Author Topic: Another view of dog evidence  (Read 54181 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #90 on: April 10, 2013, 05:42:27 PM »
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.

Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.




Edited because I can't comment )




The doggies could be right, but they can't say what they were reacting to. Forensics couldn't determine anything conclusive either.




So far, there is nothing to prove that she is dead, let alone who was responsible. Therefore, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is a possibility that she could still be alive.

 

Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified




If that little girl were your child, niece, neighbour's child, would you seriously - in the absence of proof to the contrary - deny her that right to be considered missing but potentially alive?



Never.
However, if it was my child I would never do any thing to put her in danger. And furthermore I would help the authorities to help me get her/him back, and never defy them or slander their efforts.
If you are a parent you give your life for your child you don't use your child to make a living.


It must be such a burden being such a picture of perfection.

Let us not forget your limited detective abilities when we convinced you that Eddie (a poster) was the mole among the mods on MM.

Offline Luz

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #91 on: April 10, 2013, 06:05:31 PM »
Nice memory Debunker. It shows what you are and what you stand for. After all we've known each other for 6 years.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #92 on: April 10, 2013, 06:13:05 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.

What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

Offline Luz

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #93 on: April 10, 2013, 06:38:40 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #94 on: April 10, 2013, 06:40:36 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Offline Luz

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #95 on: April 10, 2013, 07:09:27 PM »
Debunker, as I said I went along with your lie to get you, and I got you. I never was a moderator on any Forum and apart from this (UK Justice Forum) I never denounced or complained against anyone.

So you are making it all up. But if it makes you happy, continue.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #96 on: April 10, 2013, 07:15:39 PM »
Debunker, as I said I went along with your lie to get you, and I got you. I never was a moderator on any Forum and apart from this (UK Justice Forum) I never denounced or complained against anyone.

So you are making it all up. But if it makes you happy, continue.

Rubbish.

How can you have 'gone along with it' if you deny that you had nothing to do with it?

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #97 on: April 10, 2013, 07:35:22 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Debunker

Who is the  'us'  and 'we'  you refer to  ?

I have no connection with anyone on this forum,  and  I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #98 on: April 10, 2013, 07:41:49 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Debunker

Who is the  'us'  and 'we'  you refer to  ?

I have no connection with anyone on this forum,  and  I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group

This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #99 on: April 10, 2013, 07:55:00 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Debunker

Who is the  'us'  and 'we'  you refer to  ?

I have no connection with anyone on this forum,  and  I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group

This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.

I see

I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #100 on: April 10, 2013, 08:04:15 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Debunker

Who is the  'us'  and 'we'  you refer to  ?

I have no connection with anyone on this forum,  and  I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group

This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.

I see

I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant

The [ censored word] had attacked many Pro forums and caused them to be closed down by making spurious copyright infringement complaints- surprisingly it was Brenda Ryan and Bonnie Braes from the 3As that led this form of attack. From then on it was open season on [ censored word ] forums, but we were more subtle, causing internal dissent and division between Admin, Mods and Posters.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #101 on: April 10, 2013, 08:18:46 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Debunker

Who is the  'us'  and 'we'  you refer to  ?

I have no connection with anyone on this forum,  and  I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group

This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.

I see

I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant

The [ censored word] had attacked many Pro forums and caused them to be closed down by making spurious copyright infringement complaints- surprisingly it was Brenda Ryan and Bonnie Braes from the 3As that led this form of attack. From then on it was open season on [ censored word ] forums, but we were more subtle, causing internal dissent and division between Admin, Mods and Posters.

I can only hope the moderators on this forum are taking note of your boasts

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #102 on: April 10, 2013, 08:24:40 PM »
You must admit that you pitchforked Eddie off the site as you were so sure that she was the mole.

Sit back and think about that.
 
What did she call you afterwards. Three Fat Portuguese Princesses.

I didn't do anything. You are confusing everything. I went along with your lie just to see where you you would get to. Now I saw.

You forget that I was still privy to all the PMs after you pitchforked us out- you never discovered the mole, we quietly retired it. You had no idea what had happened and were certain that Eddie was the mole- I still have the PMs!

Lies again

Debunker

Who is the  'us'  and 'we'  you refer to  ?

I have no connection with anyone on this forum,  and  I would like to know if I am debating with some kind of organised group

This goes back three of four years. A group of Pros and Fencies found a back door into the modbox of an anti-mccann site and spread paranoia by mentioning what was being discussed there. They ended up having a kangaroo court and ousting one of their own as the mole.

I see

I can't say I'm impressed that you and others found such great sport in the case of a missing infant

The [ censored word] had attacked many Pro forums and caused them to be closed down by making spurious copyright infringement complaints- surprisingly it was Brenda Ryan and Bonnie Braes from the 3As that led this form of attack. From then on it was open season on [ censored word ] forums, but we were more subtle, causing internal dissent and division between Admin, Mods and Posters.

I can only hope the moderators on this forum are taking note of your boasts

Those days seem to be behind us now and the two camps no longer attack each other in that manner.

Offline Carana

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #103 on: April 10, 2013, 10:22:11 PM »
Let's hope the doggies are wrong!
I wish very deeply that child was found alive, but I'm afraid that will never happen.

Let's try to do her justice and find out what has happened to her.




Edited because I can't comment )


The doggies could be right, but they can't say what they were reacting to. Forensics couldn't determine anything conclusive either.


So far, there is nothing to prove that she is dead, let alone who was responsible. Therefore, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is a possibility that she could still be alive.

Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified

If that little girl were your child, niece, neighbour's child, would you seriously - in the absence of proof to the contrary - deny her that right to be considered missing but potentially alive?

Never.
However, if it was my child I would never do any thing to put her in danger. And furthermore I would help the authorities to help me get her/him back, and never defy them or slander their efforts.
If you are a parent you give your life for your child you don't use your child to make a living.


I think that you have got the quotation marks mixed up. The paragraph in blue (but in my name) must be your comment, not mine.

Offline Carana

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #104 on: April 10, 2013, 10:33:38 PM »
@ Luz

What I assume to be your comment to me...


Fair enough. But accounting to the exposure of this case do you honestly believe it? I remember that still in the first half of 2007 (if my memory serves me right) the late Director of Faro PJ said that if the child was alive, the parents by disclosing her coloboma and the mark in her left leg had just killed her. No abductor would keep a child that could be so easily identified


I've never understood this.

How would one launch a missing child alert without distinguishing features?

How could any citizen recognise one child from all others without any?

The PJ's own website lists distinguishing features of missing people...


That said, I'm not certain that the PJ had a website back in 2007.