Author Topic: The Calpol claim revisited.  (Read 83310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #165 on: July 15, 2018, 09:17:46 AM »
Blooming heck its mystic Meg knowing what happened a week before the event.
This is a cite of some substance?

Indeed it is.  It is independent verification that music from the bar mixed with the hubbub of chatter from the restaurant as was experienced by the author might well have been replicated on the 3rd.
People were on holiday and relaxed ... but anyway, what about this Calpol thingy we should be discussing here?  Do you think that now people are well aware that Calpol has no sedative properties proving Amaral's error (couch ... bang! ... and non existent blood splatter), yet another error of Amaral's making ... that some interest in the topic has been lost?
Strange when one remembers it was a pivotal part of his theory.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline barrier

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #166 on: July 15, 2018, 09:35:29 AM »
Indeed it is.  It is independent verification that music from the bar mixed with the hubbub of chatter from the restaurant as was experienced by the author might well have been replicated on the 3rd.
People were on holiday and relaxed ... but anyway, what about this Calpol thingy we should be discussing here?  Do you think that now people are well aware that Calpol has no sedative properties proving Amaral's error (couch ... bang! ... and non existent blood splatter), yet another error of Amaral's making ... that some interest in the topic has been lost?
Strange when one remembers it was a pivotal part of his theory.

Unsurprisingly you drag Amaral into it,is it actually a part of his theory or is it a myth? I've never read his book but from what I gather the present investigations have yet to find any thing different from his main theory of I believe of accidental death.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline sadie

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #167 on: July 15, 2018, 12:06:29 PM »

Patio doors are almost exclusively talked about in the plural and I was using the word doors in that context.
The rear patio door was not locked, but it was closed IMO, giving the impression to anyone walking past that it was (most likely) locked, as the other Tapas appartment closed patio doors were. 

It would require someone to be bold /foolhardy enough to enter the garden, walk up the outside stairs and cross the illuminated patio to test them.  That would be rather dangerous, when they would be in view of not only the Tapas group, but also people walking the street below and certain villas / flats, with direct views.   Also there could have been an adult inside.

Too dangeerous.   It was not likely to have happened IMO

Offline sadie

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #168 on: July 15, 2018, 12:19:32 PM »
So you don’t have a cite?
There is mention of the gardeners being in the garden and pruning the bushes in at least one of the statements, I think Kate or Gerrys.  It has all been gone over before slarti, as you MUST well know.

You are just time wasting, MY TIME, when it has been proven before.


Offline slartibartfast

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #169 on: July 15, 2018, 12:23:29 PM »
There is mention of the gardeners being in the garden and pruning the bushes in at least one of the statements, I think Kate or Gerrys.  It has all been gone over before slarti, as you MUST well know.

You are just time wasting, MY TIME, when it has been proven before.

You have made the claim, it is up to you to provide the cite. I know you have claimed it in the past but as far as I remember you have never provided a cite.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline sadie

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #170 on: July 15, 2018, 12:28:00 PM »
So you don’t have a cite?
When are YOU and FAITH going to supply cites for all the extremely dicy statements you make.  Despite repeated requests, they haven't appeared on numerous occasions, as has been witnessed several imes on here in the past few months.

I have told you where the cite can be found, it has been mentioned several times before. 


Offline faithlilly

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #171 on: July 15, 2018, 12:35:38 PM »
So you don’t have a cite?

It would appear not. Isn’t that against forum etiquette ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #172 on: July 15, 2018, 12:37:43 PM »
When are YOU and FAITH going to supply cites for all the extremely dicy statements you make.  Despite repeated requests, they haven't appeared on numerous occasions, as has been witnessed several imes on here in the past few months.

I have told you where the cite can be found, it has been mentioned several times before. 



You made the claim it is up to you to provide a cite or withdraw your claim.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 03:36:38 PM by John »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Sunny

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #173 on: July 17, 2018, 08:56:46 PM »
Has anyone mentioned Calpol Night at all yet? I imagine that the McCanns being doctors would have had access to that as it was due out very soon, if not already out. I am not saying they gave it to Madeleine but that would have had sleep giving properties as that was what it was for.
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #174 on: July 17, 2018, 08:58:58 PM »
Has anyone mentioned Calpol Night at all yet? I imagine that the McCanns being doctors would have had access to that as it was due out very soon, if not already out. I am not saying they gave it to Madeleine but that would have had sleep giving properties as that was what it was for.
It’s probably only been discussed a couple of dozen times in recent years.  Let’s do it again shall we?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #175 on: July 17, 2018, 09:07:40 PM »
It’s probably only been discussed a couple of dozen times in recent years.  Let’s do it again shall we?
Yes, just for a laugh.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Sunny

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #176 on: July 17, 2018, 10:08:44 PM »
Yes, just for a laugh.

Perhaps I should have put Calpol Night revisited then it may not have been a laugh.  We have 12 pages of calpol revisited so why not calpol night?

Not all of us have been discussing the case for years and I couldn't find anything on the night version on here so I thought it may be worth discussing. Clearly not though.
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline misty

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #177 on: July 17, 2018, 10:18:11 PM »
Perhaps I should have put Calpol Night revisited then it may not have been a laugh.  We have 12 pages of calpol revisited so why not calpol night?

Not all of us have been discussing the case for years and I couldn't find anything on the night version on here so I thought it may be worth discussing. Clearly not though.

Calpol Night was not launched into the market until Sept 2007, 4 months after Madeleine went missing. It received its licence in Jan 2007.
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/branding-calpol-expands-kids-remedies/737476

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #178 on: July 17, 2018, 10:41:41 PM »
Perhaps I should have put Calpol Night revisited then it may not have been a laugh.  We have 12 pages of calpol revisited so why not calpol night?

Not all of us have been discussing the case for years and I couldn't find anything on the night version on here so I thought it may be worth discussing. Clearly not though.
You imagined that the McCanns had access to a drug that wasn’t on the market at the time they went on holiday, so why not do some investigating of your own and see if you can find some actual evidence for your imaginings, and then present them to us?  Then we can discuss them in earnest.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #179 on: July 18, 2018, 12:14:10 AM »
it was only a suggestion.  Is it possible that doctors had access to a drug not yet on the market.  It is possible but that is not proof as such.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.