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…229230232234235…264

Comments

  • #6932
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Yes, the dogs point towards the McCanns. I have a feeling you haven't read up on this case. You can read about the dogs if you'd like.

    But you already agreed that the dogs may not be evidence against the McCanns.. didn’t you??

    So again, if you admit the dogs may not be evidence against the parents why do you still present them as evidence against the parents?


  • #6933
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    callmehal wrote: »
    The only evidence points towards the McCann's. Or are you able to point towards evidence against someone else?

    I think they're referring to the concrete evidence she's dead but maybe alive evidence.


  • #6934
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The dogs also mistook a coconut shell for a child’s skull, if they have potential to get it wrong even once I wouldn’t be completely trusting of them. Particularly when there’s no physical evidence to support their reaction.

    I would discount them based on both those facts alone.

    The give an indication and it’s worth investigating further, they are trained and make mistakes like human investigators. If the McCanns didn’t discount them would you do the same?


  • #6935
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    But you already agreed that the dogs may not be evidence against the McCanns.. didn’t you??

    So again, if you admit the dogs may not be evidence against the parents why do you still present them as evidence against the parents?

    Because they're the only ones who we know for sure were in the room, had the toy, rented the car. It all links. It could be because someone else killed Madeleine in the room. But we have absolutely no evidence for that. The only evidence is against the McCanns.

    I really can't make it any clearer than that. As I suggested, do a bit of reading on the case.

    Just for those not keeping up. I'm not saying the McCanns did it, I'm saying the only evidence available points to them.


  • #6936
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    limnam wrote: »
    I think they're referring to the concrete evidence she's dead but maybe alive evidence.

    Yes, there's none. Obviously it's more likely that this peado did it but there's no evidence. I can't believe people are finding this so hard to understand.


  • Advertisement
  • #6937
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    You said there was evidence, I asked for the evidence, you provided no evidence.

    So you have nothing to counter any of the points I made except more screams of ‘no evidence’? Nothing to refute at all?
    Even though I just gave you a list of relevant points that most people on both side of the debate can agree are pertinent to the investigation?
    Ok then. :pac: :pac:

    So to sum it up, you think the fact that it was locally common knowledge that a bunch of children were being left unsupervised in an unlocked apartment every night with roadside access in an area rife with pedophiles is completely irrelevant?
    Thank god you aren’t in charge of this investigation anyway if you think that’s irrelevant.


  • #6938
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Because it points towards them, again, read up on the case.

    Again, the dogs picked up a scent from inside the apt. (An abductor could have killed the child in the apt before removing the body)

    The dogs picked up a scent from a hired car ( there could have been a body in there from the hundreds if not thousands of people that have hired that car recently)

    Now you have admitted already that this could be the case, so the dogs may not point to the parents at all.

    So again, if you have already admitted that the dogs may not be evidence against the parents, why are you still presenting them as evidence against the parents?


  • #6939
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Banana Republic. wrote: »
    The give an indication and it’s worth investigating further, they are trained and make mistakes like human investigators. If the McCanns didn’t discount them would you do the same?

    If they had a 100% accurate record and there was physical evidence to support their findings I would think it’s suspicious.
    The fact they have neither of those things is what makes me discount them, not what the McCanns think.


  • #6940
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    So you have nothing to counter any of the points I made except more screams of ‘no evidence’? Nothing to refute at all?
    Even though I just gave you a list of relevant points that most people on both side of the debate can agree are pertinent to the investigation?
    Ok.

    So to sum it up, you think the fact that it was locally common knowledge that a bunch of children were being left unsupervised in an unlocked apartment every night with roadside access in an area rife with pedophiles is completely irrelevant?
    Thank god you aren’t in charge of this investigation anyway if you think that’s irrelevant.

    You didn't say you had points, you said there was evidence and plenty of it. No offence but I'm not really interested in your points. I wanted to know the evidence you said was available and you failed to provide anything to back that up.


  • #6941
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Again, the dogs picked up a scent from inside the apt. (An abductor could have killed the child in the apt before removing the body)

    The dogs picked up a scent from a hired car ( there could have been a body in there from the hundreds if not thousands of people that have hired that car recently)

    Now you have admitted already that this could be the case, so the dogs may not point to the parents at all.

    So again, if you have already admitted that the dogs may not be evidence against the parents, why are you still presenting them as evidence against the parents?

    Keep reading.


  • Advertisement
  • #6942
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Because they're the only ones who we know for sure were in the room, had the toy, rented the car. It all links. It could be because someone else killed Madeleine in the room. But we have absolutely no evidence for that. The only evidence is against the McCanns.

    I really can't make it any clearer than that. As I suggested, do a bit of reading on the case.

