A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?

[ferryman]

But dontcha know, any lack of truth is a lie ( unless your name is Amaral.)

The analogy I always use is the shooting dead of Jean Paul de Menezes oin the London Underground.

Witnesses "saw" de Menezes wearing a heavyweight, knee-length coat with leads trailing underneath.  He is supposed to have pole-vaulted barriers before sprinting into a carriage of the train, only to be pinned to the floor and shot.

The only true part was the last.

For the rest (revealed by analysis of CCTV footage of actual events), JP DeMenezes made a leisurely entrance to the station, wearing a light-weight denim jacket, stopped to buy a paper, boarded the train in an orthodox manner, was pinned to the floor and shot.

What price a reconstruction of uncovering the truth of that sequence of events?

[Mr Gray]

How trite.
 
and of course the mccanns are the personification of wholesomeness and  truthfulness.

some of us think they are

[Cariad]

Who is this  "WE" you speak of drummer  ?

Speaking for myself,  I have no problem at all with new members  (  or established members who are not familiar with the case  )  asking as many questions as they wish

You don't  have   to reply to their questions,   of course,    ... you could,  instead,  politely,  allow those of us who  are prepared to reply, to do so

What you  can't  do,  is to tell new members  (  or those unfamiliar with the case  )  that thier questions are tiresome  and they should not be posing them 

Admin will decide what is tolerated on this forum

I agree with Icabod. If you find answering new member's questions annoying, just don't. We were all new once and helping to dispel the myths is important.

I consider myself fairly well versed in this case, but it was only last week that I found out something I'd been innocently quoting as part of the PJ files was actually a note added to it by a forum member! If Carena hadn't taken the time to tell me that, I'd probably never have known. (thank you Carena)

[jassi]

Once again I will point out that there is a difference between lying and being in error.

Very good. Are you, by any chance, a politician or a lawyer?

[stephen25000]

some of us think they are

So you believe unequivocally the Mccanns have told the truth from the start without any lies at all ?

[Montclair]

  I said six years ago before the case was archived what would happen..shame I didn't save the post. Amaral couldn't solve the case..so why not throw as much mud as possible...say the parents did it...and everyone will believe it..well I didn't fall for it.

Well six years down the road and you still don't understand how police investigations are carried out in Portugal and you still insist in the idea that Gonçalo Amaral ran the investigation all by himself.

[Benice]

Well six years down the road and you still don't understand how police investigations are carried out in Portugal and you still insist in the idea that Gonçalo Amaral ran the investigation all by himself.

He was the Lead investigator in charge of the rest of the PJ team who were his subordinates.  IMO  It is not unreasonable to assume that it would be down to him to decide and co-ordinate which direction his investigatory team went in.

[Mr Gray]

So you believe unequivocally the Mccanns have told the truth from the start without any lies at all ?

regarding their evidence re Maddies disappearance. absolutely yes

[Wonderfulspam]

regarding their evidence re Maddies disappearance. absolutely yes

What evidence?

[Mr Gray]

What evidence?

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of evidence...a witness statement is evidence

[stephen25000]

regarding their evidence re Maddies disappearance. absolutely yes

Do you know for a fact the Mccanns have told the truth ?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Wonderfulspam]

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of evidence...a witness statement is evidence

Would that be the witness statements that point towards Tannerman being the abductor ?

[lizzibif.]

Do you know for a fact the Mccanns have told the truth ?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

do you know for fact they didn't..if so please post that fact..thank you.

[Wonderfulspam]

do you know for fact they didn't..if so please post that fact..thank you.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
 
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.


"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"

[stephen25000]

do you know for fact they didn't..if so please post that fact..thank you.

Perhaps you should read through some of the threads on here where evidence has been provided that they didn't tell the truth.