Madeleine McCann

retro:electro wrote: »

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.

Nope. You can check back we were discussing Forensic evidence when you jumped in with a pair of size nines with that comment about the "McCanns' and nothing being found therefore etc etc.

This was the post btw

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.

As to 'whether or not the parents were involved, I believe that is just one single option in the poll above. You may believe everyone else thinks 'it was the parents wot did it's (sic) as seen in your comment above but the news is the poll says otherwise

Forensic evidence wasn't just collected for the sake of the McCanns or to 'implicate' them. It was collected to determine what had happened at the scene where the child vanished. This case is about a missing child and not bit players casting for sympathy votes for whatever reason.

It's odd that everytime the actual case is discussed everyone not signing up the officially endorsed scenario gets ram raided by the usual 'you are being nasty to the parents' tag line

If you really think something was designed to be personal btw- the stupidity" was in the comment just in case you didn't realise and not just stirring it then there is a simple solution which I'm sure you're familiar.

gozunda wrote: »

Originally Posted by cnocbui
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 boy.

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?

Your lack of ability to comprehend what you read, is profound. I draw your attention to my use of the word 'or'.

Your imagined court performance is risible as it would never happen because no witness would submit such a thing as evidence in the first place, because it's not evidence, by definition, and even if they were to try it the defense lawyer would have to be asleep not to raise an objection.

Have you ever seen the phrase 'inadmissible as evidence'? Something referred to as such is not 'evidence' that couldn't be submitted, it's something that doesn't qualify as evidence, therefore it can't be submitted as such. No biological material found in the McCann case could ever be submitted to a court as 'evidence' because it isn't.

cnocbui wrote: »

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

Nope. That post is as about as useful to that question as a chocolate teapot.

A considered answer would be appreciated thanks.

gozunda wrote: »

As to 'whether or not the parents were involved, I believe that is just one single option in the poll above. You may believe everyone else thinks 'it was the parents wot did it's (sic) but the news is the poll says otherwise

I don’t believe this to be the case at all, as evident from my earlier post where I said

You’d be forgiven for thinking that “it’s the parents what dunnit” angle is the dominant viewpoint so it’s refreshing to see the poll above contrary to that.

Thankfully, opinions and beliefs like yours are in the minority; on this thread at least.

gozunda wrote: »

It's odd that everytime the actual case is discussed everyone not signing up the officially endorsed scenario gets ram raided by the usual 'you are being nasty to the parents' tag line

What is truly odd is the fact that it’s only when the abduction scenario is discussed that the “no evidence” brigade show up. Being so obviously selective in which theory you choose to debunk shows a decided lack of belief in your own supposition and principles. But sure, there’s nowt as queer as folk.

gozunda wrote: »

you jumped in with a pair of size nines.

Pfffft I’m a size 5. But then again wild speculation and arriving at accuracy was never your strong point

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?

From the details of that night it was made quite clear that not all bins were checked. I also believe most searchers were looking for a child hiding not dead or murdered. The relevant points against the dogs the next morning finding anything in that location was if the body was moved and more importantly the dogs dont appear to have covered the small garden adjacent to the apartment.

And no I dont know how a body might have been moved either.

gozunda wrote: »

From the details of that night it was made quite clear that not all bins were checked. I also believe they were looking for a child hiding not dead or murdered. The relevant points against the dogs the next morning finding anything in that location was if the body was moved and more importantly the dogs dont appear to have covered the small garden adjacent to the apartment.

And no I dont know how a body might have been moved either.

Well your belief is misplaced:

“We were told to start looking in bins in case her body was in there. It was at that point we realised this was serious.”
...
Along with other workers from the Mark Warner resort, the nanny sifted by hand in the dark through industrial-sized bins and piping leading into the sea as they were told to look for a tiny corpse.

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t believe this to be the case at all, as evident from my earlier post where I said. Thankfully, opinions and beliefs like yours are in the minority; on this thread at least.What is truly odd is the fact that it’s only when the abduction scenario is discussed that the “no evidence” brigade show up. Being so obviously selective in which theory you choose to debunk shows a decided lack of belief in your own supposition and principles. But sure, there’s nowt as queer as folk. Pfffft I’m a size 5. But then again wild speculation and arriving at accuracy was never your strong point

Well bully for you. The pair of feet wich landed in the middle of that comment were definitely large and smelled off tbh. The thing is - I would if I could I'd select several scenarios in the poll. Imo at present there are too many inconsistencies and a lack of circumstantial evidence to fully support any one. That's the difference between using logic and feelings I suppose. But there you go

And unfortunately your comments go off track again - who mentioned the 'abduction' scenario? We were talking about Forensic evidence (not 'no evidence' btw) and dogs as far as I remember. Are you not 'selective' in the single theory you chose btw?

Btw your pointy innuendo that the the 'abduction' scenario is a sacred cow and cannot be held up to scrutiny would be funny - only it seems you actually believe that is the case! And (boldly bits) you point to others for personal insult. I know it can't be helped. But there you go so lol :pac:

cnocbui wrote: »

Your lack of ability to comprehend what you read, is profound. I draw your attention to my use of the word 'or'.Your imagined court performance is risible as it would never happen because no witness would submit such a thing as evidence in the first place, because it's not evidence, by definition, and even if they were to try it the defense lawyer would have to be asleep not to raise an objection.Have you ever seen the phrase 'inadmissible as evidence'? Something referred to as such is not 'evidence' that couldn't be submitted, it's something that doesn't qualify as evidence, therefore it can't be submitted as such. No biological material found in the McCann case could ever be submitted to a court as 'evidence' because it isn't.

Leaving aside the usual stuff and the lack of logic displayed in that comment - evidence can be used to exonerate people just as easily as it can implicate them. Just because you do not believe that to be so, does not makes any difference. But you don't seem to understand this. Strange ....

gozunda wrote: »

So the nanny single handedly checked every bin in Praia de Luz :eek:

But that's a Nope - sorry to break it to you however all the bins were not comprehensively checked before being collected at 4.00 am ...

Stop trolling.

The resort staff as a whole were told to search bins for a body. and that was very clear in my quote.

I think it likely the 9 or so GNR officers who were also taking part in the search from 2 am onwards, would also have searched the bins, if the resort staff were.

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. If posters cant discuss the issues without resorting to stupid personal insults and insinuations then they are on their own imo.

That so?

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. You're mixing your toasties there boy.

cnocbui wrote: »

That so?

Seriously - tw that's a colloquism down here. Even the dog gets called boy! If you dont like something then either ignore it or report it.
However for your information I had a typed "bui" - but the autocrrect got it as 'boy'. Either way that is funny!.

Thanks for spotting it.

Phoebas wrote: »

This is terribly dishonest posting.
It wasn't known at the time Clement Freud was a pedophile, not for many years later.

Really?


She was drinking brandy with a pedophile. Fact.


She was happy that the dogs could not be used as evidence. Fact.


The general public may not have known, we don't know what kate knew.


The fact she knew or not doesn't make him any less of a pedophile so the post was factual and correct.


Please read posts more carefully.

gozunda wrote: »

I would agree that the timeline as given cannot be relied on imo.

Your friends that you count on at the most critical time of your life. All make a balls of recording events as they unfolded.


Who are then told by Gerry to stop helping the police.


With friends like this, who needs enemies.


They either played a part in fcking up the whole time line.


Or they did it on purpose.