Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 357580 times)

0 Members and 26 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #630 on: September 27, 2020, 01:49:14 PM »
“I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine”.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #631 on: September 27, 2020, 01:52:15 PM »
“I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine”.

How near was you sat to them

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #632 on: September 27, 2020, 02:04:59 PM »
How near was you sat to them
Closer than you was.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #633 on: September 27, 2020, 02:12:14 PM »
You are making things up...I suggest you the check the statement

Impressao...impression.

Impression...an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence

I did not have the impression ( impressao ) that the gesture was referring to Madeleine.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 02:24:59 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #634 on: September 27, 2020, 02:17:31 PM »
Spot the difference:

"Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine"

“I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine”.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #635 on: September 27, 2020, 02:23:57 PM »
Impressao...impression.

Impression...an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence

you posted

Another point, Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine, not that they weren’t.

so you are either not familair with the stateemnt or it was an intentional attempt to deceive...ie...a lie

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #636 on: September 27, 2020, 02:29:14 PM »
you posted

Another point, Arul Gaspar said he wasn’t aware that Gerry and DP were talking about Madeleine, not that they weren’t.

so you are either not familair with the stateemnt or it was an intentional attempt to deceive...ie...a lie

He did not have the impression, not that he did not feel...subtle difference. Read the statement.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #637 on: September 27, 2020, 02:35:05 PM »
He did not have the impression, not that he did not feel...subtle difference. Read the statement.
At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine...



https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 02:38:03 PM by Davel »

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #638 on: September 27, 2020, 02:37:13 PM »
There is no difference between
"I didn't get the impression..."
and
"I didn't feel"

Someone is definitely trying to spread fake news.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #639 on: September 27, 2020, 02:39:05 PM »
At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine...



https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm

Impressao...impression.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #640 on: September 27, 2020, 03:04:29 PM »
Closer than you was.

I wasn't there just going by what KG said ...who was close enough to see and hear what was done and said.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #641 on: September 27, 2020, 03:05:02 PM »
Desperation.  since when did impressaro mean "not aware" anyway?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #642 on: September 27, 2020, 03:05:45 PM »
I wasn't there just going by what KG said ...who was close enough to see and hear what was done and said.
Accept nothing, believe no one, confirm everything.   8(0(*
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #643 on: September 27, 2020, 03:08:26 PM »
Accept nothing, believe no one, confirm everything.   8(0(*

Does that go for, the evidence against CB as well?

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #644 on: September 27, 2020, 03:15:21 PM »
Does that go for, the evidence against CB as well?
you tell me.  Is it a maxim by which you process all the information you gather  or isn't it?  Personally I think witness statements should always be taken with a pinch of salt, no matter who the witness is.   Human memory is deeply flawed and suggestible.  On the other hand if a Public prosecutor, a person in a highly serious and responsible position says that they have strong evidence against an individual I am inclined to take that at face value.  The reason for that is - their credibility is on the line and if they are lying or talking bollocks the truth will out and and their credibility (and possibly their career) will be shot.  That's what I think, what about you though?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 05:33:34 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".