Madeleine McCann

limnam wrote: »

I'm not getting personal with you, why are you getting personal with me ?


I'm not hear to entertain you or be your friend.


I'm trying to discuss the case.


Please stop getting personal with me.

I was correcting your use of been and being. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram you've been far more contrary with others than that. Soon as you get a taste of your own medicine you can't take it.

Edit: I have also edited the post I made in post no 1733 to add this by way of an apology for getting "personal":

Edit: I meant to say above that it's another annoying thing about your posts, not you, I don't know you, it wasn't meant to be "personal", so apologies Limnam. I know you're not here to make friends as none of your posts are ever in the slightest bit friendly. Moving past this now and putting you on ignore, at your suggestion. End of.

Sweet.Science wrote: »

No i didnt call him that so please retract .

I would like them treated like a working class/middle class parent would've been . Not protected by the upper class

I wanted social services involved at least regarding their other children and an investigation opened

It was obvious being a parent didnt suit their lifestyle and they werent willing to change it .

Im sure a lot of peoples opinion would be different if it wasnt 7 upper class people who went to a Tapas restaurant .

Imagine it was 7 pro Brexit working class couples on holiday in Benidorm. They went to the local Brit pub to drink lager and play darts

How you would like them treated is of no consequence to anyone. If they were criminally negligent, they would have been charged with that crime.

Your assertions regarding class are meaningless and your desire to have them investigated by social services is a bit late. They were visited by social services in the UK and their parenting was found to be fine, which is why their twins are still living in a happy, loving home with their mother and father, not in the foster system as you would prefer.

Still no opinion on the actual paedophile suspected of abducting their child though, just more judgement and finger pointing at the parents. It's just getting wearisome at this stage...

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Twist the knife? Do you think the McCanns care what is said by anonymous posters on an Irish discussion forum.
Yes I did have to refresh my memory of the events. I found it especially troubling that eventhough Madeline told Gerry and Kate of crying the night before and neither Gerry or Kate coming to check on her they still left them alone again. As I said bizarre behaviour and incredibly strange people and that includes some of their friends and associates.

It's not just the poison directed at them on this forum though, is it? It's lots of anonymous forums, filled with lots of anonymous people pointing fingers, making accusations, calling them names, insinuating repulsive things, inventing sinister narratives etc.

Yours is just one of many anonymous internet voices adding to their torment.

Judge them away safely from behind your screen, nothing they can do about that night now, much as I'm sure they wish more than anything they could go back in time to that evening, act more responsibly and have their daughter back in their arms. It probably occupies every thought, every dream, every nightmare.

Any thoughts on this new suspect?

dark crystal wrote: »

How you would like them treated is of no consequence to anyone. If they were criminally negligent, they would have been charged with that crime.

Your assertions regarding class are meaningless and your desire to have them investigated by social services is a bit late. They were visited by social services in the UK and their parenting was found to be fine, which is why their twins are still living in a happy, loving home with their mother and father, not in the foster system as you would prefer.

Still no opinion on the actual paedophile suspected of abducting their child though, just more judgement and finger pointing at the parents. It's just getting wearisome at this stage...

Suspected . Why would i comment on hearsay . I can only comment on what we know for a fact happened that evening

dark crystal wrote: »

Lol.

Good one .

I will always suspect the people who seen a missing person last until proven otherwise. That is just basic and is backed up with statistics from every missing persons case

Last to see Madeline was her mother and David Payne.

So until there is proof she was abducted by someone the finger will always be pointed at them

Hey, im just dealing with the facts here.
The UK media has you guys singing to their tune

retro:electro wrote: »

And this just sums up the mentality behind you and your ilk. You don’t actually care about what may have happened to Madeleine.. you’ve no interest in discussing any new information or new suspects. You just want to reap over thirteen year old ground and repeatedly shame the parents. This guy is a convicted paedophile who has bragged about knowing what happened to Madeleine. But you have “no thoughts” on him, in fact it seems you see him as a massive inconvenience who prevents you from wearing out your favourite hobby horse.

More nonsense

Can you answer honestly to these. Simple yes/no anwers

1. Was there a sign of a break in to their apartment?
2. Were Kate and David Payne the last to see her alive?

OK, just to press the 'Reset Button.

