Madeleine McCann

SusieBlue · 23-03-2019 06:38PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

Thanked??? :eek: Is the thought police a thing? I often thank posts which I may not necessarily agree with because they show well worked out logic or say something in a way I wouldn't have thought of etc. I believe I may have even thanked one of your posts susie *(can't rem why though) and I'd disagree with about 98% of them tbh.

Christ on a bike ....

When someone is repeatedly posting that they hold a position (say, being totally open minded on the case and being open the McCanns being innocent), yet thank, quote and support posts that contradict that quite regularly, it’s a bit confusing.

When you also consider people are insisting there is no evidence either way, for either scenario, yet only seem to say it in reply to anyone who supports the abduction theory, it gets even more confusing.

And to top it all off, they constantly criticise anyone they perceive to have a hardline stance on the case, yet also appears to have a very hardline stance themselves.

It’s dishonest and disengeneous and it’s very frustrating to see post after post sneering at those who lean towards the abduction theory, when those who claim be impartial are not remotely open to the McCanns being innocent at all.

They are just as hardline as those they are sneering at, they just aren’t being honest about it.

gozunda · 23-03-2019 06:40PM

Something Else

limnam wrote: »

Deflecting tactics.
Nothing else.
Want to talk about Kate making jokes about the dogs with the pedophile?
No! lets talk about what posts you thanked.

Lol. That made me laugh. I've just thanked your post ...;)

gozunda · 23-03-2019 06:45PM

Something Else

SusieBlue wrote: »

When someone is repeatedly posting that they hold a position (say, being totally open minded on the case and being open the McCanns being innocent), yet thank, quote and support posts that contradict that quite regularly, it’s a bit confusing.
When you also consider people are insisting there is no evidence either way, for either scenario, yet only seem to say it in reply to anyone who supports the abduction theory, it gets even more confusing. And to top it all off, they constantly criticise anyone they perceive to have a hardline stance on the case, yet also appears to have a very hardline stance themselves.It’s dishonest and disengeneous and it’s very frustrating to see post after post sneering at those who lean towards the abduction theory, when those who claim be impartial are not remotely open to the McCanns being innocent at all. They are just as hardline as those they are sneering at, they just aren’t being honest about it.

*

Susie - you've thanked overtly abusive comments. And that's just nasty no matter what someones opinions is. End of story.

I wont apologise for the fact I haven't completly latched on to any one of the scenarios listed. That is how it is.

The only ones going on endlessly about 'abduction theory" imo are the ones who see it as the only option. Most of the rest to be fair are discussing various aspects of the case but every time they do they get egged. Why is that?

*Btw I noticed you moved from having a pop a Limnam to now having a pop at others. Your serial thankers will thank you no doubt lol

iamwhoiam · 23-03-2019 06:46PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Is it just me who wouldn't have a clue who thanked a post or who didn't ? I struggle to remember who is who !

dark crystal · 23-03-2019 06:49PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

And it remains that is a fact. He is a known paedophile or is that uncomfortable reading? As others pointed we have no idea what anyone knew but it remains a salient fact that it is now known. Or should we not speak the truth because it may make some uncomfortable :mad:

Btw exactly what am I repeating over and over? More exaggerating and hyperbole thrown at anyone who doesn't kowtow to the official sanctioned version of events. The attempted bullying here is risible tbh. However the exaggerated offence fools no one tbh.

Bullying?? Wow.

Being asked to back up your statements is bullying now?

If you make a statement of fact, you will be asked to back it up with evidence. You are big on the truth after all

micks_address · 23-03-2019 06:51PM

I know the Portuguese seemed to have jumped the gun in relation to positive preliminary dna results but you'd wonder why the lab would send any positive indication at that point only to caveat it by saying don't believe it until final results and then the final results show nothing at all.. I know the police in Portugal suspected the parents so probably hoped the results were positive. Does anyone have a link to the initial lab statement in full in English?
Thanks
Mick

drkpower · 23-03-2019 06:52PM

gozunda wrote: »

The only ones going on endlessly about 'abduction theory" imo are the ones who see it as the only option. Most of the rest to be fair are discussing various aspects of the case but every time they do they get egged. Why is that?

