Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

There's no way Brueckner could have known that if he entered 5a, that one of her parents might just turn up & catch him at that precise moment. Or that someone might see him dragging her out of the window. So it is completely illogical that he would risk abducting Maddie. If we follow VS, Lace logic.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Nobody know what is going to happen when they wake up each day & leave the house. It's all open to chance. And I'm listening. But you still haven't presented any evidence of abduction. All there is, is a sighting of Gerry.

Yes but when you have a criminal act to commit unless you want to be caught you do everything within your power not to be.  If Gerry was Smithman hiding his child?s body for the second time that evening then that shows him to be either completely and insanely stupid or that he wanted to be caught red handed. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Women are better at ironing than detective work I find.

I didn?t think it would be too long before the misogynistic abuse began again, always a sure sign you?ve lost the argument.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There's no way Brueckner could have known that if he entered 5a, that one of her parents might just turn up & catch him at that precise moment. Or that someone might see him dragging her out of the window. So it is completely illogical that he would risk abducting Maddie. If we follow VS, Lace logic.

An abductor of a child from a residence  is by his very nature a risk taker, but they will have mitigated the risks of being caught prior to attempting the act, by waiting until the child is left alone, by ensuring the coast is clear, by creating a quick escape route from the building, by ensuring they can make a quick getaway once they have the child.  That is logical.  What is not logical is drawing attention to yourself by hollering that your child has been taken by an abductor and then carrying her dead body through thr heart of a tourist town for anyone passing to see.  That is illogical. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes but when you have a criminal act to commit unless you want to be caught you do everything within your power not to be.  If Gerry was Smithman hiding his child?s body for the second time that evening then that shows him to be either completely and insanely stupid or that he wanted to be caught red handed.

It fits with him not wanting to be caught. Because he minimised his time away from the group & the crime scene as much as possible & thus maximised his alibi. Only Jane noticed he was gone a long time. He didn't have a car so he couldn't get rid of her that way. His only option was on foot & after dark.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It fits with him not wanting to be caught. Because he minimised his time away from the group & the crime scene as much as possible & thus maximised his alibi. Only Jane noticed he was gone a long time. He didn't have a car so he couldn't get rid of her that way. His only option was on foot & after dark.

Absolute rubbish.  See my post above.

[Wonderfulspam]

An abductor of a child from a residence  is by his very nature a risk taker, but they will have mitigated the risks of being caught prior to attempting the act, by waiting until the child is left alone, by ensuring the coast is clear, by creating a quick escape route from the building, by ensuring they can make a quick getaway once they have the child.  That is logical.  What is not logical is drawing attention to yourself by hollering that your child has been taken by an abductor and then carrying her dead body through thr heart of a tourist town for anyone passing to see.  That is illogical.

Great, so now we've got the imaginary abductor that nobody saw, carrying out imaginary prior recognisance. Did he have his imaginary getaway vehicle in this imaginary scenario based on the imaginary evidence of yours?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Great, so now we've got the imaginary abductor that nobody saw, carrying out imaginary prior recognisance. Did he have his imaginary getaway vehicle in this imaginary scenario based on the imaginary evidence of yours?

Scoff all you like, you know I make sense even if you will never admit it  I mean, imaginary first hiding place, imaginary bin, blah blah blah I can heap just as much scorn on your theory but it seems adult discussion is quite beyond you.  I can sense my replies are now infuriating you and pushing you back into abuse mode so happy to leave it there before the morons and retards start flying again.

[Wonderfulspam]

Scoff all you like, you know I make sense even if you will never admit it  I mean, imaginary first hiding place, imaginary bin, blah blah blah I can heap just as much scorn on your theory but it seems adult discussion is quite beyond you.  I can sense my replies are now infuriating you and pushing you back into abuse mode so happy to leave it there before the morons and retards start flying again.

I will scoff because there's no evidence for any of it, VS. No evidence of getaway cars. No evidence of paedos. It's all in your imagination. The only evidence of abduction is the Smith sighting. Of which there is evidence it was Gerry.

[Wonderfulspam]

I didn?t think it would be too long before the misogynistic abuse began again, always a sure sign you?ve lost the argument.

You're doing so well in this argument that you're giving up & running way. Enjoy your ironing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I will scoff because there's no evidence for any of it, VS. No evidence of getaway cars. No evidence of paedos. It's all in your imagination. The only evidence of abduction is the Smith sighting. Of which there is evidence it was Gerry.

No evidence Madeleine was murdered by either of her parents, no evidence Gerry hid her body at 9pm, no evidence he threw her body in a bin at 10pm.  It?s all in YOUR imagination.  The Smith sighting is evidence of a man on the street that night carrying a child some distance from the apartment, that is all.   

[Vertigo Swirl]

You're doing so well in this argument that you're giving up & running way. Enjoy your ironing.

Stomp, stomp, stomp said the shitting pigeon as he kicked over all the chess pieces on the board and claimed victory yet again.

I think that as AI is so intelligent it?s going to be able to cure cancer one day and then kill us all the next, we should feed all that night?s witness statements into it and let it devise a timeline for that night.  I?m far more interested in debating with an intelligent being going forward than with an unreasonable shitting pigeon so I think that?s going to be my next AI project.  It may take some time, but the results could be interesting. . .

[Wonderfulspam]

No evidence Madeleine was murdered by either of her parents, no evidence Gerry hid her body at 9pm, no evidence he threw her body in a bin at 10pm.  It?s all in YOUR imagination.  The Smith sighting is evidence of a man on the street that night carrying a child some distance from the apartment, that is all.

A man on the street who happened to resemble Gerry. Happened to have similar trousers to his. Happened to be carrying his deeply unconscious daughter who closely matched Madeleine's description, all this happened at around the same time the McCanns were suspected to be faking an abduction because Madeleine was dead. I mean it isn't difficult to join the dots really. Now, about the abduction evidence? What is there, apart from the sighting of Gerry?

[Wonderfulspam]

Stomp, stomp, stomp said the shitting pigeon as he kicked over all the chess pieces on the board and claimed victory yet again.

I think that as AI is so intelligent it?s going to be able to cure cancer one day and then kill us all the next, we should feed all that night?s witness statements into it and let it devise a timeline for that night.  I?m far more interested in debating with an intelligent being going forward than with an unreasonable shitting pigeon so I think that?s going to be my next AI project.  It may take some time, but the results could be interesting. . .

Try asking AI if there's any evidence of abduction. You obviously need help with that question.

[Wonderfulspam]

We never got an answer on how anyone passing by would know the child was dead either? Probably because, short of walking right up to her & checking her pulse, there'd actually be no way to tell really.