After all the media hype in the last week regarding "concrete evidence", where does the investigation now stand?

Are we any closer to the truth? Or have we just been led down yet another rabbit hole with nothing concrete?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Why are you getting so personal? By all means dispute what I say poke holes but leave out the personal attack it's actually quite pathetic.
Yep no thoughts at all until the Germans offer proof. Hearsay in a bar to another unsavoury character unfortunately doesn't carry the burden of proof required by a court.
At present the only people responsible for her disappearance is the parents by their actions. As it it stands no one can prove that the parents were directly involved but they certainly are indirectly responsible. Again my opinion and no amount of personal jibes at me changes that.

It’s not personal. You just said that you have “no thoughts” on a convicted paedophile, which I found bizarre and wanted to comment on.
If you found it personal then maybe you should reflect on why that might be.

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Good one .

I will always suspect the people who seen a missing person last until proven otherwise. That is just basic and is backed up with statistics from every missing persons case

Last to see Madeline was her mother and David Payne.

So until there is proof she was abducted by someone the finger will always be pointed at them

Hey, im just dealing with the facts here.
The UK media has you guys singing to their tune

Yeah, that's it, it's the main stream media controlling our thoughts. That's definitely it. The Sun is my bible.

Oh hey, Trump called, he wants his ideology back!

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I've been a member, on and off, of Boards since the mid 2000s. Here's how every single AH Maddie thread goes:

• The Anti McCanns try to make some valid points
• The Pro McCanns gather around them with viscous replies. (Are they all in a WhatsApp group where they alert each other of Maddie threads and then gang up on the Anti McCanns? I'm joking of course, but it feels that way)
• Thread gets litigious
• Warnings get handed out
• Thread gets litigious again and/or goes around and around in circles of abuse from both sides
• Thread gets locked

Every single time


As an aside, I notice the biggest Boards defender of the McCanns is still posting on these threads for over 10 years. Her attitude towards anti McCanns is still completely over the top and it's like a full time job to her defending these very questionable parents. She even does it across multiple threads at the same time on the site


If I didn't know better I'd presume she was part of the McCann's online PR team

Well that gave me a laugh but the majority of it I would agree with. In fairness though, there are ways of raising issues without appearing to be without sin, and the "Anti McCanns" as you put it, do come across very very haughty and cold, they don't act kindly or with much respect towards any other posters let alone the McCanns. The mere fact that people are labelling others or themselves pro or anti McCann is the exact thing that's wrong with the threads in the first place.

Ok, I'll bite just this once..

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I've been a member, on and off, of Boards since the mid 2000s. Here's how every single AH Maddie thread goes:

• The Anti McCanns try to make some valid points
• The Pro McCanns gather around them with viscous replies. (Are they all in a WhatsApp group where they alert each other of Maddie threads and then gang up on the Anti McCanns? I'm joking of course, but it feels that way)
• Thread gets litigious
• Warnings get handed out
• Thread gets litigious again and/or goes around and around in circles of abuse from both sides
• Thread gets locked

Every single time

Now, maybe I'm weird like this, but I don't feel comfortable accusing grieving parents of having killed or disposed of their daughter without any proof. It doesn't sit right with me. People should be considered innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't you agree? You see that as being 'pro' McCann, I see that as a basic tenet of the law.
I also happen to believe there's no way they could have done it, not within the timeline anyway. I have yet to hear a coherent argument to convince me otherwise.
By the by, it's not just 'anti' McCanns who make valid points, as if the other side don't have any. You say this while going on to say 'pro' McCanns make vicious replies, whilst ignoring completely the vicious smearing of a group of people from anonymous internet warriors on the other side. But you're biased, I get it. 'Anti' McCann good, 'Pro' McCann bad.

Now, tell me, what you mean by 'litigious'? That's an interesting word. Do you mean a mod has to intervene to avoid this site from being sued by posters making unfounded clams about people, like calling them pedos and so forth? Because those posts come from one side only. Every time.

