Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Robittybob1]

he seems to me to be very professional. I therefore dont think he would say such a thing if he didnt have something.

Police are allowed to exaggerate, and to have a ruse.  Just to confused the accused into making a confession of some sort. 

[Brietta]

Police are allowed to exaggerate, and to have a ruse.  Just to confused the accused into making a confession of some sort.

He has a reputation to uphold both personal and of his Office.  He is not going to lie in the public arena and ruin his credibility.

[The General]

He has a reputation to uphold both personal and of his Office.  He is not going to lie in the public arena and ruin his credibility.

He's a policeman, it's part of the job description.

[kizzy]

he seems to me to be very professional. I therefore dont think he would say such a thing if he didnt have something.

So it is as Rob said ..you are taking it as face value.

IMO it's not a fact that it has to be true....seems only to you.

[Mr Gray]

So it is as Rob said ..you are taking it as face value.

IMO it's not a fact that it has to be true....seems only to you.

Rob admitted he was wrong....you have totally misunderstood what Ive said...even though robs explained it to you.

Ive took nothing at face value and only posted facts. I'm trying to be polite but the fact that you cant see that is your problem not mine

[Robittybob1]

Rob admitted he was wrong....you have totally misunderstood what Ive said...even though robs explained it to you.

Ive took nothing at face value and only posted facts. I'm trying to be polite but the fact that you cant see that is your problem not mine

It depends on what we think "on face value" means.  I never admitted I was wrong but only possibly wrong, I think, I'll check!  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg618431#msg618431  Actual words were "may not be".   

[kizzy]

It depends on what we think "on face value" means.  I never admitted I was wrong but only possibly wrong, I think, I'll check!  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg618431#msg618431  Actual words were "may not be".

Thats the way I read it ....."may not be".

Seems I havent got a problem after all as D thinks

[Mr Gray]

Thats the way I read it ....."may not be".

Seems I havent got a problem after all as D thinks

When I post..

HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killedMM..

I am posting fact...not opinion. thats what you don't understand and taht's your problem.

[Mr Gray]

It depends on what we think "on face value" means.  I never admitted I was wrong but only possibly wrong, I think, I'll check!  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg618431#msg618431  Actual words were "may not be".

Accepting something on face value means accepting something without questioning it....that isnt what i did...but it makes no difference because what i poated was factually correct not my opinion

[The General]

Accepting something on face value means accepting something without questioning it....that isnt what i did...but it makes no difference because what i poated was factually correct not my opinion

'at' face value, not 'on'; ergo the allusion to the premise of acceptance without dwelling on it too much, and it might not be true, you're accepting that.

Excellent Phil Collins album too.

I wonder how much HCW has taken at face value?

[Robittybob1]

Thats the way I read it ....."may not be".

Seems I havent got a problem after all as D thinks

Maybe not.  I would be guessing to know what he thinks.   I have a thing against the excessive use of elipsis. One per post is probably OK but when there are multiple the meaning can be ambiguous.

When I post..

HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killedMM..

I am posting fact...not opinion. thats what you don't understand and taht's your problem.

When "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM", that is HCW's opinion. 
When you post that "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM"  It is a fact that HCW has that opinion, but it is not a fact that HCW has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe not.  I would be guessing to know what he thinks.   I have a thing against the excessive use of elipsis. One per post is probably OK but when there are multiple the meaning can be ambiguous.

When "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM", that is HCW's opinion. 
When you post that "HCW says he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM"  It is a fact that HCW has that opinion, but it is not a fact that HCW has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM.

It may be his opinion but it is a fact that he said it..so my post is fact not opinion. Its quite simple

[Robittybob1]

It may be his opinion but it is a fact that he said it..so my post is fact not opinion. Its quite simple

Only in that you quoted someone else's opinion correctly.

[Mr Gray]

Only in that you quoted someone else's opinion correctly.

so I quoted fact...not my opinion. I may have quoted his opinion...but I didnt imply his opinion was fact. the fact I posted...HCW says....clearly shows Im posting his opinion

[Robittybob1]

so I quoted fact...not my opinion.

You can't actually say what is the fact other than correctly quoting HCW's opinion.