Netflix launches new 8-part documentary about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

[John]

The cite has already been provided.

The parents visited Freud before their arguido interviews and, as no one at that time knew about the dogs, must have talked to Freud about them for Freud to make his dog remark. The parents must therefore have broken judicial secrecy laws. QED.

There appeared to be a lot of law breaking going on, Patrick Kennedy was almost boasting of his own exploits in conjunction with Método 3.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well if you can't be bothered why should I spend my time trying to locate the right reference in Kate's book either?

Faithlilly is the person who should be providing a cite to back up her claim, but conveniently she doesn’t have to as I am the only one asking and she doesn’t have to respond to me because she has me on ignore.  Is that fair?  How about I put all sceptics on ignore and just post whatever I like without providing cites?

[Vertigo Swirl]

There appeared to be a lot of law breaking going on, Patrick Kennedy was almost boasting of his own exploits in conjunction with Método 3.

The McCanns did not tell CF about the dogs before the media, so Faithlilly has made that up.  Is that OK with you?  You seem to be agreeing with her.

[G-Unit]

It had been front page headlines weeks before, how do you know they even brought the subject up with CF?

It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;

His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]

[Vertigo Swirl]

That was the thing unless an argument is properly presented - case dismissed.  I'm not taking sides unless someone presents a comprehensive argument.

I have asked Fathlilly for a cite to back up her claim.  Why should I now have to provide the information? 

[Mr Gray]

It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;

His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]

where does it say ...they told him about...cite

[Vertigo Swirl]

It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;

His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]

Can you supply a cite for the date when he heard about the dogs and a cite for how he learned about them.

[John]

It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;

His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]

According to Kate's book (start of Ch 16), this was Monday 3rd September.

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to Kate's book, this was Monday 3rd September,

In which case the news about the dog alerts was approximately three weeks old having been plastered all over the international media.  Now canwe have a retraction and apology from Faithlilly for her libellous comment and for misleading the forum?

[John]

In which case the news about the dog alerts was approximately three weeks old having been plastered all over the international media.  Now canwe have a retraction and apology from Faithlilly for her libellous comment and for misleading the forum?

Faiths comment was quite specific and is technically correct wrt judicial secrecy. The McCanns revealed information which Freud was not then aware of.

The actual reference from Kate's book...

"When he  heard  about  the  dogs,  he  remarked  laconicaly, ‘So  what  are  they  going  to  do?  Put  them  on  the stand?  One  bark  for  yes,  two  for  no?’  He  was  right, of  course;  it  was  ridiculous."

[slartibartfast]

Faiths comment was quite specific and is technically correct. The McCanns revealed information which Freud was not then aware of.

The actual reference from Kate's book...

"When he  heard  about  the  dogs,  he  remarked  laconicaly, ‘So  what  are  they  going  to  do?  Put  them  on  the stand?  One  bark  for  yes,  two  for  no?’  He  was  right, of  course;  it  was  ridiculous."

Exactly, any targeted harassment of posters for cites already given is a no no.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Faiths comment was quite specific and is technically correct wrt judicial secrecy. The McCanns revealed information which Freud was not then aware of.

The actual reference from Kate's book...

"When he  heard  about  the  dogs,  he  remarked  laconicaly, ‘So  what  are  they  going  to  do?  Put  them  on  the stand?  One  bark  for  yes,  two  for  no?’  He  was  right, of  course;  it  was  ridiculous."

Absolute nonsense.  The whole world knew about the dog alerts by the time of this meeting (thanks to the PJ)  so please explain to us all how the McCanns broke judicial secrecy?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Exactly, any targeted harassment of posters for cites already given is a no no.

What cite has been given that the McCanns told CF about the dogs and thus broke judicial secrecy?

[Mr Gray]

Absolute nonsense.  The whole world knew about the dog alerts by the time of this meeting (thanks to the PJ)  so please explain to us all how the McCanns broke judicial secrecy?

john and others are assuming the maccanns told CF about the dogs...why would they have to...it wa scommon knowledge courtesy of the breach of judicial secrecy by the pj

[Wonderfulspam]

I'd forgotten all about Clement Freud.

I don't think it matters if the McCanns told him of the dogs & broke judicial secrecy or not.