|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 25, 2013 6:58:07 GMT
If the Portuguese police do end up charging/convicting the parents, what does that mean for the BBC and the government/police who have thrown so much taxpayer money into supporting them. It means that they will again have been shown to be a bunch of pedophile protecting scumbags.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 25, 2013 7:22:21 GMT
If the Portuguese police do end up charging/convicting the parents, what does that mean for the BBC and the government/police who have thrown so much taxpayer money into supporting them. It means that they will again have been shown to be a bunch of pedophile protecting scumbags. Ummm... how will that make them paedophiles??
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 7:46:06 GMT
It was colonel mustard in the lounge with the lead pipe...what a crock of shit this thread is...nasty blokes playing Sherlock Holmes....wouldn't want to be on trial in front of you lot....make the facts fit your opinion seems to be the thing. I'm appalled. Oh shut it you absolute muppet. We're having a discussion on a discussion board. What's so bad about that? No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior.
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 7:52:28 GMT
Always the same on here...anyone who isn't with the bully crowd gets it in the neck. Don't join in then if you don't agree with other peoples opinion but can't deal with counter arguments without crying "bully". As stated on several posts there are many anomalies and much unresolved evidence regarding Maddie"s disappearance that a case of simple abduction of a child does not fit into. If you can't see that though, I respect your opinion and would never bully you, or anybody for that matter, with my opinion. How many hundreds of message boards do you think have a thread discussing this and expressing unease in the way the investigation is going? Mob rule
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 25, 2013 8:02:18 GMT
Oh shut it you absolute muppet. We're having a discussion on a discussion board. What's so bad about that? No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Where exactly would rationality come into causing the death of your kid and covering it up?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 25, 2013 8:02:48 GMT
Don't join in then if you don't agree with other peoples opinion but can't deal with counter arguments without crying "bully". As stated on several posts there are many anomalies and much unresolved evidence regarding Maddie"s disappearance that a case of simple abduction of a child does not fit into. If you can't see that though, I respect your opinion and would never bully you, or anybody for that matter, with my opinion. How many hundreds of message boards do you think have a thread discussing this and expressing unease in the way the investigation is going? Mob rule As I said I will always respect your opinion but do not agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 8:03:16 GMT
Oh shut it you absolute muppet. We're having a discussion on a discussion board. What's so bad about that? No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. I've just taken a good long look at myself and to be fair I'm pretty damn good. In fact, I'm quite a babe magnet who knows far more than all of you Thanks for your tip
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Oct 25, 2013 8:32:02 GMT
Oh shut it you absolute muppet. We're having a discussion on a discussion board. What's so bad about that? No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 25, 2013 8:48:49 GMT
It means that they will again have been shown to be a bunch of pedophile protecting scumbags. Ummm... how will that make them paedophiles?? Have a look at some of the files widely available. Why would the 'dad' have a file on a police system to monitor children at risk that is strangely empty? Why would he and his friend have been reported to have made explicit references to their children? Why would the mother refuse to answet 48 questions to police trying to 'find' her child? Why would one of the first reactions when realising your child was 'missing' be to hire a top extradition lawyer? There are far more questions than answers in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 25, 2013 8:50:31 GMT
No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv. And Karen Matthews. And the bloke who hid his step granddaughter s body in the loft.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 25, 2013 8:51:39 GMT
No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv. And Karen Matthews. And the bloke who hid his step granddaughter s body in the loft.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 25, 2013 8:54:49 GMT
Ummm... how will that make them paedophiles?? Have a look at some of the files widely available. Why would the 'dad' have a file on a police system to monitor children at risk that is strangely empty? Why would he and his friend have been reported to have made explicit references to their children? Why would the mother refuse to answet 48 questions to police trying to 'find' her child? Why would one of the first reactions when realising your child was 'missing' be to hire a top extradition lawyer? There are far more questions than answers in this case. Again, which of that makes them paedophiles? Child killers, negligent, whatever else, but there is almost nothing to point to them being kiddie fiddlers.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 25, 2013 8:58:29 GMT
