What did Kate McCann really see in the Children's Bedroom

[slartibartfast]

JT, DP and MO for starters - all accused (implicitly) of collusion, lying and worse.  I’ll not go into details if you don’t mind.

Strawman

[Vertigo Swirl]

Strawman

Why?

[Brietta]

I believe the Tapas 7 were completely truthful in their accounts for that evening apart from Matt's statement about seeing the Twins in the Children's bedroom that night.

Do you really think three of the Tapas 7 are involved, that's five out of the nine.  Do you have three friends out of seven friends who would collude with you to cover up a Child going missing, possibly dead? 

I don't have any friends who would do such a thing and neither do Kate and Gerry McCann as has been proved after investigation by the Portuguese police.

A reminder for this and other threads

Libel by innuendo = In law it means
"Innuendo" is used in lawsuits for defamation (libel or slander), usually to show that the party suing was the person about whom the nasty statements were made or why the comments were defamatory.
Innuendo - Legal Dictionary | Law.com

[slartibartfast]

Why?

You are arguing against your own conclusions drawn from the discrepancies in the statements.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You are arguing against your own conclusions drawn from the discrepancies in the statements.

What are you on about? I’m not arguing anything, I was asked to list 3 individual Tapas member  accused by some of collusion, and I gave a straight forward response to the question.  How is that a strawman?

[slartibartfast]

What are you on about? I’m not arguing anything, I was asked to list 3 individual Tapas member  accused by some of collusion, and I gave a straight forward response to the question.  How is that a strawman?

Please provide the cite for accused of collusion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Please provide the cite for accused of collusion.

Oh please.  Just read back fgs, and kindly acknowledge you were wrong to accuse me of putting forward a strawman.

[Robittybob1]

JT, DP and MO for starters - all accused (implicitly) of collusion, lying and worse.  I’ll not go into details if you don’t mind.

What I meant was that if you can say "because we do have some contributors to  this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge", are these accusations still in the thread?  If they were just list the post numbers or links to the posts so I know what you are claiming.

[Robittybob1]

if in my theory I propose a prank, that could be called collusion, but only collusion to play a prank, nothing worse.  They were all in collusion to meet up at Tapas after 8:30, so being called in collusion isn't such a bad thing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What I meant was that if you can say "because we do have some contributors to  this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge", are these accusations still in the thread?  If they were just list the post numbers or links to the posts so I know what you are claiming.

You know full well that explicit accusations of illegal conduct are forbidden on this forum, that is why I used the word implicit in my post.  This entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday.  Anyone claiming otherwise is being disingenous at best. IMO.

[slartibartfast]

Oh please.  Just read back fgs, and kindly acknowledge you were wrong to accuse me of putting forward a strawman.

Then it should be very easy for you to provide a cite.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Then it should be very easy for you to provide a cite.

Why don’t we start with Robbityrob’s posts on this thread and we’ll go on from there shall we?  He has proposed a prank that went wrong played by the Tapas 7, so immediately we have an accusation of lying and covering up.  Next?

[slartibartfast]

Why don’t we start with Robbityrob’s posts on this thread and we’ll go on from there shall we?  He has proposed a prank that went wrong played by the Tapas 7, so immediately we have an accusation of lying and covering up.  Next?

My bad, I hadn’t taken Robbity’s theories seriously.

[Robittybob1]

My bad, I hadn’t taken Robbity’s theories seriously.

All the statements are taken in the situation of the people as being witnesses.  I don't see signs of of lying and covering up. 
Even though some situations are hard to accept like Jane passing both Gerry and Jez and neither seeing Jane.  Was that partly "lying and covering up" or can it be explained in some other way?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Why don’t we start with Robbityrob’s posts on this thread and we’ll go on from there shall we?  He has proposed a prank that went wrong played by the Tapas 7, so immediately we have an accusation of lying and covering up.  Next?

So you took Robbies claim of a prank(1 person) and asserted that the whole forum is accusing the McCanns of a cover up? and of being disingenuous:

"quote from VS:This entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday.  Anyone claiming otherwise is being disingenous at best. IMO."

So we can assume that you  1 have no argument to challenge  part of a debate
                                          2 You have lost any sense of any argument by making personal jibes , and insulting
                                          the integrity of forum members.

Totally removed the debate from the thread title.  What did Kate see?   I suggest she didn't see what she claimed to have seen IMO.