As an aside, I notice the biggest Boards defender of the McCanns is still posting on these threads for over 10 years. Her attitude towards anti McCanns is still completely over the top and it's like a full time job to her defending these very questionable parents. She even does it across multiple threads at the same time on the site


If I didn't know better I'd presume she was part of the McCann's online PR team

If you've been on this site for so long, whatever account you're posting on now is just one of a few you must have held over that time. Have you been posting anti McCann stuff all that time, or do you just read these threads without contributing? Is there a post limit you'd like to impose on certain posters? Or just on posters whose view you do not agree with?

On these threads, do you ever see the same 'anti' McCann posters over and over again or is it just this one poster you're picking out because you feel their defence of innocent people is particularly grating?

If I didn't know better, I might presume you were part of a bizarre internet conspiracy network specifically set up to discredit the McCanns. See how that works?

ShineOn7 wrote: »

And she's proven my point :pac:

10 years of righteousness filled posts of never (ever!) even listening to a point the other side is making


Your fingers must be so tired

Ah here...leave it out now, you made your point, stop going on. I see you have almost as many posts in 2 months as I do in 12 years, you obviously have a lot to say yourself, so I wouldn't be deliberately targeting others now. Moving on....

Sweet.Science wrote: »

No i didnt call him that so please retract .

I would like them treated like a working class/middle class parent would've been . Not protected by the upper class

I wanted social services involved at least regarding their other children and an investigation opened

It was obvious being a parent didnt suit their lifestyle and they werent willing to change it .

Im sure a lot of peoples opinion would be different if it wasnt 7 upper class people who went to a Tapas restaurant .

Imagine it was 7 pro Brexit working class couples on holiday in Benidorm. They went to the local Brit pub to drink lager and play darts

If only their ‘upper class’ status could have protected them from being annihilated and abused on social media, forums and by the gutter press.
They have been torn to shreds, called names, insulted, threatened, criticised and slandered at every turn for over 13 years now.
Not just Kate and Gerry, but all of that group.
That is a horrific thing to wish on anyone, least of all two people who are already suffering and who are paying the ultimate, highest price possible for their mistake.

13 years and still just a few pages ago we had posters calling David Payne a pedophile and implying Gerry was aware he had an interest in little girls. Based on what? You really think if he was a pedophile that the UK, Portuguese and now German police would have missed that?
Sure it would have been much easier for the Portuguese police to blame David Payne if he really was a kiddie fiddler, than it would have been to pin it on the McCanns, so why didn’t they just do that?
You couldn’t make any of this sh*t up.

Hand on heart do you honestly believe their twins are at risk of being abused or neglected, or are you only suggesting it as further means to hurt and humiliate Kate & Gerry? I get the impression it’s the latter.
I don’t get the impression that you have any concern for the children, you’re just looking to inflict more suffering on the family.

I only rewatched the documentary last week and there was a clip of Gerry reading out hate mail on it, this was only a year or two after Madeleine disappeared.
They had boxes upon boxes of it, full of nasty letters wishing them dead, wishing their other kids dead, cursing them, threatening to harm them, and still it’s not enough for the baying mob.
It’s sickening.

My friends, no amount of speculation can solve a crime or bring a criminal to justice. Guesswork is not enough, and it carries the risk of people falling so in love with their pet theory that they ignore whatever shreds of evidence there may be. The police are not immune to this risk, either.


In this case, there's very little-to-none forensic: we, like the investigators, are obliged to go by circumstances, context, statistics, and likelihoods. And precedence.
They definitely DID miss the chance to gather any good evidence and the crime scene was well and truly contaminated. In fairness, this often happens when anxious civilians are the ones who make the first discovery, before anyone is even sure that a crime has been committed at all.

Of course, when a child is harmed or missing, the parents must be among the first suspected: that is the sad and tragic statistic.
It is not enough on its own!
I mean, naturally, it nearly always IS the parents who last saw the child because that is normal family life. :-) But child abductors, rapists and killers do really exist, though thankfully rare.

I think the pattern of attacks on young girls locally while old CB was living and working there is worrying and suggestive, and Its disturbing how little investigation there was of these other attacks.

They may never find the body (god help us) but it is still possible to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without a body.

Not on mere guesswork or stubborn theorising, but on circumstantial evidence, witness accounts, behaviours of the accused, significant actions taken by the accused, etc etc etc. THAT is what will get the mystery solved.

I love a good mystery, even though I mourn the victims.

Watching with interest!