Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Madeleine McCann

1…153154156158159…264

Comments

  • #4652
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,906 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    Just addressing the quality of a Panorama style programme. They couldn't even pick up the phone to a person they were going to make an erroneous claim about. Do you still claim the Met has no authority to investigate in Portugal? You do realise it's actually quite common. Did you know the French police investigated the death of Sophie Tuscan de Plantier in Ireland . The FBI in the states routinely investigates the murder/deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. If you are going to sneer my comments will you at least know what you are talking about please.

    In all fairness Panorama likely changed their view with so little aplomb due to the Mc Canns legal team. They successfully sued Express Group (rightfully) for publishing allegations with no evidential proof so they likely erred on the side of caution in that regard.

    And I don't blame them for suing tbh. There's no evidence of foul play OR an abduction.

    Imo people are right to question why the Mc Canns lied and impeded the initial investigation by changing stories and statements and outright lying in certain cases.

    But you can't just accuse them of foul play as theres no evidence of it, just as there's no evidence of an abduction.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #4653
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    MonkieSocks wrote: »
    But if Madeline Died in the apartment 3rd may 2007.
    Madeline was last seen by by someone other than their friends between 17.30 and 18.00,
    Lets split the difference here and go for 1745.
    So 17 .45 Kate and the kids are back Madeline dies soon after maybe 15 mins.
    So if we have a time of Death 18.00
    Cadaver scent; how long for it to form?
    PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minute
    However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.

    http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

    Again we split the difference for Cadaver scent + or - 30 mins of each other and get 2 hours.
    So Cadaver scent is present at 20.00
    McCans are the Tapas Bar at 20.35
    So they are in an area unfamiliar to them, no transport.

    How did they dispose of the body child in 35 mins, without the Portuguese Police or Scotland Yard ever finding any evidence of it

    Approx 10pm* onwards when Kate McCann sounded the alarm, the apartment was visited by many people, until it was eventually sealed off Police by at 4am May 4th 2007


    If we knew the answer to that question we wouldn't be here would we?

    *Btw that time is disputed by a range of independent witness btw...


  • #4654
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    gozunda wrote: »

    Maybe you should explain why you think the "dog not alerting correctly" .....

    You're just taking the piss now surely?

    I've been through it numerous times as have others. The dogs alerted. This was followed up by forensic testing. These tests didn't show anything. In the procedure, the dogs are just tools to point investigators in the direction of possible evidence. Their indications are not regarded as evidence.


  • #4655
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    Phoebas wrote: »
    You're just taking the piss now surely?I've been through it numerous times as have others. The dogs alerted. This was followed up by forensic testing. These tests didn't show anything. In the procedure, the dogs are just tools to point investigators in the direction of possible evidence. Their indications are not regarded as evidence.

    For crying out loud - the fact that the DNA samples were found to be too complex or degraded had nothing to do with the dogs who did alert correctly to the presence of forensic material. That a bunch of people have got this arseways is no reflection on anyone pointing this out btw.

    Everyone knows the a dog alerting is in itself not 'forensic' evidence. It remains the dogs alerted, forensic evidence was then found. Tests showed that which was found was too complex for meaningful interpretation etc etc. But the doggies did their job and not as you falsely claimed that it showed "dog(s) not alerting correctly" ..

    - it's just a pity for the sake of the child that these results were not conclusive.

    Question if the blood in the Apartment had been identified as Madelienes what would that have meant for the investigation?


  • #4656
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    gozunda wrote: »
    For crying out loud - the fact that the DNA samples were found to be too complex or degraded had nothing to do with the dogs who did alert correctly to the presence of forensic material. That a bunch of people have got this arseways is no reflection on anyone pointing this out btw.

    Everyone knows the a dog alerting is in itself not 'forensic' evidence. It remains the dogs alerted, forensic evidence was found. Tests were too complex for meaningful use etc etc. But the doggies did their job and not as you falsely claimed that it showef "dog(s) not alerting correctly" ..

    - it's just a pity for the sake of the child that these results were not conclusive.

    Forensic evidence of what?


  • Advertisement
  • #4657
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    Phoebas wrote: »
    Forensic evidence of what?

    Well let's go back to the definition we looked at earlier
    evidence obtained by the use of science, for example DNA evidence, etc

    So you see that question cannot be answered before tests are done on any forensic material found.

    Potentially forensic evidence may point to the victim of the crime being being present, being hurt, of someone else being there or indeed it may be inconclusive etc etc etc

    Just because a test shows that forensic evidence found is for some reason not useful or able to be interpreted does not mean it never existed or may not be useful at some point in the future

    Either way it looks like the dogs did alert correctly. Well done Eddie and Keela ....


  • #4658
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    gozunda wrote: »
    Well let's go back to the definition we looked at earlier



    So you see that question cannot be answered before tests are done on any forensic material found.

    Potentially forensic evidence may point to the victim of the crime being being present, being hurt, of someone else being there or indeed it may be inconclusive etc etc etc

    Just because a test shows that forensic evidence found is for some reason not useful or able to be interpreted does not mean it never existed or may not be useful at some point in the future

    Either way it looks like the dogs did alert correctly. Well done Eddie and Keela ....
    That isn't a definition of the word 'evidence'; that's just a sentence giving an example of one type of evidence.

    Try this:
    evidence wrote:
    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

    Now try again. What 'evidence' was found and what proposition did it go to either validate or invalidate?


  • #4659
    tibruit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,351 ✭✭✭tibruit


    MonkieSocks wrote: »
    But if Madeline Died in the apartment 3rd may 2007.

    Madeline was last seen by by someone other than their friends between 17.30 and 18.00,

    Lets split the difference here and go for 1745.

    So 17 .45 Kate and the kids are back Madeline dies soon after maybe 15 mins.

    So if we have a time of Death 18.00

    Cadaver scent; how long for it to form?

    PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.

    However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.

    http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html


    Again we split the difference for Cadaver scent + or - 30 mins of each other and get 2 hours.


    So Cadaver scent is present at 20.00

    McCans are the Tapas Bar at 20.35

    So they are in an area unfamiliar to them, no transport.


    How did they dispose of the body child in 35 mins, without the Portuguese Police or Scotland Yard ever finding any evidence of it

    Approx 10pm onwards when Kate McCann sounded the alarm, the apartment was visited by many people, until it was eventually sealed off Police by at 4am May 4th 2007

    While I`m not necessarily convinced of the McCanns guilt, in answer to the specific question you`ve posed I will say this. Gerry left the dinner to check on the kids around 9 and took long enough for Kate to remark that he must have stopped to watch the football. We know he bumped into an aquaintance on the street and stopped to chat for a few minutes. In his own testimony he also offered some evidence of delay by saying that he went to the toilet in the apartment and stopped to linger for a while over a sleeping Madeleine and thought how beautiful she was. If Madeleine was actually dead and a plan was already in place to dispose of the body at this time, then all he had to do was place her in his tennis bag and put the bag in one of the large communal green bins. There was one nearby. I cannot see how any of these bins would have been properly checked later and they were collected that night after midnight and taken to landfill. The disposal of the body didn`t require any more good luck for success than that of an abduction. He only needed a few minutes.


  • #4660
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    I'd say the PJ didn't even have as many arguements as this thread has had!


  • #4661
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The spin you put on things is ludicrous.

    The lies and deception are in your own mind and are your lurid and one-eyed take on things. The were legally entitled to leave - the Portuguese authorities could have easily prevented them - so using the term 'flee' is just your typically emotive spin. Among many other good reasons to leave, their lease was up.


    They left the country as soon as they were made suspects.


    Call it what you will.


    That's what they did.


    The priest that took care of them gave them the keys to his chruch stated they deceived him.


    This is not my take. It's what he stated.


    If you try stick to the facts instead of what you think i think. It will help everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #4662
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    Phoebas wrote: »
    He didn't back it up with evidence.
    It was made by someone who has made other wild allegations about this case.
    It was made by a disgraced convicted crooked cop.

    That's as close to a dictionary definition of a wild allegation as you'd find.


    The only convicted crooks were hired by the McCanns.


  • #4663
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Evidence:
    information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge.

    Nothing was found via forensics that establishes a legal 'fact' or that would be admissible as part of testimony in court. Evidence is something that has to be legally relevant. No one could stand up in a court and say 'we found a fraction of a human cell that DNA testing showed could have come from any of 100 different people'.


  • #4664
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    The only convicted crooks were hired by the McCanns.

    Well that's just factually false.
    Goncalo Ameral is a convicted crook, found guilty of falsifying evidence in relation to another child abduction case.


  • #4665
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    The only convicted crooks were hired by the McCanns.

    Not true:
    In Joana's case, Amaral was convicted of covering up for fellow officers who were alleged to have assaulted Leonor Cipriano during her interrogation.

    Although he was not present during the alleged incident and three officers that were there were acquitted, Amaral was found to have falsified police documents and was given an 18-month sentence.

    He was convicted while working on the Madeleine case and was replaced with deputy national director of the Pola Judicia, Paulo Rebelo, who then took over the probe.


  • #4666
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Well that's just factually false.
    Goncalo Ameral is a convicted crook, found guilty of falsifying evidence in relation to another child abduction case.


    Wasn't it murderers he convicted claiming his lads tortured them?


    That turned out to be false and he tried to protect his lads?


    Crime of the century


    The McCanns hired croooks and spent hundreds of thousands of people with no previous history in finding kids to find their daughter.


    More negligence.


  • #4667
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    retro:electro wrote: »
    Nothing of any evidentiary value was found, hence the McCann’s never being charged with anything.
    It’s really not that hard to comprehend.

    Who the frack mentioned the McCanns ?
    Why is it that some think that DNA evidence could only 'implicate the McCanns' ???

    What is this bit of stupidity? First of all forensic evidence can be used to determine if a vicim was hurt eg presence of their blood, that someone else was present and any other number of possibilities. Such evidence could have potentially even completely exonerated the parents completely from any suspicion.

    The only thing I can think of is a hive mindset as exemplified by the known paedophile Clement Freud who laughed at his own sick joke that the dogs could bark once for guilty etc. And then Kate McCann being delighted at this. Did she have no clue that such evidence could have potentially led to the finding out what had happened? I mean seriously wtf?


  • #4668
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Wasn't it murderers he convicted claiming his lads tortured them?


    That turned out to be false and he tried to protect his lads?


    Crime of the century.
    I understand that you don't rate falsifying evidence by a cop as a serious matter.

    It's part of a pattern of first deciding guilt and then fitting the available evidence, real or concocted, to that proposition.


  • #4669
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    Phoebas wrote: »
    That isn't a definition of the word 'evidence'; that's just a sentence giving an example of one type of evidence.Try this:
    Now try again. What 'evidence' was found and what proposition did it go to either validate or invalidate?

    Well that's the definition from the Collins online dictionary do try again.

    But first answer the question I have now asked many times but which remains unanswered

    Why to believe the dogs failed to indicate correctly? Can you explain that? It makes no sense whatsoever


  • #4670
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I understand that you don't rate falsifying evidence by a cop as a serious matter.

    It's part of a pattern of first deciding guilt and then fitting the available evidence, real or concocted, to that proposition.


    He forced Kate McCann to lie?


    She was tortured into making up false information regarding windows/keys/curtains blowing


    The inconsitencys in the tapas 9 was due to falsifying information?


    Sure, lets keep ignoring the stream of lies and deception on the McCann's side as it suits us to do so


  • #4671
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    gozunda wrote: »
    Who the frack mentioned the McCanns ?
    Why is it that some think that DNA evidence could only 'implicate the McCanns' ???

    What is this bit of stupidity? First of all forensic evidence can be used to determine if a vicim was hurt eg presence of their blood, that someone else was present and any other number of possibilities. Such evidence could have potentially even completely exonerated the parents completely from any suspicion.

    The only thing I can think of is a hive mindset as exemplified by the known paedophile Clement Freud who laughed at his own sick joke that the dogs could bark once for guilty etc. And then Kate McCann bring delighted at this. Did she have no clue that such evidence could have potentially led to the finding out what had happened? I mean seriously wtf?

    Ah yeah when all else fails and your argument dies on its arse, resort to shifting goalposts. Who the hell mentioned the McCanns? Sorry are we discussing the missing case of Madeleine Mc Cann and whether or not the parents were involved, or the mystery of Shergar?
    The bit in bold.. more personal attacks out of you but no surprises there.

    The rest of your post is just.. whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • #4672
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    gozunda wrote: »
    Who the frack mentioned the McCanns ?
    Why is it that some think that DNA evidence could only 'implicate the McCanns' ???

    What is this bit of stupidity? First of all forensic evidence can be used to determine if a vicim was hurt eg presence of their blood, that someone else was present and any other number of possibilities. Such evidence could have potentially even completely exonerated the parents completely from any suspicion.

    The only thing I can think of is a hive mindset as exemplified by the known paedophile Clement Freud who laughed at his own sick joke that the dogs could bark once for guilty etc. And then Kate McCann bring delighted at this. Did she have no clue that such evidence could have potentially led to the finding out what had happened? I mean seriously wtf?


    Imagine your mother sitting down with a pedophile drinking brandy joking about the guy brought into help you knowing the evidence if any couldn't be used in court.


    Put yourself in those shoes.


    I'd disown her.


  • #4673
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,906 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    So the timeline we are supposed to accept is:

    8.30pm: kids put to bed and Mc Canns head to Tapas restaurant.

    9.05pm: Gerry's first check on the kids - mention of door being wide open, him leaving it ajar.

    Around the same time: Jane Tanner leaves to check on her own kids, spies Gerry speaking with another holidaymaker - Gerry doesn't see her.

    9.15pm: Tanner sighting - where was her apartment?

    9.30pm: Oldfield 'checks' on the kids - only he doesn't even enter the room :rolleyes:

    10pm: Kate does her check, discovers Madeline missing.


    A few issues: why does Gerry not see Jane Tanner? How did his check conflict with the timing of Jane's walk to her apartment?
    Jane Tanner's sighting ten minutes after Gerry's supposed check - how close was her apartment? Would an abductor be that blasé minutes after Gerry's check, to immediately enter and leave with no evidence? Gerry was still standing in the street according to Tanner - incredibly risky. Did Gerry even perform his check at all - or did he just lie and say he did?
    Why did Gerry not close the door again instead of leaving it wide open for Oldfield?

    Here's what I actually think happened:

    8.30pm: Mc Canns put kids to bed and head to dinner.

    9.05pm: Gerry gets up to check on kids, gets sidetracked talking, never actually checks on them. Tanner sees Gerry talking, assumes he's done his check in lightning quick time. (She leaves around the same time yet sees Gerry in the street? What?)

    9.30pm: Oldfield's check never happened. It's fabricated.

    10pm: Kate actually does a check and discovers Maddie missing.

    Timeline is bungled as there's actually a period of 1hr 30mins there were the kids are left alone.

    Crime scene is then contaminated by the Tapas group, hotel staff and other nosy guests crowding around the apartment and outside the window.


    Maddie was likely abducted, but I think Gerry's and Oldfield's 'checks' are completely fabricated, for some bizarre reason. Guilt maybe for Gerry as he knows he never even checked on them. Maybe Oldfield did actually enter the apartment, but never bothered his arse to look at the kids, just assumed they were grand as no noise was in the apartment. Gerry backs up his check then by saying the door was wide open - when in fact Maddie was taken prior to Gerry's 'check' in the first place.



    All of these factors make the case essentially unsolveable.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #4674
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    tibruit wrote: »
    While I`m not necessarily convinced of the McCanns guilt, in answer to the specific question you`ve posed I will say this. Gerry left the dinner to check on the kids around 9 and took long enough for Kate to remark that he must have stopped to watch the football. We know he bumped into an aquaintance on the street and stopped to chat for a few minutes. In his own testimony he also offered some evidence of delay by saying that he went to the toilet in the apartment and stopped to linger for a while over a sleeping Madeleine and thought how beautiful she was. If Madeleine was actually dead and a plan was already in place to dispose of the body at this time, then all he had to do was place her in his tennis bag and put the bag in one of the large communal green bins. There was one nearby. I cannot see how any of these bins would have been properly checked later and they were collected that night after midnight and taken to landfill. The disposal of the body didn`t require any more good luck for success than that of an abduction. He only needed a few minutes.



    It is also possible that the body was placed in a bag or similar under vegetation in the small secluded garden adjacent to the apartment. This area was alerted to by the cadaver dog. The seach parties that night were looking for a live child and not a hidden bundle. But eitherway even the stupid sometimes get 'lucky'....


  • #4675
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    gozunda wrote: »
    Well that's the definition from the Collins online dictionary do try again.

    But first answer the question I have now asked many times but which remains unanswered

    Why to believe the dogs failed to indicate correctly? Can you explain that? It makes no sense whatsoever

    I have already covered that: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109752422&postcount=4623


  • #4676
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    gozunda wrote: »
    It is also possible that the body was placed in a bag or similar under vegetation in the small secluded garden adjacent to the apartment. This area was alerted to by the cardaver dog. The seach poarties that night were looking for an a live child and not a hidden bundle. But eitherway even the stupid sometimes get 'lucky'....

    Catriona, the nanny, has said quite clearly that they searched bins and drains and were told to look for a small body, so clearly they were entertaining two possibilities. Four sniffer dogs were brought in at 08:00 the next morning and four more in the evening. They would have found a concealed body, don't you think?


  • #4677
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Catriona, the nanny, has said quite clearly that they searched bins and drains and were told to look for a small body, so clearly they were entertaining two possibilities. Four sniffer dogs were brought in at 08:00 the next morning and four more in the evening. They would have found a concealed body, don't you think?


    She is also still constantly quizzed by people about the case who ask if “the parents did it”.

    She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their r­eactions, the whole thing. Not a chance.”

    I prefer to take the opinion of someone who was actually there that night, saw the reaction and grief of the parents and assisted in the search, over a minority of below average internet conspiracists.


  • #4678
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Something Else
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Evidence:
    information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation OR admissible as testimony in a law court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge.
    Nothing was found via forensics that establishes a legal 'fact' or that would be admissible as part of testimony in court. Evidence is something that has to be legally relevant. No one could stand up in a court and say 'we found a fraction of a human cell that DNA testing showed could have come from any of 100 different people'.


    Nope. You're mixing your toasties there bui *

    Given that 'definition does not describe 'forensic evidence' you have ignored the use of the word "or" to come up with your own half baked definition and arrived at a phrase not even used in that explanation viz. "Legal fact" (sic)

    So to paraphrase your piece of fiction - it would indeed be possible for someone to stand up in a court and say your honour - 'the DNA that the forensic evidence recovered and tested has been shown to be from 100 different people. Excluding my client. So the accused is therefore exonerated!'

    Do you understand now?

    *spelling fixed
    .


  • #4679
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,906 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    retro:electro wrote: »
    She is also still constantly quizzed by people about the case who ask if “the parents did it”.

    She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their r­eactions, the whole thing. Not a chance.”

    I prefer to take the opinion of someone who was actually there that night, saw the reaction and grief of the parents and assisted in the search, over a minority of below average internet conspiracists.

    Ah in fairness, most of this thread is minor league in comparison to other stuff I've seen.

    Just last night I saw a post shared on Facebook of some lunatic who believes the Mc Canns raised their child for three years and sold her into a child sex ring themselves.

    And on the other thread in the TV forum someone was on about a large fox taking her.

    The guys here, while some of the comments are a bit grim, and a lot out there are merely following valid lines of unanswered questions.

    There's a lot about the night in question that was done wrong in the beginning and as a result I don't we'll ever truly know what happened.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #4680
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Necro wrote: »
    Ah in fairness, most of this thread is minor league in comparison to other stuff I've seen.

    Just last night I saw a post shared on Facebook of some lunatic who believes the Mc Canns raised their child for three years and sold her into a child sex ring themselves.

    And on the other thread in the TV forum someone was on about a large fox taking her.

    The guys here, while some of the comments are a bit grim, and a lot out there are merely following valid lines of unanswered questions.

    There's a lot about the night in question that was done wrong in the beginning and as a result I don't we'll ever truly know what happened.

    If you read between the lines there is a lot of disgusting stuff being insinuated on this thread without outwardly stating it. I believe as repugnant and downright outrageous and nonsensical as some of the posts on here have been, I also believe some of them are showing restraint for fear of a sanction. I’ve no doubt they would be every bit as venomous as those comments on Facebook are if they had the freedom to and this forum would host it.


  • Advertisement
  • #4681
    chicorytip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,373 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    Something Else
    iamwhoiam wrote:
    When your mother was around to do it ? I find it bizzare actually that a friend of the family would bath other peoples kids ? Why anyway ? They all had apartments and small kids to get ready for bed , why would they all be lumped in one bath in each others apartments Then again much of the behaviour of the group is bizzare


    In some instances yes. The childminder/babysitter was a young female relative as distinct from a male friend as was the case here. Yes, I agree there would be concerns, particularly nowadays, about this kind of activity.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement