home to England. In fact, I would call the behaviour unprecedented in the annals of child disappearance cases.
What colour hair did the invisible woman have? "The invisible woman" - Was that a reference to Jane BTW?
-
The initial investigation did... But not so both present investigations.. Imo
OK so you have an opinion but what is supporting that? I'm hoping it is based on established fact.
-
OK so you have an opinion but what is supporting that? I'm hoping it is based on established fact.
It is based on all the statements from both police forces
-
We have discussed this before... Belief based on an appreciation of the evidence..
Almost the whole of justice is based on belief... What the jury believes.. Ciprianos conviction was based on belief... One judge believed she was not guilty
I think you will find that there is a gulf of a difference between the statements 'one judge believed she was not guilty' and 'one judge felt that there was insufficient evidence to convict'. The Cipriano case falling into the latter category.
-
The initial investigation did... But not so both present investigations.. Imo
We just don't know what SY or the PJ currently think. Second guessing them is unhelpful IMO.
-
I think you will find that there is a gulf of a difference between the statements 'one judge believed she was not guilty' and 'one judge felt that there was insufficient evidence to convict'. The Cipriano case falling into the latter category.
I was making a point taht most verdicts are based on belief...what the jury beleives...verdicts can take hours and days to be decided...at the end of the day its what the jury believes
-
I'm more than happy to be labelled ad a McCann supporter... But not an arse licker as one of your fellow sceptics posted
It's not the label it's the assumptions behind the label. Like 'sceptics don't understand the evidence'. A very sweeping statement about a certain group of people who have been given that label.
-
What colour hair did the invisible woman have? "The invisible woman" - Was that a reference to Jane BTW?
Your quick today Robbie. 8((()*/
-
We just don't know what SY or the PJ currently think. Second guessing them is unhelpful IMO.
we know what they have told us...its clear imo the mccanns are not being investigated...i dont think it involves any guesswork
-
It is based on all the statements from both police forces
I should have made it more clear I was talking about your reference to the police forces having a different view of the McCanns. Gerry said a lot of loose ends have been tidied up, so he must be getting progress reports of some sort. So I hope that is based on fact.
-
Your quick today Robbie. 8((()*/
Why I asked was that there is a report that someone saw a blond woman around the apartments on Thursday night. If that was the case it was someone different to Jane who is generally described as the brunet.
-
I should have made it more clear I was talking about your reference to the police forces having a different view of the McCanns. Gerry said a lot of loose ends have been tidied up, so he must be getting progress reports of some sort. So I hope that is based on fact.
I dont think the present police forces have a different view of the mccanns
-
Why I asked was that there is a report that someone saw a blond woman around the apartments on Thursday night. If that was the case it was someone different to Jane who is generally described as the brunet.
Jane was invisible though, at least to Gerry and Jez. In the spirit of remaining on topic I will add that I am sceptical that she ever walked past them or saw any abductor.
-
Davel, IMO your posts are littered with, to paraphrase "you don't understand the evidence/facts. I do" so don't try and go defensive on Angelo's post please.
my posts are all qualified by imo...are you now a mod....If we are free to make critical comments fair enough..perhaps john could clarify the rules
-
Davel, IMO your posts are littered with, to paraphrase "you don't understand the evidence/facts. I do" so don't try and go defensive on Angelo's post please.
Its a stock phrase brought out whenever considered appropriate. Totally meaningless IMO.
-
Its a stock phrase brought out whenever considered appropriate. Totally meaningless IMO.
I understand what it means
-
All very interesting but can we stay on topic please. TY
-
Jane was invisible though, at least to Gerry and Jez. In the spirit of remaining on topic I will add that I am sceptical that she ever walked past them or saw any abductor.
How about another witness on the day of the disappearance NOT remembering another in a towel! *%87
-
How about another witness on the day of the disappearance NOT remembering another in a towel! *%87
That was amazing, yet he remembered what the children were wearing too.
-
That was amazing, yet he remembered what the children were wearing too.
do you have his actual statement to support this
-
That was amazing, yet he remembered what the children were wearing too.
But did he really remember? Was the description truly like the Eeyore pyjamas?
-
Jane was invisible though, at least to Gerry and Jez. In the spirit of remaining on topic I will add that I am sceptical that she ever walked past them or saw any abductor.
Yet in latter interviews Gerry seems to have no problem that Jane passed Jez and Gerry.
-
But did he really remember? Was the description truly like the Eeyore pyjamas?
all the tpas witness statements are hearsay at best...imo
-
do you have his actual statement to support this
So I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate and Gerry's apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we've looked obviously at photographs since then and you know the time that we've got that I was you know going to Kate's about six thirty, err and I went into their apartment through the patio doors. The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it's a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they've had such a great time, they're really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can't remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour, but you know just to reinforce they were just so happy, you know seeing you know obviously Gerry wasn't there but they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who'd had such a fantastic time and err yeah then I left there, went and got my stuff, went back to the tennis courts and then err there was me, Matt and Russell and I think Gerry played a little, for a little while but he decided that he'd, he'd played enough tennis for that day and err was going back and so it left with me, Russell and err Matt and err Dan who was the, the you know the tennis coach from Mark Warner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
He noticed the children were wearing "night attire" Davel but Kate's towel?
-
all the tpas witness statements are hearsay at best...imo
Are you serious Davel? A witness statement is a witness statement given to the police so should at least be given the opportunity of being considered truthful unless there is another statement that contradicts it IMO.
-
So I walked back err from the tennis courts, err back to err you know Kate and Gerry's apartment and the time you know looking at, you know we've looked obviously at photographs since then and you know the time that we've got that I was you know going to Kate's about six thirty, err and I went into their apartment through the patio doors. The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it's a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they've had such a great time, they're really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can't remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour, but you know just to reinforce they were just so happy, you know seeing you know obviously Gerry wasn't there but they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who'd had such a fantastic time and err yeah then I left there, went and got my stuff, went back to the tennis courts and then err there was me, Matt and Russell and I think Gerry played a little, for a little while but he decided that he'd, he'd played enough tennis for that day and err was going back and so it left with me, Russell and err Matt and err Dan who was the, the you know the tennis coach from Mark Warner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
He noticed the children were wearing "night attire" Davel but Kate's towel?
he doesnt mnetion kates towel here
-
all the tpas witness statements are hearsay at best...imo
OK that can be your opinion but that is so wrong it isn't funny.
-
Are you serious Davel? A witness statement is a witness statement given to the police so should at least be given the opportunity of being considered truthful unless there is another statement that contradicts it IMO.
the mccanns do not speak portuguese ...the statementsare not verbatim or recorded in english and therefore their accuracy cannot be confirmed
-
he doesnt mnetion kates towel here
No he doesn't which is the point Davel. Kate mentions her towel but he does not.
-
OK that can be your opinion but that is so wrong it isn't funny.
it isnt wrong imo ...certainly wouldnt be accepted by a uk court
-
No he doesn't which is the point Davel. Kate mentions her towel but he does not.
so the fact he doesnt mention it means what
-
he doesnt mnetion kates towel here
00:41:00 1485 "Okay, so now what I'm gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing.'
Reply "I'm afraid that is, you know I'm, I cannot recall at all. I know that's, you'd think that'd be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn't say exactly what they were wearing. Err''
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.'
1485 "And did you actually set eyes on each individual child''
Reply "All three children I saw, yeah.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
the mccanns do not speak portuguese ...the statementsare not verbatim or recorded in english and therefore their accuracy cannot be confirmed
They used translators. OK there might have been a few errors but you can't call them hearsay, or do you mean "as bad as hearsay"? In that " they certainly wouldn't be accepted by a UK court" IYO.
-
so the fact he doesnt mention it means what
This is a discussion for another thread Davel. Kate mentions she was wearing a towel and that David Payne didn't enter the apartment. David Payne doesn't mention she is wearing a towel and said he went into the apartment.
Payne said
they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who'd had such a fantastic time
He definitely included Kate in the "family" as he makes a point of saying Gerry wasn't there.
You as a supporter find nothing strange about this of course.
-
This is a discussion for another thread Davel. Kate mentions she was wearing a towel and that David Payne didn't enter the apartment. David Payne doesn't mention she is wearing a towel and said he went into the apartment.
Payne said
they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who'd had such a fantastic time
He definitely included Kate in the "family" as he makes a point of saying Gerry wasn't there.
You as a supporter find nothing strange about this of course.
Certainly a discrepancy.
-
00:41:00 1485 "Okay, so now what I'm gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing.'
Reply "I'm afraid that is, you know I'm, I cannot recall at all. I know that's, you'd think that'd be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn't say exactly what they were wearing. Err''
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.'
1485 "And did you actually set eyes on each individual child''
Reply "All three children I saw, yeah.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
And of course that was recorded in English in England too so no lost in translation episodes.
-
all the tpas witness statements are hearsay at best...imo
The statements were taken in accordance with Portuguese law. Therefore they could be used as evidence by a Portuguese court.
-
And of course that was recorded in English in England too so no lost in translation episodes.
Unless they were interviewed by Brummies from birmingham! lol
Seriously for them to be articulate doctors, and talk like that is so evident that something isn't quite as they claim IMO.
All he had to answer was. I went to the apartment because... (we still don't know why he went to the apartment this is fuzzy as well) I saw all the children, all ready for bed, I saw kate , Gerry wasn't there.
Was that very, very difficult to say? IF that is what actually happened? ppft!
What were they all wearing: the children were wearing night ware and Kate,just out the shower, was wearing a (name the colour) towel.
How many sentences was required?
-
Unless they were interviewed by Brummies from birmingham! lol
Seriously for them to be articulate doctors, and talk like that is so evident that something isn't quite as they claim IMO.
All he had to answer was. I went to the apartment because... (we still don't know why he went to the apartment this is fuzzy as well) I saw all the children, all ready for bed, I saw kate , Gerry wasn't there.
Was that very, very difficult to say? IF that is what actually happened? ppft!
What were they all wearing: the children were wearing night ware and Kate,just out the shower, was wearing a (name the colour) towel.
How many sentences was required?
And all this after a year in which to rehearse and get word perfect. 8(0(*