Does publicly "doubting" the McCanns add to the distress of the McCann family?

[Wonderfulspam]

I think I would stop reading the forum. Simple.

Yes, they could just not read doubter forums,  if it's so upsetting for them.

They could use their time more effectively by going out & searching for the real live findable child of whom there is absolutely nothing to suggest she has come to any harm.

[Alice Purjorick]

Yes - doubt is a feeling, expressing your doubt in words day in day out over the course of many years strays very far into the realms of abuse IMO. 
For example if I were to write "G-Unit, I doubt that you are a very honest or decent person, and I think you know where the body is hidden" every day on this forum (may be several times a day) for nearly 8 years, would that just be l'il ol' me doubting, or would you feel under attack?

PMSL. I seem to remember you doing just that to a poster on here Alf. Well not for 8 years granted but enough time for you to get a warning 

[faithlilly]

Yes, they could just not read doubter forums,  if it's so upsetting for them.

They could use their time going out & searching instead.

Off course they could read supporter forums WS but they seem just to be a place to repost sceptic's opinions and sneer so no getting away from posters who doubt there either.

[Wonderfulspam]

I agree. Some people however, have cast doubt on the provenance of the files. If you follow Anna's link there is a long series of posts suggesting tha a dastardly character who was a friend of Goncalo Amaral illegally released the files and may have tampered with them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3835.msg144149#msg144149

I can't find any reference by the poster to any source which confirms his/her allegations so I have to assume there is none and that the allegations about the files are the poster's opinion only.

Joana Morais is quoted as exposing the dastardly person, as indeed she did. She also said;

The rogatory interviews done with the Tapas 7 in the UK, in April 2008, are legitimate. The DVD process is authentic. The book written by the former coordinator to the case is based on facts pertaining to the investigation - it is there that we should look for the Truth.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html

@Lace

The thread is about 'doubt' not abuse.

One wonders why, considering the McCanns are in possession of accurate translations, why they don't make them public & dispel the suspicions(which were spawned by the tampered version) of the vicious trolls who attack the family.

It's probably because the inconsistencies are there in both versions really.

[Brietta]

One wonders why, considering the McCanns are in possession of accurate translations, why they don't make them public & dispel the suspicions(which were spawned by the tampered version) of the vicious trolls who attack the family.

It's probably because the inconsistencies are there in both versions really.

I think it may be because their priority is finding Madeleine McCann ... not appeasing loonies.

Good to see your acceptance of the fact that the files we have access to are inaccurate ... s'pose that must be progress of a kind.

[stephen25000]

'appeasing loonies.'.

Now I'm sure  you know certain websites where the inhabitants are precisely that.

..........and you know who they back.   

[G-Unit]

So G-Unit, in what sort of venue would you be happy to express your doubts about the McCanns to their nearest and dearest?  In the queue at the supermarket perhaps?  I see that "good manners would prevent me (ie you) from raising the subject at all", apart that is from on the internet where your manners take a back seat to your "doubts" which you air very publicly and permanently for anyone in the world to see, including perhaps the family of Madeleine McCann.  What a strange double standard. 

What happened to Madeleine McCann isn't really my business, though I am interested to know.  I don't however make it my business to point fingers at those I think may be guilty, or to cast aspersions on the honesty of those involved in the case.  I do not like seeing people who I perceive to be victims of crime further victimised by internet "doubters" ("bullies" is a better word in my view) and that is why I have challenged such behaviour when I have encountered it.  I don't limit my interest to the McCann case in that respect either.  I am certainly not labouring under any misapprehension that anything I say or do is given the thumbs up by the McCanns themselves, but nor do I believe that my actions cause them distress.  If I were to discover that in fact I was wrong and that my actions WERE a source of distress to the family of Madeleine McCann then I would stop straight away.  "Doubters" already KNOW that their actions cause the McCann family distress but they continue anyway.  What does that tell you about these people?

I am entitled to an opinion as are you. I can write and write replies to your accusations but I will never convince you of anything, I suspect, because you're RIGHT and I'm WRONG. I would be happy to debate the evidence with you, but you prefer to attack my motives and conclusions instead. I know nothing about what the McCann family feel about doubts being raised concerning the truth of their relatives' story, but I do my utmost to ensure that anything i say is based on evidence (not the mainstream media if possible because, believe it or not, they don't always tell the truth  ).

@Brietta

the files which are alleged to be unreliable.

[Lace]

'appeasing loonies.'.

Now I'm sure  you know certain websites where the inhabitants are precisely that.

..........and you know who they back.   

So do I.   

[Lace]

Off course they could read supporter forums WS but they seem just to be a place to repost sceptic's opinions and sneer so no getting away from posters who doubt there either.

You NEVER sneer do you Faithlilly,   BS never sneers does he Faithlilly. 

[Lace]

Quite a few as it happens, but I've been away for a few days so the mods have had a break.

They haven't been out searching recently, for the reasons I've given, you could just admit that's the truth, because it is.

I am excusing your ignorance as I think you are winding people up.

They can only follow up sightings or anything that is reported to the call centre or police WS,   as in case it has slipped your mind THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE MADELEINE IS.

[Wonderfulspam]

I am excusing your ignorance as I think you are winding people up.

They can only follow up sightings or anything that is reported to the call centre or police WS,   as in case it has slipped your mind THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE MADELEINE IS.

No, it hasn't slipped my mind,  it never entered my mind in the first place, because they do.

[Lace]

No, it hasn't slipped my mind,  it never entered my mind in the first place, because they do.

You know more than two police forces then.

[Brietta]

I am entitled to an opinion as are you. I can write and write replies to your accusations but I will never convince you of anything, I suspect, because you're RIGHT and I'm WRONG. I would be happy to debate the evidence with you, but you prefer to attack my motives and conclusions instead. I know nothing about what the McCann family feel about doubts being raised concerning the truth of their relatives' story, but I do my utmost to ensure that anything i say is based on evidence (not the mainstream media if possible because, believe it or not, they don't always tell the truth  ).

@Brietta

the files which are alleged to be unreliable.

The files translated by 'volunteers' which we know are not only unreliable but which are incomplete.

However if you prefer to rely on Levy's competence and honour, that is entirely a matter for you, neither the Madeleine fund nor Operation Grange found them fit for purpose.

Rather like the difference between a red top and a sworn affidavit.

[G-Unit]

The files translated by 'volunteers' which we know are not only unreliable but which are incomplete.

However if you prefer to rely on Levy's competence and honour, that is entirely a matter for you, neither the Madeleine fund nor Operation Grange found them fit for purpose.

Rather like the difference between a red top and a sworn affidavit.

Quoting opinion as fact again? Cites please.

[Alfred R Jones]

PMSL. I seem to remember you doing just that to a poster on here Alf. Well not for 8 years granted but enough time for you to get a warning 

Really?  Perhaps you could remind me who I was publicly accusing of being a liar who knows where the body is hidden, often and repeatedly - was I accusing a named person or an anonymous internet ID?  Perhaps you could stop pissing yourself for a moment to answer...