The ‘abduction theory’ is the favoured one because of the relative implausibility of the other possibilities.

Based on the timeline as best known, one really needs to accept a series of absurdities to conclude the parents disposed of the body. The abduction theory doesn’t require that level of absurdity.

There isn’t much amounting to evidence in support of either theory. But on an Occam’s razor basis, it’s more likely 90:10 in favor of abduction.

limnam · 23-03-2019 06:54PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

When someone is repeatedly posting that they hold a position (say, being totally open minded on the case and being open the McCanns being innocent), yet thank, quote and support posts that contradict that quite regularly, it’s a bit confusing.

When you also consider people are insisting there is no evidence either way, for either scenario, yet only seem to say it in reply to anyone who supports the abduction theory, it gets even more confusing.

And to top it all off, they constantly criticise anyone they perceive to have a hardline stance on the case, yet also appears to have a very hardline stance themselves.

It’s dishonest and disengeneous and it’s very frustrating to see post after post sneering at those who lean towards the abduction theory, when those who claim be impartial are not remotely open to the McCanns being innocent at all.

They are just as hardline as those they are sneering at, they just aren’t being honest about it.

This is the last time I'm going to engage you on this crusade. If you want to talk about the case instead of me I'm all ears.

I explained yesterday.

There's a major problem with a timeline for them to be involved. It's obviously a large part of the "pro McCann" hypothesis on why they're innocent.

I have a problem with a time line as much as anyone else. So there's plenty of room for thier innocence.

But there's not much I can do about the time line, it is what it is. But I can also not blanket say they're innocent because of my lack of creativity and imagination on how to get rid of a body in the given time line.

That aside I have a lot of issues with them and their friends actions/words .

There's a wave of lies and deception that needs to be looked and try to explain away some of that. That for me will help one way or another. Eithier leaning more to them been guilty or innocence but the list of issues just grow and grow and grow.

It's hard to "thank" pro McCann stuff because they don't really come up with anything bar shouting looking for a time line.

We get it. There's a time line problem. now what? what about all the other problems. But they won't to discuss so if there contrbution is to shout out timeline every 5 minutes what I'm going to thank?

limnam · 23-03-2019 06:55PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Is it just me who wouldn't have a clue who thanked a post or who didn't ? I struggle to remember who is who !

Hehehe

I was surprised!

dark crystal · 23-03-2019 06:56PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

It's a FACT he was a pedophile

FACT.

When was he convicted of this crime? Alleged is the word you're looking for here I think.

No mistruth, no rumour.

FACT.

Kate was drinking brandy with a 'known' paedophile. his alleged victims did not speak out until after his death in 2016. He was therefore not a 'known' paedophile at the time they were drinking brandy together.

please point out any rumour/mistruth in the above

Done.

This is the last post I'll make on this subject. I'm aware of what you're at and have no further interest in playing the game.

gozunda · 23-03-2019 06:58PM

Something Else

dark crystal wrote: »

Bullying?? Wow.Being asked to back up your statements is bullying now?If you make a statement of fact, you will be asked to back it up with evidence. You are big on the truth after all

Lol that's what you call 'backing up statements"? Whoheee ....

You missed out the exaggerated offence btw!

Considering there been some posters on here who actually said the wouldn't believe the official PJ files. I'm sure you've seen some of them tbh.
Btw you missed the bit about it being risible. Or do I need to explain that?

Anyway enough of this rubbish with the having a go at posters cos someone doesn't like their opinion. If someone was paranoid It might be suggested certain elements are trying to get the thread shut down tbh. But anyway there you go.

:rolleyes:

limnam · 23-03-2019 06:59PM

dark crystal wrote: »

When was he convicted of this crime? Alleged is the word you're looking for here I think.