    Just for those not keeping up. I'm not saying the McCanns did it, I'm saying the only evidence available points to them.

    Nah, sorry you lost me again. The only evidence against the McCanns is evidence that may or may not point to the McCanns.......

    First of all, of course they were in the room, it was where they were staying!

    The door was unlocked and there were many different fingerprints found at the scene.


  • #6943
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    You didn't say you had points, you said there was evidence and plenty of it. No offence but I'm not really interested in your points. I wanted to know the evidence you said was available and you failed to provide anything to back that up.

    13 unidentified finger prints? The many unidentified hair samples? Both support the abduction theory.
    I’ve already mentioned both of these things three times tonight, again, I can only assume you missed them.
    Any thoughts? Or do unidentifiable finger prints mean nothing either?

    Also quite hilarious that you aren’t interested in my points yet you keep posting about the dogs & phone records ad nauseum, even though neither of those things count as evidence either.


  • #6944
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Keep reading.

    Keep reading what?

    You want to use the dogs as evidence against the parents even though you admit that the dogs may not be evidence against the parents??


  • #6945
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Guys the problem here is there is no evidence that we know of. Some people are interpreting facts about the case to suit what they believe.. even if they don’t want to admit it.

    The dogs may or may not be correct in what they alerted to. It may or may not have been Madeleine’s body they alerted to. Madeline may or may not have been killed by an abductor in the apt. She may or may not have been killed by her parents in the apt.

    We can all interpret things our own way but let’s all be honest here, there is no evidence that anyone killed Madeline, there is no evidence somebody took her and there is no evidence anyone hid her body.

    No evidence that any of us know of anyway


  • #6946
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Nah, sorry you lost me again. The only evidence against the McCanns is evidence that may or may not point to the McCanns.......

    First of all, of course they were in the room, it was where they were staying!

    The door was unlocked and there were many different fingerprints found at the scene.

    As I said, it's not hard evidence. The dogs reacted in certain areas, only the McCanns are common to those things. Do you have evidence of anyone else?


  • #6947
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    13 unidentified finger prints? The many unidentified hair samples? Both support the abduction theory.
    I’ve already mentioned both of these things three times tonight, again, I can only assume you missed them.
    Any thoughts? Or do unidentifiable finger prints mean nothing either?

    Also quite hilarious that you aren’t interested in my points yet you keep posting about the dogs & phone records ad nauseum, even though neither of those things count as evidence either.

    How do they support an abduction theory? They don't in the slightest. That is not evidence. You can just say you have no evidence, it's just your opinion, that's fine.


  • #6948
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    If they had a 100% accurate record and there was physical evidence to support their findings I would think it’s suspicious.
    The fact they have neither of those things is what makes me discount them, not what the McCanns think.

    No investigator has a 100% record. I think anything that can help should be used and they were rightly used. Weather they were right or wrong we still don’t know.


  • #6949
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    Just found this, worth looking at if you’ve an interest in this case https://youtu.be/WgHBiJqwloA


  • #6950
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Keep reading what?

    You want to use the dogs as evidence against the parents even though you admit that the dogs may not be evidence against the parents??

    Who said I want to use the dogs as evidence against the parents? I'm saying the dogs are one of the few pieces of evidence that's available and they point to the McCanns.


  • #6951
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    How do they support an abduction theory? They don't in the slightest. That is not evidence. You can just say you have no evidence, it's just your opinion, that's fine.

    It supports the fact that an unknown person was in the apartment that night, and took her.
    You can just admit you’re being deliberately obtuse now, it’s completely ok.

    You can’t just keep shouting ‘no evidence’ over and over again without actually refuting anything.


  • Advertisement
  • #6952
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    It supports the fact that an unknown person was in the apartment that night, and took her.
    You can just admit you’re being deliberately obtuse now, it’s completely ok.

    You can’t just keep shouting ‘no evidence’ over and over again without actually refuting anything.

    Again, that is not evidence. I've had to take the dictionary out for you before. Will I have to again?

    You have just typed your opinion. You think unidentified fingerprints point to an intruder when it could be many different reasons. The conclusion has to be reached that you can't back up your statement, you've had loads of opportunity at this stage.


  • #6953
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Again, that is not evidence. I've had to take the dictionary out for you before. Will I have to again?

    You have just typed your opinion. You think unidentified fingerprints point to an intruder when it could be many different reasons. The conclusion has to be reached that you can't back up your statement, you've had loads of opportunity at this stage.

    Do you have any proof that it wasn’t an intruder? What evidence do you have to support this? What are you basing this theory on?

    The conclusion has to be reached that you are clearly on a windup and have no interest in discussing this case.


  • #6954
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Do you have any proof that it wasn’t an intruder? What evidence do you have to support this? What are you basing this theory on?

