Wandering Off Topic

[jassi]

There are not - nor ever have been - two individuals who have been more "bad mouthed" worldwide than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Sceptics like you should really think hard about that before adding to the sceptic created morass of "research" based on personal prejudice never evidence.  Unless it is of the "here's one I made before" sort.

Why should that  be a problem for anyone but themselves ?

[Wonderfulspam]

What is the point of your research?  What do you hope to achieve?  You do know that your research is doomed to fail as you have limited access to the full evidence collated in this case don’t you??

Well, she doesn't need to see the concrete evidence to know there never was any. Others, not quite as sharp.

[Eleanor]

I do my own research and reach my own conclusions based upon it. I neither need nor crave support. Neither do I crave approval; especially from anonymous people on the internet who are pushing their own agenda and think that bad-mouthing others gives them the moral high ground.

I am not Anonymous.  But you are.  More double standards from you.

[G-Unit]

There are not - nor ever have been - two individuals who have been more "bad mouthed" worldwide than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Sceptics like you should really think hard about that before adding to the sceptic created morass of "research" based on personal prejudice never evidence.  Unless it is of the "here's one I made before" sort.

Are you saying that you attack and bad mouth people because, in your opinion, people have bad mouthed the McCanns? I wouldn't lower myself personally, but each to their own.

My research is based on evidence and I include quotes and cites.

[jassi]

I am not Anonymous.  But you are.  More double standards from you.

You might be, how would we know?
 What does it matter anyway - nobody cares ?

[Wonderfulspam]

Why should that  be a problem for anyone but themselves ?

I think the idea that the McCanns are bad mouthed world wide is a bit of a stretch aswell.
The people of the North Sentinel Islands will never have even heard of them, or their daughter. Lucky for them really.

[Eleanor]

You might be, how would we know?
 What does it matter anyway - nobody cares ?

And so are you Anonymous.  I am the one who does't care.

Maureen Eleanor Eccles Lang.  Just in case you missed it on previous occasions.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You might be, how would we know?
 What does it matter anyway - nobody cares ?

you cared enough to log on to this site this morning and ask the question.  Why bother? 

[G-Unit]

And so are you Anonymous.  I am the one who does't care.

Maureen Eleanor Eccles Lang.  Just in case you missed it on previous occasions.

Who is Elena Mitchell? Is she anonymous?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Are you saying that you attack and bad mouth people because, in your opinion, people have bad mouthed the McCanns? I wouldn't lower myself personally, but each to their own.

My research is based on evidence and I include quotes and cites.

And it has achieved.....what exactly?  Are you writing a book?  Do you think your research is helping anyone or that it may result in "justice 4 Maddie?"  I'm curious to know about these people who set themselves up as serious researchers and what exactly motivates them.  How does one properly research a subject when denied access to large amount of key information?

[Eleanor]

Who is Elena Mitchell? Is she anonymous?

My Maiden Name is Mitchell.

Word Press wouldn't accept Eleanor.  But thanks for advertising My Blog.

[Vertigo Swirl]

My Maiden Name is Mitchell.

Word Press wouldn't accept Eleanor.  But thanks for advertising My Blog.

you can put a link to your blog in your forum profile you know. 

[Brietta]

What is the point of your research?  What do you hope to achieve?  You do know that your research is doomed to fail as you have limited access to the full evidence collated in this case don’t you??

Very limited indeed.

There is a huge gap between 2007 and 2022 of which lay researchers have no information.  That includes the files hidden away by Paiva when he fell heir to the case, full of information he was meant to investigate but which would never have come to light had he not mentioned it in evidence in court.
Which resulted in the trial judge instructing the files he had marked as not relevant to the inquiry be passed to the McCanns.  These files formed part of the information made available to the Met for their review which led to Madeleine's case being reopened.

[Eleanor]

you can put a link to your blog in your forum profile you know.

Can I?  I didn't know that.  But it's actually doing alright on it's own merit anyway.

[Wonderfulspam]

And it has achieved.....what exactly?  Are you writing a book?  Do you think your research is helping anyone or that it may result in "justice 4 Maddie?"  I'm curious to know about these people who set themselves up as serious researchers and what exactly motivates them.  How does one properly research a subject when denied access to large amount of key information?

My research has been very revealing.
I long suspected that McCann supporters are an incredibly gullible bunch who'll believe anything. Watching supporters falling for Wolters concrete evidence boast has proven that my suspicions were right.