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

[Vertigo Swirl]

Exactly - very fairly as well I thought.

I haven't watched much of it tbh, just the start and the last 10 minutes.  Did they seriously consider the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger at any point?  Did they discuss any of the other suspects in this case?

[kizzy]

I haven't watched much of it tbh, just the start and the last 10 minutes.  Did they seriously consider the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger at any point?  Did they discuss any of the other suspects in this case?

You should have watched the middle.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You should have watched the middle.

Give me the gist.  I found it deadly dull and hard to take seriously, particularly the muscle man with the tatts and the effin and jeffin.   Why should his opinion be worth the time and effort to listen to?

[G-Unit]

Much of it (like the podcast) opinionated crud.

At least they gave reasons even if you think their reasons aren't good enough. What has fascinated me is those who simply decided to support the McCanns and offered no reasons whatsoever.

[kizzy]

Give me the gist.  I found it deadly dull and hard to take seriously, particularly the muscle man with the tatts and the effin and jeffin.   Why should his opinion be worth the time and effort to listen to?

You should have done what I did  - listened to it in bed after my Horlicks.

They discussed various things very fairly IMO tried making sense of there cold odd behaviour.

They did call GA book tacky and felt sympathy for kate.

Apparently they had a large number of requests to do it - so a lot of interest in their opinion they have thousands of followers.

So doubt they will be all that interested in your opinion of them.


 

[Vertigo Swirl]

At least they gave reasons even if you think their reasons aren't good enough. What has fascinated me is those who simply decided to support the McCanns and offered no reasons whatsoever.

What fascinates me is why you would think anyone owes you an explanation.  No response to my last question either.  I think you're just throwing out unfounded and slightly goady comments for the want of anything better to do this wet Saturday afternoon

[Eleanor]

At least they gave reasons even if you think their reasons aren't good enough. What has fascinated me is those who simply decided to support the McCanns and offered no reasons whatsoever.

How do you explain Logic to people who have no conception of this?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You should have done what I did  - listened to it in bed after my Horlicks.

They discussed various things very fairly IMO tried making sense of there cold odd behaviour.

They did call GA book tacky and felt sympathy for kate.

Apparently they had a large number of requests to do it - so a lot of interest in their opinion they have thousands of followers.

So doubt they will be all that interested in your opinion of them.


 

I have no doubt they have a large follwing.  So do Q Anon.  I would rather not watch those fellas just before bedtime, it might give me nightmares.  They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it.  Well done them. 

[G-Unit]

How do you explain Logic to people who have no conception of this?

I don't know; not that I've seen any attempts being made.

[kizzy]

I have no doubt they have a large follwing.  So do Q Anon.  I would rather not watch those fellas just before bedtime, it might give me nightmares.  They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it.  Well done them.

They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it. 

Well, you watched it lol -  and impressed enough to want to know the rest and take the time to comment.

After all you could have just ignored it.

[Eleanor]

I don't know; not that I've seen any attempts being made.

You either understand Logic or you don't.  I have tried to explain, but I gave up long ago.  And now of course, I don't have to.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They are pandering to the lowest common denominator audience IMO and they've obviously succeeded in impressing it. 

Well, you watched it lol -  and impressed enough to want to know the rest and take the time to comment.

After all you could have just ignored it.

I watched about one tenth of it, I wasn’t impressed, Showing an interest in a topic under discussion doesn’t mean I’m impressed by it too, if it did we’d have to assume you were extremely impressed by the McCanns lol.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know; not that I've seen any attempts being made.

Another ridiculous and unevidenced observation IMO.  Tell us a logical, plausible account of parental involvement, guaranteed you won’t be able to. IMFriggingO.

[kizzy]

I watched about one tenth of it, I wasn’t impressed, Showing an interest in a topic under discussion doesn’t mean I’m impressed by it too, if it did we’d have to assume you were extremely impressed by the McCanns lol.

No not impressed at all

[Brietta]

Obviously not.

I opt for the evidence and most certainly would never allow myself to be deceived by belief in a botched unfinished investigation.

Makes me wonder a bit about those who prove inability to think for themselves and place their reliance on the perpetration and perpetrators of error and falsehood.

WOW!!! yet another link to an instruction video to enable opinion to be further cemented firmly in the past from which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.