Have a look at some of the files widely available. Why would the 'dad' have a file on a police system to monitor children at risk that is strangely empty? Why would he and his friend have been reported to have made explicit references to their children? Why would the mother refuse to answet 48 questions to police trying to 'find' her child? Why would one of the first reactions when realising your child was 'missing' be to hire a top extradition lawyer? There are far more questions than answers in this case. Again, which of that makes them paedophiles? Child killers, negligent, whatever else, but there is almost nothing to point to them being kiddie fiddlers. Again Why would he and his friend have been reported to have made explicit references to their children? And jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1354-gerald-mccann-cats-system-registration-number-19309
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 10:24:20 GMT
No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv. Right then, so I've read most of this thread now. Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory seems to be this: 1. The parents couldn't care less about their kids, had some kind of issue with Maddy and she died ( whatever the causes) 2. The parents embark on a cover up of stunning effectiveness, hiring lawyers to make sure they could exit the country ASAP. 3. Both the government and the bbc assist in promoting the idea of abduction over any other explanation as the mcCanns have some mysterious hold over them. 4. The parents setup a dodgy fund they then use it to collect donations, but actually use it fund a lavish lifestyle. 5. This latest program re the abduction is pushed by the McCanns not to find their missing daughter, but to keep the story alive and boost the funds mentioned in 4 above. Is this anywhere near the gist?
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 10:32:07 GMT
No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Where exactly would rationality come into causing the death of your kid and covering it up? The whole ' they're guilty' theory of this thread is based upon them being cold and logical, hence rational in their alleged cover up. If they are as guilty as dome on here alledge, then to have stage managed the whole thing would take a considerable amount of rationality.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Oct 25, 2013 10:34:09 GMT
Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv. Right then, so I've read most of this thread now. Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory seems to be this: 1. The parents couldn't care less about their kids, had some kind of issue with Maddy and she died ( whatever the causes) 2. The parents embark on a cover up of stunning effectiveness, hiring lawyers to make sure they could exit the country ASAP. 3. Both the government and the bbc assist in promoting the idea of abduction over any other explanation as the mcCanns have some mysterious hold over them. 4. The parents setup a dodgy fund they then use it to collect donations, but actually use it fund a lavish lifestyle. 5. This latest program re the abduction is pushed by the McCanns not to find their missing daughter, but to keep the story alive and boost the funds mentioned in 4 above. Is this anywhere near the gist? 1. Would you class their actions as good parenting? 2. They apprently didnt join the hundreds or locals searching for her immediately after her disappearance but yes, they apparently did hire lawyers 3. Leave me out of that one 4. Why was the fund set up as a limited company and not a charity? 5. No, it was just a bit of a non event. No actual new evidence. 2 photo-fits of a suspect but they looked nothing like each other. Met police 'revelation' that they had discounted Jane Tanner's(?) description of a possible suspect - good work lads, the Portuguese police decided it was a none starter months after the disappearance.
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 10:35:47 GMT
No you're not, you're acting as judge and jury, or at least some of you are. The police have insufficient evidence to charge anyone, but you lot know better, bloody hilarious if it weren't so sad. Apparently it's the parents who have kept on pushing the whole issue and won't let it drop; that doesn't sound like a rational act for someone whose supposedly so guilty. There's a few on here who need to take a good long look at themselves, and that includes you keyboard warrior. Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv. Not even comparable. Huntley was fucked from the beginning and he knew it, and that happened immediately after the disappearance, not 6 years later.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 10:37:06 GMT
Right, this may get to be a very long post and a tad too technical, but do stop me if I do.