    The conclusion has to be reached that you are clearly on a windup and have no interest in discussing this case.

    I never claimed to have proof that it was an intruder or it wasn't. You made a claim and you couldn't back it up. No shame in admitting that.

    Let's move on and get back to discussing the facts of the case.


  • #6955
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,693 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Something Else
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Do you have any proof that it wasn’t an intruder? What evidence do you have to support this? What are you basing this theory on?

    The conclusion has to be reached that you are clearly on a windup and have no interest in discussing this case.

    finger prints in a rental apartment prove nothing. god knows how many people were there the week before they got there.



    surely those prints have been checked with all new suspects.


  • #6956
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    I never claimed to have proof that it was an intruder or it wasn't. You made a claim and you couldn't back it up. No shame in admitting that.

    Let's move on and get back to discussing the facts of the case.

    Nah, what I originally said was:
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    There is plenty of evidence to support her being abducted if you are open to it.

    And it’s true. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory, or else there wouldn’t be so many people who believe in it.
    You just choose not to see it or hold any value in it, and that’s ok, but you don’t speak for everyone. You don’t get to decide on behalf of everyone what counts as evidence and what doesn’t.
    You’re right though, let’s move on. Going round in circles here when it’s quite clear that you are seeing this through one lens and I’m seeing it through another.


  • #6957
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    finger prints in a rental apartment prove nothing. god knows how many people were there the week before they got there.



    surely those prints have been checked with all new suspects.

    I didn’t say it proved anything, I said it indicated that an unknown person may have been in the apartment that night. All the other prints were accounted for.
    I have consistently used words like ‘supports’ and ‘indicates’ in my posts because obviously there’s no conclusive proof of anything, but that appears to still not be good enough. It’s getting tedious now.

    The prints can’t be conclusively tested because they’re contaminated, because the Portuguese never sealed off the crime scene and all the evidence got destroyed.
    They can’t be discounted, one of those could very easily be CB’s prints but we’ll never know because the Pj fudged it.


  • #6958
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Nah, what I originally said was:



    And it’s true. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory, or else there wouldn’t be so many people who believe in it.
    You just choose not to see it or hold any value in it, and that’s ok, but you don’t speak for everyone. You don’t get to decide on behalf of everyone what counts as evidence and what doesn’t.
    You’re right though, let’s move on. Going round in circles here when it’s quite clear that you are seeing this through one lens and I’m seeing it through another.

    You haven't provided any evidence to support that at all! Evidence is evidence. You offered opinions.

    You are too entrenched in your view that it has to be an intruder. Some of us are looking at this neutrally and taking every avenue into consideration.

    But for everyone's sake, let's move on.


  • #6959
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    You haven't provided any evidence to support that at all! Evidence is evidence. You offered opinions.

    You are too entrenched in your view that it has to be an intruder. Some of us are looking at this neutrally and taking every avenue into consideration.

    But for everyone's sake, let's move on.

    Yes I absolutely have, you are just being blatantly disingenuous and dishonest. I have offered plenty of supporting evidence that those on both sides of the debate mutually agree on.

    But far be it from me to spend another 6 pages trying to get you to see how unsupervised children known to be in an unlocked apartment might be an appealing opportunity for the local gang of pedophiles, when you are so determined to undermine the relevance.
    As you were.


  • #6960
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Yes I absolutely have, you are just being blatantly disingenuous and dishonest. I have offered plenty of supporting evidence that those on both sides of the debate mutually agree on.

    But far be it from me to spend another 6 pages trying to get you to see how unsupervised children known to be in an unlocked apartment might be an appealing opportunity for the local gang of pedophiles, when you are so determined to undermine the relevance.
    As you were.

    Look, you were making comments like this:
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    It supports the fact that an unknown person was in the apartment that night, and took her.

    You don't have a single shred of evidence to back up this 'fact' that you claimed.

    Please stop embarrassing yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #6961
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,693 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Something Else
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I didn’t say it proved anything, I said it indicated that an unknown person may have been in the apartment that night. All the other prints were accounted for.
    I have consistently used words like ‘supports’ and ‘indicates’ in my posts because obviously there’s no conclusive proof of anything, but that appears to still not be good enough. It’s getting tedious now.

    The prints can’t be conclusively tested because they’re contaminated, because the Portuguese never sealed off the crime scene and all the evidence got destroyed.
    They can’t be discounted, one of those could very easily be CB’s prints but we’ll never know because the Pj fudged it.

    they dont prove anyone was in the hose that night only in the past.

    its the mc canns that compromised the crime scene . they were all in and out before the cops showed up

    surely if CB s prints are there it strengthens the case against him.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement