“A Laughable Story”

[G-Unit]

remember SY have ruled the McCanns out

Based on their misunderstanding of the evidence collected by the first investigation imo.

[Mr Gray]

Based on their misunderstanding of the evidence collected by the first investigation imo.

And you know what I think of your opinion. SY have ruled the mcCcanns out ...that is a fact

[Anthro]

Yes you did, but would you have corrected your mistake if I hadn't challenged you, or would your attempt to suggest that Brueckner was Smithman have been successful?

Having seen many photos of Gerry McCann I would describe his hair colour as dark brown.

How would you describe any hair colour observed in the dark?

[G-Unit]

How would you describe any hair colour observed in the dark?

I haven't been to PdL so I haven't seen the place where Smithman was seen. Those who were there seemed to be able to tell the difference between blond and brown, however.

[sadie]

I haven't been to PdL so I haven't seen the place where Smithman was seen. Those who were there seemed to be able to tell the difference between blond and brown, however.

Colour would depend on the sort of light that was around, when each of the Smiths saw the man.  According to where they were, they would see anything from no colour to sickly yellow colour to possibly more or less real colour.  The moon had just risen IIRC, but I doubt that it would be high enough to illuminate Rua d'Escola much

- Sodium lamps would cast a sickly yellow hue with just shades otherwise … NO colour at all, apart from the yellow

- Moonlight is monochromatic (no colour shows, just shades)

- Most car head lamps are Monochromatic as well, so no colour from them in Rua Abril 26.  I understand that certain vehicles like Land Rovers do give out light that shows colour..

- Most normal house lights shining out would give colour, but I don't see many windows in the Smith sighting places

- But the mighty lamp above Aoife ?   I wonder exactly what sort of light that gave?



And are we right in thinking that the street lamps in Rua d'Escola and Rua Abril 26th are actually sodium ?  cos it makes a hell of a lot of difference if they are not.
.

[Wonderfulspam]

And you know what I think of your opinion. SY have ruled the mcCcanns out ...that is a fact

But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.

Personally I’d give more credence to the opinions of experienced professionals with the full facts at their disposal and no axe to grind than armchair detectives and internet trolls, one can only assume the reverse is true for you.

[G-Unit]

Personally I’d give more credence to the opinions of experienced professionals with the full facts at their disposal and no axe to grind than armchair detectives and internet trolls, one can only assume the reverse is true for you.

When discussing the first investigation the full facts are available to all who wish to see them. A lot of people can see why the PJ turned to investigating the parents rather than chasing an alleged abductor. It's also clear that Rowley's claim that their involvement was 'dealt with' at the time isn't true.

[Vertigo Swirl]

When discussing the first investigation the full facts are available to all who wish to see them. A lot of people can see why the PJ turned to investigating the parents rather than chasing an alleged abductor. It's also clear that Rowley's claim that their involvement was 'dealt with' at the time isn't true.

1) Really?  So there was nothing in the initial investigation that wasn't included in the online files?  And you know there was nothing of worth in the subsesquent investigations carried out by the McCanns investigators that the new investigation has recourse to but that remains unpublished?
2)Are you calling Rowley a liar?  Present your evidence for this then.

[G-Unit]

1) Really?  So there was nothing in the initial investigation that wasn't included in the online files?  And you know there was nothing of worth in the subsesquent investigations carried out by the McCanns investigators that the new investigation has recourse to but that remains unpublished?
2)Are you calling Rowley a liar?  Present your evidence for this then.

1. As usual you are pinning your hopes on something which you can't prove exists. Neither can you prove that this mysteriously hidden information was seen by OG. The only interesting information gathered from the PI's was the hidden photofits imo.

2. "it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The mention of of neglectful homicide still being a possibility means that parental involvement is still a possibility imo. The (mistaken) use of 277/1 probably misled OG as well as the McCanns.

[Vertigo Swirl]

1. As usual you are pinning your hopes on something which you can't prove exists. Neither can you prove that this mysteriously hidden information was seen by OG. The only interesting information gathered from the PI's was the hidden photofits imo.

2. "it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The mention of of neglectful homicide still being a possibility means that parental involvement is still a possibility imo. The (mistaken) use of 277/1 probably misled OG as well as the McCanns.

What an odd response imo. 
1)It is a FACT that the experience professionals investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have access to the full set of evidence and information accumulated in a way that you do not.  That's got nothing to do with me pinning my hopes on something that may not exist, it DOES exist and my hoping or otherwise has nothing to do with it.
2) You have completely failed to prove that Rowley lied to us when he claimed the parents were dealt with at the time, all you have done is repeat your opinion, which IMO is not worth a hill of beans. 
Y

[The General]

1. As usual you are pinning your hopes on something which you can't prove exists. Neither can you prove that this mysteriously hidden information was seen by OG. The only interesting information gathered from the PI's was the hidden photofits imo.

2. "it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The mention of of neglectful homicide still being a possibility means that parental involvement is still a possibility imo. The (mistaken) use of 277/1 probably misled OG as well as the McCanns.

Top post.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Top post.

Not really for the reasons I have outlined in my post above.

[G-Unit]

What an odd response imo. 
1)It is a FACT that the experience professionals investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have access to the full set of evidence and information accumulated in a way that you do not.  That's got nothing to do with me pinning my hopes on something that may not exist, it DOES exist and my hoping or otherwise has nothing to do with it.
2) You have completely failed to prove that Rowley lied to us when he claimed the parents were dealt with at the time, all you have done is repeat your opinion, which IMO is not worth a hill of beans. 
Y

So you think some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine's parents? Rowley said the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement, not OG, but it didn't imo. Neglectful homicide clearly points to those responsible for the care and protection of the child.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you think some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine's parents? Rowley said the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement, not OG, but it didn't imo. Neglectful homicide clearly points to those responsible for the care and protection of the child.

That’s your interpretation.  It’s clear to me the distinction being drawn is between murder and manslaughter but of course you will disagree.  And stop putting words in my mouth.  I did not say “That some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine’s parents”.  I said that I trust the opinion of those professional experts with the full facts at their disposal over the opinion of people like you.  Now tell me why I should not.