Over the years I think I've become quite a good judge of people by merely listening and watching their faces
For me, I don't believe a word the McCann's have said
I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 10:39:00 GMT
Right then, so I've read most of this thread now. Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory seems to be this: 1. The parents couldn't care less about their kids, had some kind of issue with Maddy and she died ( whatever the causes) 2. The parents embark on a cover up of stunning effectiveness, hiring lawyers to make sure they could exit the country ASAP. 3. Both the government and the bbc assist in promoting the idea of abduction over any other explanation as the mcCanns have some mysterious hold over them. 4. The parents setup a dodgy fund they then use it to collect donations, but actually use it fund a lavish lifestyle. 5. This latest program re the abduction is pushed by the McCanns not to find their missing daughter, but to keep the story alive and boost the funds mentioned in 4 above. Is this anywhere near the gist? 1. Would you class their actions as good parenting? Probably not, but doesn't make them guilty 2. They apprently didnt join the hundreds or locals searching for her immediately after her disappearance but yes, they apparently did hire lawyers Possibly too distressed, maybe told to sit tight by the police 3. Leave me out of that one Haha 4. Why was the fund set up as a limited company and not a charity? Don't know...do you? Again, doesn't make em guilty 5. No, it was just a bit of a non event. No actual new evidence. 2 photo-fits of a suspect but they looked nothing like each other. Met police 'revelation' that they had discounted Jane Tanner's(?) description of a possible suspect - good work lads, the Portuguese police decided it was a none starter months after the disappearance. So what's the motivation and who's behind it?
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Oct 25, 2013 10:40:08 GMT
Right, this may get to be a very long post and a tad too technical, but do stop me if I do. Over the years I think I've become quite a good judge of people by merely listening and watching their faces For me, I don't believe a word the McCann's have said I thank you. In the old days that was more than good enough for a conviction
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 25, 2013 10:51:04 GMT
Right, this may get to be a very long post and a tad too technical, but do stop me if I do. Over the years I think I've become quite a good judge of people by merely listening and watching their faces For me, I don't believe a word the McCann's have said I thank you. I must admit, watching some of the old interviews on youtube they do sometimes look guilty of something, something just doesn't sit right with them, all their interviews sound scripted, like they've thought over and over about what to say when asked certain things, they also don't show much emotion at all, this could be because they are not the type to show emotion in public, stiff upper lip types, or they know they're not very good at acting, so it's best to just stay emotionless and poker faced so as not to give anything away, I have no idea, never the less, they say some odd things and you'd expect a bit more emotion from someone who'd lost a 3 year old child.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 25, 2013 11:05:12 GMT
Are you sure about that? I seem to to remember Ian Huntley assisting with the search and appearing on tv. Right then, so I've read most of this thread now. Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory seems to be this: 1. The parents couldn't care less about their kids, had some kind of issue with Maddy and she died ( whatever the causes) 2. The parents embark on a cover up of stunning effectiveness, hiring lawyers to make sure they could exit the country ASAP. 3. Both the government and the bbc assist in promoting the idea of abduction over any other explanation as the mcCanns have some mysterious hold over them. 4. The parents setup a dodgy fund they then use it to collect donations, but actually use it fund a lavish lifestyle. 5. This latest program re the abduction is pushed by the McCanns not to find their missing daughter, but to keep the story alive and boost the funds mentioned in 4 above. Is this anywhere near the gist? pretty much too much circumstantial evidence and conjecture for people not to believe in a cover up though dont forget: government assistance to get an audience with the pope and US government officials - their numbers are not in the book parents reluctance to co-operate with the portiguese investigation, thus hindering the search the parents hiring an ex BBC and government media guy to be their full time PR guy the social servives not conducting a thorough investigation to the end of wether they are fit parents to keep the twins as above - child neglect suing all and sundry that make any negative comments or innuendo different and continuous changing of events from the tapas 9 vetting all questions before giving interviews
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 11:20:19 GMT
Right, this may get to be a very long post and a tad too technical, but do stop me if I do. Over the years I think I've become quite a good judge of people by merely listening and watching their faces For me, I don't believe a word the McCann's have said I thank you. In the old days that was more than good enough for a conviction Ah, the good old days.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 25, 2013 11:35:54 GMT
