What do you guys think of this?

[pathfinder73]

Oh Yeah?

Hope they can understand that.

Well done anyhow for notifying them of what YOU believe.



Does Pegasus understand your reasons, cos I dont.

It is the only way that explains everything. The Met are using the unreliable dogs again. Pegasus like you will still be scratching your heads when the truth comes out. People LIE to cover up a crime. It's undeniable FACT.

[ferryman]

Have you heard of Mustafa's theory sadie, it's brilliant .

No.

But I am familiar with the standard of your appraisal of on-line material in general.

And that's probably all I need to know ...

[sadie]

So you think.

Meanwhile we know of your operating procedure.

As personified by your continuing attacks and libelling of Martin Grime.

I've known Ferryman for a long time and I have never heard him libel anyone

[stephen25000]

I've known Ferryman for a long time and I have never heard him libel anyone

You support and agree with ferryman.

So what's new.

[John]

Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.

This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/

There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..

It's strewn with errors and speculations and could be considered libellous.  The title is somewhat dubious since only the abductor (if there was one) knows what happened to Madeleine.  And it is the job of MSM to report the news, not to have opinion.

[Carana]

It's strewn with errors and speculations and could be considered libellous.  The title is somewhat dubious since only the abductor (if there was one) knows what happened to Madeleine.  And it is the job of MSM to report the news, not to have opinion.

I tend to agree. There were a few points that seemed accurate, but many others weren't. The result was that the conclusion was totally skewed.

- I'm not aware of any source other than Amaral's book/video in which Jez Wilkins is referred to as "Jeremiah".

- Someone else pointed out the Smith issue.

- The "200 cases" concerning Eddie... Grime's CV did state 200 cases, but if anyone bothered to check his actual report, he'd corrected the ambiguity. It did not concern 200 criminal investigation cases (which some people assume that to mean), but 200 incidents in which the dog had not alerted to processed meat for human consumption or roadkill.

The sources don't seem to be objective, IMO.

[ferryman]

Re: What do you guys think of this?

In summary, the considered judgment seems to be, not much ...

[Mr Moderator]

Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.

This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/

There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..

When people write blogs about ongoing events they have a duty to get the basics correct.  This blog appears to have been written by someone who has but a mere skeletal knowledge of the Madeleine McCann case.  Not wanting to be too critical however the nicest thing I can say is go back to the drawing board and have another go. 

The very first line of the main article begins, "On the 3rd May 2007 Madeleine McCann, while asleep in a room with her siblings, was abducted."

This has never been established so it is very wrong to make such a sweeping statement.  The correct intro would have been.  On the 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.

[Alfred R Jones]

When people write blogs about ongoing events they have a duty to get the basics correct.  This blog appears to have been written by someone who has but a mere skeletal knowledge of the Madeleine McCann case.  Not wanting to be too critical however the nicest thing I can say is go back to the drawing board and have another go. 

The very first line of the main article begins, "On the 3rd May 2007 Madeleine McCann, while asleep in a room with her siblings, was abducted."

This has never been established so it is very wrong to make such a sweeping statement.  The correct intro would have been.  On the 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.

You see, this is where selective quoting completely alters the meaning of the words written.  You selectively quoted this bit:

On the 3rd May 2007 Madeleine McCann, while asleep in a room with her siblings, was abducted.

whilst failing to acknowledge the sentences that immediately follow it:


 

This is the story of events everyone got used to accepting. But is it true? Or  does this version hide a crime some want to conceal?

Thus rendering your above criticism somewhat invalid.