Thought his wife admitted he was...

dark crystal wrote: »

Kate was drinking brandy with a 'known' paedophile. his alleged victims did not speak out until after his death in 2016. He was therefore not a 'known' paedophile at the time they were drinking brandy together.

Known to the general public. We don't know what kate knew.

Plumbthedepths · 23-03-2019 07:00PM

dark crystal wrote:

This is the last post I'll make on this subject. I'm aware of what you're at and have no further interest in playing the game.

Plumbthedepths wrote:

You have stated Kate didn't know he was a paedophile again why are you so certain? It's a straight question.

So I take it you won't be backing up the claim you made?

gozunda · 23-03-2019 07:01PM

Something Else

dark crystal wrote: »

When was he convicted of this crime? Alleged is the word you're looking for here I think.

Newsflash: The guy is dead and even the most conservative press or his own family haven't denied that.

Unbelievable...

MonkieSocks · 23-03-2019 07:01PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

micks_address wrote: »

I know the Portuguese seemed to have jumped the gun in relation to positive preliminary dna results but you'd wonder why the lab would send any positive indication at that point only to caveat it by saying don't believe it until final results and then the final results show nothing at all.. I know the police in Portugal suspected the parents so probably hoped the results were positive. Does anyone have a link to the initial lab statement in full in English?
Thanks
Mick

Here ya go Mick

Final Forensic report

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

micks_address · 23-03-2019 07:02PM

Something I didn't realize until recently is a Paedophile is not the same as a convicted child sex offender.. I assumed it meant they were child sex offenders. The term means they are attracted to children but it's not actually criminal until the person acts on the urges

gozunda · 23-03-2019 07:02PM

Something Else

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Is it just me who wouldn't have a clue who thanked a post or who didn't ? I struggle to remember who is who !

Who are you again? Do I like you based on what you've clicked in the poll? No need to thank me btw ....

dark crystal · 23-03-2019 07:03PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So I take it you won't be backing up the claim you made?

I'll back up my claim when linman backs up his. Fair?

iamwhoiam · 23-03-2019 07:04PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

Who are you again? Do I like you based on what you've clicked in the poll? No need to thank me btw ....

Being honest I could have clicked on any one of them ! Its a massively bizzare convuluted case

micks_address · 23-03-2019 07:05PM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

micks_address wrote: »

I know the Portuguese seemed to have jumped the gun in relation to positive preliminary dna results but you'd wonder why the lab would send any positive indication at that point only to caveat it by saying don't believe it until final results and then the final results show nothing at all.. I know the police in Portugal suspected the parents so probably hoped the results were positive. Does anyone have a link to the initial lab statement in full in English?
Thanks
Mick

Here ya go Mick

Final Forensic report

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Which one is the report half translated to Portuguese?
Thanks,
Mick

Plumbthedepths · 23-03-2019 07:06PM

dark crystal wrote:

I'll back up my claim when linman backs up his. Fair?

From that response I will take it you can't. Good to know but a somewhat immature response tbh. I'll leave it at that others can make of your response what they will.

Necro · 23-03-2019 07:06PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

drkpower wrote: »

The ‘abduction theory’ is the favoured one because of the relative implausibility of the other possibilities.

Based on the timeline as best known, one really needs to accept a series of absurdities to conclude the parents disposed of the body. The abduction theory doesn’t require that level of absurdity.

There isn’t much amounting to evidence in support of either theory. But on an Occam’s razor basis, it’s more likely 90:10 in favor of abduction.

Yep, problem is the timeline as best known is full of half truths and outright lies, which leaves the parents open for fair scrutiny.

I'd actually say it's more 70/30 in favour of abduction, the unanswered questions and changing statements definitely throw an element of doubt into the equation.

dark crystal · 23-03-2019 07:09PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

From that response I will take it you can't. Good to know but a somewhat immature response tbh. I'll leave it at that others can make of your response what they will.

It was a perfectly fair response. Seems like you blindly accept one statement, but wish to discredit another for some reason. Bit biased, but there you have it.

I'm sure people can make up their minds about the truth alright.

Necro · 23-03-2019 07:10PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

gozunda wrote: »

Who are you again? Do I like you based on what you've clicked in the poll? No need to thank me btw ....

Not directed at me but I definitely think the abduction scenario is most likely.

Problem is as I keep alluding to I think the account of the events by the Tapas 7 and the Mc Canns is incorrect, based mainly on the accounts of Tanner and Gerry Mc Cann who should have crossed paths if they are to be believed but one says they never saw the other and the other says he was standing talking to someone in the street.

The 9.05pm check never happened and Gerry didn't bother his hole checking on the kids is my best guess

Plumbthedepths · 23-03-2019 07:12PM

micks_address wrote:

Something I didn't realize until recently is a Paedophile is not the same as a convicted child sex offender.. I assumed it meant they were child sex offenders. The term means they are attracted to children but it's not actually criminal until the person acts on the urges

Not being smart but you would you distinguish between them if you had children, I know I don't.

micks_address · 23-03-2019 07:13PM

micks_address wrote: »

MonkieSocks wrote: »

micks_address wrote: »

I know the Portuguese seemed to have jumped the gun in relation to positive preliminary dna results but you'd wonder why the lab would send any positive indication at that point only to caveat it by saying don't believe it until final results and then the final results show nothing at all.. I know the police in Portugal suspected the parents so probably hoped the results were positive. Does anyone have a link to the initial lab statement in full in English?
Thanks
Mick

Here ya go Mick

Final Forensic report

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Which one is the report half translated to Portuguese?
Thanks,
Mick

In this case, all of the bands present in the prof - e of abtained from the pillowcase are
represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is
what I would expect to find if the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from
a natural child of theirs.

The results of the DNA profile obtained from the pillowcase is approximately 29
million times more likely if the profile originates form a natural child of theirs rather
than someone unrelated to them.

In my opinion, the results detailed above provide extremely strong support for the
view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originated from a natural child of
Kate HEALY and GERALD McCANN.

So there was a definite match on the pillow case which i assume was from the pillow Madeline slept on? The inconclusive test was from the car?

gozunda · 23-03-2019 07:14PM

Something Else

drkpower wrote: »

The ‘abduction theory’ is the favoured one because of the relative implausibility of the other possibilities.
Based on the timeline as best known, one really needs to accept a series of absurdities to conclude the parents disposed of the body. The abduction theory doesn’t require that level of absurdity.There isn’t much amounting to evidence in support of either theory. But on an Occam’s razor basis, it’s more likely 90:10 in favor of abduction.

And that's fine if that's what you genuinely believe. I'm not convinced tbh. It's the endless beating of everyone else over the head with it gives people a bit of a headache tbh.

micks_address · 23-03-2019 07:14PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

micks_address wrote:

Something I didn't realize until recently is a Paedophile is not the same as a convicted child sex offender.. I assumed it meant they were child sex offenders. The term means they are attracted to children but it's not actually criminal until the person acts on the urges

Not being smart but you would you distinguish between them if you had children, I know I don't.

No im not being smart either but I had just assumed the term meant child sex offender

Plumbthedepths · 23-03-2019 07:15PM

dark crystal wrote:

It was a perfectly fair response. Seems like you blindly accept one statement, but wish to discredit another for some reason. Bit biased, but there you have it.

It's a get out of jail response tbh, you made a strident claim that Kate didn't know he was a paedophile I asked you to back it up instead of doing so you are engaging in deflection and semantics . I don't accept anything blindly but of course this is further evidence of deflection.

Plumbthedepths · 23-03-2019 07:16PM

dark crystal wrote:

I'm sure people can make up their minds about the truth alright.

Unfortunately the turth requires evidence which you failed to provide, one can only arrive at one other conclusion as to what your claim is.

Madeleine McCann

Comments