Right, this may get to be a very long post and a tad too technical, but do stop me if I do. Over the years I think I've become quite a good judge of people by merely listening and watching their faces For me, I don't believe a word the McCann's have said I thank you. I am not quite going that far but I am very uneasy about the way that this whole dreadful disappearance has been investigated. The apparent smoke and mirrors and unresolved evidence that does not fit with the simple abduction theory does make me sceptical and uncomfortable with the current direction of the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 25, 2013 11:48:11 GMT
1. Would you class their actions as good parenting? Probably not, but doesn't make them guilty 2. They apprently didnt join the hundreds or locals searching for her immediately after her disappearance but yes, they apparently did hire lawyers Possibly too distressed, maybe told to sit tight by the police 3. Leave me out of that one Haha 4. Why was the fund set up as a limited company and not a charity? Don't know...do you? Again, doesn't make em guilty 5. No, it was just a bit of a non event. No actual new evidence. 2 photo-fits of a suspect but they looked nothing like each other. Met police 'revelation' that they had discounted Jane Tanner's(?) description of a possible suspect - good work lads, the Portuguese police decided it was a none starter months after the disappearance. So what's the motivation and who's behind it? the motivation is to avoid prison and conviction for what ever offence they have committed i genuinely believe that somthing happened maybe accidental or more sinister and everything else has to avoid prosecution all the phsyical evidence can be explained enough to prevent a successful prosecution its up to the authorities to provide burden of proof, no point securing a conviction based on poor evidence. i think IF she died in the apartment it was a death without bleeding hence all dna being easily explained, i still cant get why the dogs eveidence is easily discarded. not many western kids of that age go missing outside of family disputes with out a body turning up so the kidnapping is not somthing i have much belief in - there is enough incosistenicies in their stories and failiure to answer questions to have doubts in their timelines
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Oct 25, 2013 12:06:40 GMT
Underdog, there's no evidence for an abduction, and yet you're quite willing to believe that's what happened?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 25, 2013 12:46:16 GMT
At this point there does appear to be more evidence of her dying in the apartment than there is of her being abducted, the evidence may not be iron clad IE the dogs picking up the scent of a dead body etc, but apart from a couple of possible sightings of men carrying kids, one of which has been ruled out (6 years later) as someone else picking his kid up from a creche, there's nothing, and the other two recent photo fits actually bear a resemblance to Gerry McCann! (probably just coincidental).
As far as i can tell, and I'm admittedly no expert or have any insider knowledge, there's nothing that backs up the abduction theory at this time, there was no sign of a break in, no screaming child heard, nobody saw or heard anything, no forensic evidence, nobody has come forward with real solid information despite huge rewards and a MASSIVE campaign that has spread to all four corners of the earth, for all intents and purposes she vanished from the face of the earth literally without trace!.
Surely with the lack of evidence or leads that suggest an abduction, the police must at least look at the theory the parents were somehow culpable ? I'm not saying they are, but any real investigation has to at least clearly rule this out after fully questioning them and looking at all the other evidence.
Remember, it is estimated that every 1 in 25 people are sociopaths, or have some sociopath traits ( IE no capacity for empathy or guilt), it is possible for someone to hide something like this (accidental death due to negligence or something else) and feel absolutely no guilt over it.
I'm just an amateur idiot on a message board though, I have no fucking clue what really happened to her, I just think if there's two theories, and one has more evidence than the other, surely that's the one that needs prioritizing ?.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 25, 2013 14:12:06 GMT
I am re-reading the book "Truth of the Lie". There are many things that happened early in the investigation that can't help but make you think that there was a higher authority, if not actually dictating proceedings, trying to put a spanner in the PJs investigations. This higher authority appears to come from the UK.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Oct 25, 2013 14:20:05 GMT
Right, this may get to be a very long post and a tad too technical, but do stop me if I do. Over the years I think I've become quite a good judge of people by merely listening and watching their faces For me, I don't believe a word the McCann's have said I thank you. In the old days that was more than good enough for a conviction So underdog, do you find them guilty or not guilty ????
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 14:27:59 GMT
I am re-reading the book "Truth of the Lie". There are many things that happened early in the investigation that can't help but make you think that there was a higher authority, if not actually dictating proceedings, trying to put a spanner in the PJs investigations. This higher authority appears to come from the UK. Does the higher authority have big ears and go around shouting ...."errr errrr mommy and I" Or Was it a man and his mate who started a war under false pretences?
|
|