|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 15:31:12 GMT
are there not also major major inconsistencies in the statements that both parents gave immediately after the "Incident" (whatever incident that may be)....
i.e. kate originally saying on the evening of the "Abduction" she put the kids to bed at 7.30 and had a glass of wine with Gerry who was there with her. at 8.30.she then had a bath and put her make up on before going out...she later changed her statement to say at 6.30 she had a shower that took 5 minutes and had to answer the door to Dave in her towel as Gerry was playing tennis and had asked Dave to go and check on Kate and the kids and take the kids to the recreation area.then at 7.15 she put her make up on as the kids were already asleep and gerry had a bath or shower (seems strange to say, immediately after the events not months or so later, that you had a bath around 7.30 and just you and your husband were there when in reality you actually had a shower over an hour earlier when your husband WASN'T there and someone else just happens to have now given a statement to say he visited her on her own in the apartment an hour earlier? just slipped her mind or possibly changing her story because Dave had given a statement that contradicted hers?)
both parents saying in their original statements that when they checked on the kids they did so by entering through the front door with their keys...kate later said in another statement and her book that both parents checked on the kids using the patio door (which was unlocked)...gerry one week later changed his statement to state both left for the night through the patio door and it was likely they had left the front door unlocked (so why the need to use their keys to unlock the front door when checking on them?)
the parents insisting on it being an abduction from the word go yet later stating that maddie was a "Screamer" and would never have been taken against her will without making a sound.later they presumed maddie must have been drugged by the abductee despite their being no physical evidence found by Purtuguese or British police of anyone else other than the family ever having been present in the room
gerry stating he went to the room to find maddie gone and saw the shutters up and the window wide open (gerry apparently for an unknwon reason then chose to lower the shutters) whilst both the Portuguese and British police have found no evidence that the shutters were moved at all and the window couldn't open fully anyway as it was broken
gerry stating that when he checked on the kids he stood over maddie's bed watching her "Lying in the recovery position" but kate stating she couldn't be sure when she checked if it was maddie or just the bedding bundled up because it was too dark to see clearly
being so concerned about the abduction of one of their children they both immediately leave the room (still with the patio door and front door unlocked) and leave their other 2 children alone in the room (again) to run back to the tapas bar to raise the alarm
like everyone else, i don't know what happened and don't pretend to but to summarily decide that neither parent should be investigated further after firstly refusing to answer dozens of questions asked and then changing their statements so radically (which co-incidentally now happen to tally with original statements of their friends who were present...they didn't initially) is ludicrous.
i am not accusing them of anything as i wasn't there but in pretty much ANY justice system, these inconsistencies alone would lead them to be questioned far more thoroughly. they have by their own admission changed their stories on numerous occasions and done nothing but hinder the investigation at every step by refusing to answer nearly 50 questions put to them by authorities. as a father myself i can 100% state that i would do everything possible including answering every question asked if i believed it could help in any way, shape or form find my daughter.
people saying those that question the McCann's are conspiracy theorists or deplorable people need to look at the police statements given and see how they changed after others gave statements that differed from theirs. ANY Police force would find that highly suspicious..it's not a conspiracy theory, simply people looking at the facts as they would in ANY other case rather than just dismissing them because this is high profile and therefore we should just apparently leave the poor parents alone.
EDIT (the changes in statements were around a week or so apart - original statements 3 & 4th may, then later changed 10th & 11th may)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 25, 2013 15:34:04 GMT
The oatcake EEB has solved the case
Hang the deplorable cunts
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Oct 25, 2013 16:07:31 GMT
I would also like to ask, why did the Mcanns set up a fund two days after Maddie's disappearance? Gerry said it was to assist in finding her after the "official" investigation was closed. Hmmm. No one would say that UNLESS they knew she wasn't going to be found? Gerry's brother also quit his job to run the Maddie fund full time. Highly suspicious.
Hopefully the Portuguese police nail them this time round.
|
|
|
Post by blurtonboy on Oct 25, 2013 16:52:26 GMT
After reading fuck all evidence, but just their attitudes and demeanor on every single fucking TV programme since the sad event happened, I personally think the fuckers are guilty.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 25, 2013 17:25:22 GMT
After reading fuck all evidence, but just their attitudes and demeanor on every single fucking TV programme since the sad event happened, I personally think the fuckers are guilty. Stop sitting on the fence ffs.
|
|
|
Post by petemac on Oct 25, 2013 17:28:36 GMT
After reading fuck all evidence, but just their attitudes and demeanor on every single fucking TV programme since the sad event happened, I personally think the fuckers are guilty. Stop sitting on the fence ffs. :-D
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Oct 25, 2013 18:16:20 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. Watch the documentary instead:
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2013 0:17:00 GMT
are there not also major major inconsistencies in the statements that both parents gave immediately after the "Incident" (whatever incident that may be).... i.e. kate originally saying on the evening of the "Abduction" she put the kids to bed at 7.30 and had a glass of wine with Gerry who was there with her. at 8.30.she then had a bath and put her make up on before going out...she later changed her statement to say at 6.30 she had a shower that took 5 minutes and had to answer the door to Dave in her towel as Gerry was playing tennis and had asked Dave to go and check on Kate and the kids and take the kids to the recreation area.then at 7.15 she put her make up on as the kids were already asleep and gerry had a bath or shower (seems strange to say, immediately after the events not months or so later, that you had a bath around 7.30 and just you and your husband were there when in reality you actually had a shower over an hour earlier when your husband WASN'T there and someone else just happens to have now given a statement to say he visited her on her own in the apartment an hour earlier? just slipped her mind or possibly changing her story because Dave had given a statement that contradicted hers?) both parents saying in their original statements that when they checked on the kids they did so by entering through the front door with their keys...kate later said in another statement and her book that both parents checked on the kids using the patio door (which was unlocked)...gerry one week later changed his statement to state both left for the night through the patio door and it was likely they had left the front door unlocked (so why the need to use their keys to unlock the front door when checking on them?) the parents insisting on it being an abduction from the word go yet later stating that maddie was a "Screamer" and would never have been taken against her will without making a sound.later they presumed maddie must have been drugged by the abductee despite their being no physical evidence found by Purtuguese or British police of anyone else other than the family ever having been present in the room gerry stating he went to the room to find maddie gone and saw the shutters up and the window wide open (gerry apparently for an unknwon reason then chose to lower the shutters) whilst both the Portuguese and British police have found no evidence that the shutters were moved at all and the window couldn't open fully anyway as it was broken gerry stating that when he checked on the kids he stood over maddie's bed watching her "Lying in the recovery position" but kate stating she couldn't be sure when she checked if it was maddie or just the bedding bundled up because it was too dark to see clearly being so concerned about the abduction of one of their children they both immediately leave the room (still with the patio door and front door unlocked) and leave their other 2 children alone in the room (again) to run back to the tapas bar to raise the alarm like everyone else, i don't know what happened and don't pretend to but to summarily decide that neither parent should be investigated further after firstly refusing to answer dozens of questions asked and then changing their statements so radically (which co-incidentally now happen to tally with original statements of their friends who were present...they didn't initially) is ludicrous. i am not accusing them of anything as i wasn't there but in pretty much ANY justice system, these inconsistencies alone would lead them to be questioned far more thoroughly. they have by their own admission changed their stories on numerous occasions and done nothing but hinder the investigation at every step by refusing to answer nearly 50 questions put to them by authorities. as a father myself i can 100% state that i would do everything possible including answering every question asked if i believed it could help in any way, shape or form find my daughter. people saying those that question the McCann's are conspiracy theorists or deplorable people need to look at the police statements given and see how they changed after others gave statements that differed from theirs. ANY Police force would find that highly suspicious..it's not a conspiracy theory, simply people looking at the facts as they would in ANY other case rather than just dismissing them because this is high profile and therefore we should just apparently leave the poor parents alone. EDIT (the changes in statements were around a week or so apart - original statements 3 & 4th may, then later changed 10th & 11th may) All very compelling questions indeed, it does make you wonder doesn't it? However the thing that still makes it hard for me to believe that it was them, is that if they had in fact 'got away with it' why would they then keep the spot light on themselves fully lit? The more they keep pushing it into the public domain and the more they keep the possibilty alive that it could be them, the more chance their guilt will be discovered, if it is indeed there to be discovered. Gulity people ordinarily keep their heads down but not these two, they're there taking every opportunity to keep their daughter's dissappearance fresh in the public's consciousness. And if it was a lie, how would the other one know that the other one wasn't about to or at least a some point in the future, 'crack', they're both too intelligent to know that that would be a distinct possibility and hence why neither one would continue to put all their eggs in one basket, if that risk was actually there. There's for sure a lot of stuff that doesn't seem right but if they weren't actually out there, still putting their faces in front of the cameras after all these years, then it's pretty safe to assume that we wouldn't actually be discussing if they were guilty or not and the suspicion of their gulit would slowly be forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 26, 2013 6:13:38 GMT
All very compelling questions indeed, it does make you wonder doesn't it? However the thing that still makes it hard for me to believe that it was them, is that if they had in fact 'got away with it' why would they then keep the spot light on themselves fully lit? The more they keep pushing it into the public domain and the more they keep the possibilty alive that it could be them, the more chance their guilt will be discovered, if it is indeed there to be discovered. Gulity people ordinarily keep their heads down but not these two, they're there taking every opportunity to keep their daughter's dissappearance fresh in the public's consciousness. And if it was a lie, how would the other one know that the other one wasn't about to or at least a some point in the future, 'crack', they're both too intelligent to know that that would be a distinct possibility and hence why neither one would continue to put all their eggs in one basket, if that risk was actually there. There's for sure a lot of stuff that doesn't seem right but if they weren't actually out there, still putting their faces in front of the cameras after all these years, then it's pretty safe to assume that we wouldn't actually be discussing if they were guilty or not and the suspicion of their gulit would slowly be forgotten. On the subject of one of then cracking, watch the interviews and watch crimewatch again, look at the way kate 'stares' at gerry while he is talking, waiting to jump in if he slips up. As for why they can keep themselves in the public eye without fear of being caught, perhaps they have assurances from someone higher up that they wont be caught. Someone who has more to lose than them? Or maybe they're just a pair of egotisical who enjoy the limelight so much they'll keep risking capture.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 26, 2013 7:51:43 GMT
are there not also major major inconsistencies in the statements that both parents gave immediately after the "Incident" (whatever incident that may be).... i.e. kate originally saying on the evening of the "Abduction" she put the kids to bed at 7.30 and had a glass of wine with Gerry who was there with her. at 8.30.she then had a bath and put her make up on before going out...she later changed her statement to say at 6.30 she had a shower that took 5 minutes and had to answer the door to Dave in her towel as Gerry was playing tennis and had asked Dave to go and check on Kate and the kids and take the kids to the recreation area.then at 7.15 she put her make up on as the kids were already asleep and gerry had a bath or shower (seems strange to say, immediately after the events not months or so later, that you had a bath around 7.30 and just you and your husband were there when in reality you actually had a shower over an hour earlier when your husband WASN'T there and someone else just happens to have now given a statement to say he visited her on her own in the apartment an hour earlier? just slipped her mind or possibly changing her story because Dave had given a statement that contradicted hers?) both parents saying in their original statements that when they checked on the kids they did so by entering through the front door with their keys...kate later said in another statement and her book that both parents checked on the kids using the patio door (which was unlocked)...gerry one week later changed his statement to state both left for the night through the patio door and it was likely they had left the front door unlocked (so why the need to use their keys to unlock the front door when checking on them?) the parents insisting on it being an abduction from the word go yet later stating that maddie was a "Screamer" and would never have been taken against her will without making a sound.later they presumed maddie must have been drugged by the abductee despite their being no physical evidence found by Purtuguese or British police of anyone else other than the family ever having been present in the room gerry stating he went to the room to find maddie gone and saw the shutters up and the window wide open (gerry apparently for an unknwon reason then chose to lower the shutters) whilst both the Portuguese and British police have found no evidence that the shutters were moved at all and the window couldn't open fully anyway as it was broken gerry stating that when he checked on the kids he stood over maddie's bed watching her "Lying in the recovery position" but kate stating she couldn't be sure when she checked if it was maddie or just the bedding bundled up because it was too dark to see clearly being so concerned about the abduction of one of their children they both immediately leave the room (still with the patio door and front door unlocked) and leave their other 2 children alone in the room (again) to run back to the tapas bar to raise the alarm like everyone else, i don't know what happened and don't pretend to but to summarily decide that neither parent should be investigated further after firstly refusing to answer dozens of questions asked and then changing their statements so radically (which co-incidentally now happen to tally with original statements of their friends who were present...they didn't initially) is ludicrous. i am not accusing them of anything as i wasn't there but in pretty much ANY justice system, these inconsistencies alone would lead them to be questioned far more thoroughly. they have by their own admission changed their stories on numerous occasions and done nothing but hinder the investigation at every step by refusing to answer nearly 50 questions put to them by authorities. as a father myself i can 100% state that i would do everything possible including answering every question asked if i believed it could help in any way, shape or form find my daughter. people saying those that question the McCann's are conspiracy theorists or deplorable people need to look at the police statements given and see how they changed after others gave statements that differed from theirs. ANY Police force would find that highly suspicious..it's not a conspiracy theory, simply people looking at the facts as they would in ANY other case rather than just dismissing them because this is high profile and therefore we should just apparently leave the poor parents alone. EDIT (the changes in statements were around a week or so apart - original statements 3 & 4th may, then later changed 10th & 11th may) All very compelling questions indeed, it does make you wonder doesn't it? However the thing that still makes it hard for me to believe that it was them, is that if they had in fact 'got away with it' why would they then keep the spot light on themselves fully lit? The more they keep pushing it into the public domain and the more they keep the possibilty alive that it could be them, the more chance their guilt will be discovered, if it is indeed there to be discovered. Gulity people ordinarily keep their heads down but not these two, they're there taking every opportunity to keep their daughter's dissappearance fresh in the public's consciousness. And if it was a lie, how would the other one know that the other one wasn't about to or at least a some point in the future, 'crack', they're both too intelligent to know that that would be a distinct possibility and hence why neither one would continue to put all their eggs in one basket, if that risk was actually there. There's for sure a lot of stuff that doesn't seem right but if they weren't actually out there, still putting their faces in front of the cameras after all these years, then it's pretty safe to assume that we wouldn't actually be discussing if they were guilty or not and the suspicion of their gulit would slowly be forgotten. Do guilty people keep their heads down ? Have you ever seen an episode of Columbo ? :-) the perpetrator is always there ready to help out with the investigation, maybe they're control freaks ? Also consider this, in the event they're hiding something they may well have now have convinced themselves she was abducted, a bit like how those supposesed psychics actually convince themselves they have special powers and can talk to the dead. Like you, I don't know, but they do sure act strangely and say odd things.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2013 8:01:57 GMT
I'd just like to say, and i'm not having a pop at anyone, but isn't the ongoing discussion of this story just a tad boring? I honestly don't get it. It's like 9/11. The further you get away from it the more bizarre the issue becomes. What Noam Chomsky says about controlled experiments totally applies to Maddie.
Ignore the fact that this is about 9/11 and listen to what Chomsky says from 3:55 in this video, about controlled scientific experiments. The likelihood is that Maddie was abducted.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 26, 2013 9:10:11 GMT
Is it possible that the McCanns keep themselves in the media spotlight to ensure there is a continual drip of money into their "fund". Think about it. They have gained compensation from several newspapers including the Express who paid them £500k and also the ongoing libel case in Portugal that stands to net them another £1m if successful. Ask yourself why they need to keep the fund alive? Is it because they have to pay people off to maintain their silence or are they just greedy. This is pure speculation of course but it does go some way to explaining why, if they are responsible for their daughters disappearance, they would want to keep the whole thing in the media spotlight. Personally I think the net is closing in on them and this is why the Portugese Police have re-opened the case to finally nail them.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2013 10:55:43 GMT
All very compelling questions indeed, it does make you wonder doesn't it? However the thing that still makes it hard for me to believe that it was them, is that if they had in fact 'got away with it' why would they then keep the spot light on themselves fully lit? The more they keep pushing it into the public domain and the more they keep the possibilty alive that it could be them, the more chance their guilt will be discovered, if it is indeed there to be discovered. Gulity people ordinarily keep their heads down but not these two, they're there taking every opportunity to keep their daughter's dissappearance fresh in the public's consciousness. And if it was a lie, how would the other one know that the other one wasn't about to or at least a some point in the future, 'crack', they're both too intelligent to know that that would be a distinct possibility and hence why neither one would continue to put all their eggs in one basket, if that risk was actually there. There's for sure a lot of stuff that doesn't seem right but if they weren't actually out there, still putting their faces in front of the cameras after all these years, then it's pretty safe to assume that we wouldn't actually be discussing if they were guilty or not and the suspicion of their gulit would slowly be forgotten. Do guilty people keep their heads down ? Have you ever seen an episode of Columbo ? :-) the perpetrator is always there ready to help out with the investigation, maybe they're control freaks ? Also consider this, in the event they're hiding something they may well have now have convinced themselves she was abducted, a bit like how those supposesed psychics actually convince themselves they have special powers and can talk to the dead. Like you, I don't know, but they do sure act strangely and say odd things. No I've never watched Columbo but I used to watch Scooby Doo, the 'baddy' always used turn up for the investigation in that too - I have to admit it's a pretty compelling argument that you've got there Serps. As for Yorkshire suggesting that they keep it going to protect somebody 'higher up' who has got more to lose than them, well that sounds like conspiracy theorist nonsense to me. And on them continuously risking their liberty by keeping the spot light on themselves so that they continue to get donations for the fund, well if they'd got away with it, they simply could have gone back to work in their highly paid jobs and smugly picked up a big fat pay cheque every month, safe in the knowledge that they were as guilty as sin and let the whole thing slip from the public consciousness. Sorry but none of the answers to the question of why they keep it going, stack up to me.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 26, 2013 11:08:20 GMT
Do guilty people keep their heads down ? Have you ever seen an episode of Columbo ? :-) the perpetrator is always there ready to help out with the investigation, maybe they're control freaks ? Also consider this, in the event they're hiding something they may well have now have convinced themselves she was abducted, a bit like how those supposesed psychics actually convince themselves they have special powers and can talk to the dead. Like you, I don't know, but they do sure act strangely and say odd things. No I've never watched Columbo but I used to watch Scooby Doo, the 'baddy' always used turn up for the investigation in that too - I have to admit it's a pretty compelling argument that you've got there Serps. As for Yorkshire suggesting that they keep it going to protect somebody 'higher up' who has got more to lose than them, well that sounds like conspiracy theorist nonsense to me. And on them continuously risking their liberty by keeping the spot light on themselves so that they continue to get donations for the fund, well if they'd got away with it, they simply could have gone back to work in their highly paid jobs and smugly picked up a big fat pay cheque every month, safe in the knowledge that they were as guilty as sin and let the whole thing slip from the public consciousness. Sorry but none of the answers to the question of why they keep it going, stack up to me. i have dealt with two soldiers who committed and got away with a small offence (organising a fight) the one said to me how the fuck did I get off that, the other told the same lies and convinced himself he was innocent so go figure. Now if you read their orchestrated interviews including the last crimewatch THEY HAVE CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT ON THE CHILD NEGLECT ISSUE THEY HAVE DONE NO WRONG that is very strange. And that is the truth not conjecture and innuendo These know they have done wrong, have the public sympathy and believe (or know) they won't be found out so easy to continue the lie. As for the conspiracy issue, why would a government media official give up a £70,000 salary with public sector pension and other benefits give that up to become their full time PR guy. Now an unknown benefactor now revealed to be a double glazing magnate was/is paying the salary, however what of pension rights etc etc etc. it doesn't add up and on the face of it looks dodgy and the more you look at it raises lots more question of which there could be innocent or sinister explanations
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2013 11:17:37 GMT
No I've never watched Columbo but I used to watch Scooby Doo, the 'baddy' always used turn up for the investigation in that too - I have to admit it's a pretty compelling argument that you've got there Serps. As for Yorkshire suggesting that they keep it going to protect somebody 'higher up' who has got more to lose than them, well that sounds like conspiracy theorist nonsense to me. And on them continuously risking their liberty by keeping the spot light on themselves so that they continue to get donations for the fund, well if they'd got away with it, they simply could have gone back to work in their highly paid jobs and smugly picked up a big fat pay cheque every month, safe in the knowledge that they were as guilty as sin and let the whole thing slip from the public consciousness. Sorry but none of the answers to the question of why they keep it going, stack up to me. i have dealt with two soldiers who committed and got away with a small offence (organising a fight) the one said to me how the fuck did I get off that, the other told the same lies and convinced himself he was innocent so go figure. Now if you read their orchestrated interviews including the last crimewatch THEY HAVE CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT ON THE CHILD NEGLECT ISSUE THEY HAVE DONE NO WRONG that is very strange. And that is the truth not conjecture and innuendo These know they have done wrong, have the public sympathy and believe (or know) they won't be found out so easy to continue the lie. As for the conspiracy issue, why would a government media official give up a £70,000 salary with public sector pension and other benefits give that up to become their full time PR guy. Now an unknown benefactor now revealed to be a double glazing magnate was/is paying the salary, however what of pension rights etc etc etc. it doesn't add up and on the face of it looks dodgy and the more you look at it raises lots more question of which there could be innocent or sinister explanations Isn't it possible that from the outset they attempted to diminish the guilt of their child neglect (by leaving the kids alone) and that's why their stories changed at the beginning? That's what they're guilty of - child neglect. It just doesn't make any sense for them to continue putting themselves out there if they actually did do it, none at all. Of course there are a lot of things that don't stack up but the most illogical thing of all would be for them to continue when they'd already got away with it. There's no way they could be assured of staying free, by keeping it going, if they were the guilty ones. The link that ************** has given to the Chomsky interview on 911, demonstrates this perfectly I think.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 26, 2013 11:25:35 GMT
i have dealt with two soldiers who committed and got away with a small offence (organising a fight) the one said to me how the fuck did I get off that, the other told the same lies and convinced himself he was innocent so go figure. Now if you read their orchestrated interviews including the last crimewatch THEY HAVE CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT ON THE CHILD NEGLECT ISSUE THEY HAVE DONE NO WRONG that is very strange. And that is the truth not conjecture and innuendo These know they have done wrong, have the public sympathy and believe (or know) they won't be found out so easy to continue the lie. As for the conspiracy issue, why would a government media official give up a £70,000 salary with public sector pension and other benefits give that up to become their full time PR guy. Now an unknown benefactor now revealed to be a double glazing magnate was/is paying the salary, however what of pension rights etc etc etc. it doesn't add up and on the face of it looks dodgy and the more you look at it raises lots more question of which there could be innocent or sinister explanations Isn't it possible that from the outset they attempted to diminish the guilt of their child neglect (by leaving the kids alone) and that's why their stories changed at the beginning? That's what they're guilty of - child neglect. It just doesn't make any sense for them to continue putting themselves out there if they actually did do it, none at all. Of course there are a lot of things that don't stack up but the most illogical thing of all would be for them to continue when they'd already got away with it. There's no way they could be assured of staying free, by keeping it going, if they were the guilty ones. The link that ************** has given to the Chomsky interview on 911, demonstrates this perfectly I think. I know they are guilty of child neglect You have admitted they are guilty of child neglect Yet they have repeatedly said they have done nothing wrong. Is it feasible after convincing themselves they did nothing wrong this could apply to everything and they now believe the lie These two cunts believe going on holiday repeatedly putting their crèche skids in crèches in morning and afternoons, then repeatedly leaving their kids alone at night is perfectly reasonable and good behaviour
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2013 11:31:55 GMT
Isn't it possible that from the outset they attempted to diminish the guilt of their child neglect (by leaving the kids alone) and that's why their stories changed at the beginning? That's what they're guilty of - child neglect. It just doesn't make any sense for them to continue putting themselves out there if they actually did do it, none at all. Of course there are a lot of things that don't stack up but the most illogical thing of all would be for them to continue when they'd already got away with it. There's no way they could be assured of staying free, by keeping it going, if they were the guilty ones. The link that ************** has given to the Chomsky interview on 911, demonstrates this perfectly I think. I know they are guilty of child neglect You have admitted they are guilty of child neglect Yet they have repeatedly said they have done nothing wrong. Is it feasible after convincing themselves they did nothing wrong this could apply to everything and they now believe the lie These two cunts believe going on holiday repeatedly putting their crèche skids in crèches in morning and afternoons, then repeatedly leaving their kids alone at night is perfectly reasonable and good behaviour So they actually did do it but over time they have convinced themselves that they didn't do it and now they both fully believe that they are innocent and that's why the continue to put themselves out there because they genuinely believe it wasn't them (although it was). Can you see why I don't think that's a particularly convincing argument, maybe one lunatic could do that but not two. You might be right with your theory but I'm going to need more than that I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 26, 2013 11:36:10 GMT
That's a fair point
I do understand the neglect point also, why chase or hound them for child neglect whist they have suffered enough. I get that (don't agree) but I get it.
What I don't get is how they still (including last fortnights media whoring and crimewatch) maintain they have done nothing wrong, show no contrite and accept no blame for the whole situation.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2013 11:39:58 GMT
That's a fair point I do understand the neglect point also, why chase or hound them for child neglect whist they have suffered enough. I get that (don't agree) but I get it. What I don't get is how they still (including last fortnights media whoring and crimewatch) maintain they have done nothing wrong, show no contrite and accept no blame for the whole situation. Yeah absolutely, I can't argue with that.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 26, 2013 11:50:31 GMT
That's a fair point I do understand the neglect point also, why chase or hound them for child neglect whist they have suffered enough. I get that (don't agree) but I get it. What I don't get is how they still (including last fortnights media whoring and crimewatch) maintain they have done nothing wrong, show no contrite and accept no blame for the whole situation. Yeah absolutely, I can't argue with that. And Paul without a hint do smugness no-one can This lack of humility, lack of contrition and complete failure to acknowledge their part in this whole affair is what feeds the anti-McCann agenda ant goes some way to establishing some sense of guilt in a large part of public opinion. We can talk About unanswered questions Dogs and cadevars Media whoring Statement changing The maddie McCann limited company Strange body language But their lack of contrition is disgraceful
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2013 11:58:12 GMT
Yeah absolutely, I can't argue with that. And Paul without a hint do smugness no-one can This lack of humility, lack of contrition and complete failure to acknowledge their part in this whole affair is what feeds the anti-McCann agenda ant goes some way to establishing some sense of guilt in a large part of public opinion. We can talk About unanswered questions Dogs and cadevars Media whoring Statement changing The maddie McCann limited company Strange body language But their lack of contrition is disgraceful I'm absolutely certain that this is what fuels the sense of guilt from certain sections of the public, than itself doesn't make them guilty though.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 26, 2013 12:03:33 GMT
Dead right mate
there is only circumstantial evidence Dodgy behaviour Changed statements Refusal to answer questions A strange pr machine Dodgy fund Gerry's empty child protection record
And a whole host of things not good enough to secure a conviction but good enough to cast doubt
NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO EVEN CIRCUMSTANTIALLY SUGGEST (not even prove) AN ABDUCTION
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 26, 2013 19:29:47 GMT
Dead right mate there is only circumstantial evidence Dodgy behaviour Changed statements Refusal to answer questions A strange pr machine Dodgy fund Gerry's empty child protection record And a whole host of things not good enough to secure a conviction but good enough to cast doubt NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO EVEN CIRCUMSTANTIALLY SUGGEST (not even prove) AN ABDUCTION You forgot allowing his friend to talk about his 3 year old daughter as though she was some cheap porn star.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 26, 2013 21:01:49 GMT
The strange thing about these two is why does the mother have the appearance of someone who is genuinely suffering a loss over time, She looks completely haggard whereas he dosnt have the appearance of someone tormented. He gives me the impression that hes a control freak.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 27, 2013 9:57:12 GMT
The strange thing about these two is why does the mother have the appearance of someone who is genuinely suffering a loss over time, She looks completely haggard whereas he dosnt have the appearance of someone tormented. He gives me the impression that hes a control freak. Or the face of a tormented woman. Tormented and wracked with guilt??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 11:16:22 GMT
i have dealt with two soldiers who committed and got away with a small offence (organising a fight) the one said to me how the fuck did I get off that, the other told the same lies and convinced himself he was innocent so go figure. Now if you read their orchestrated interviews including the last crimewatch THEY HAVE CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT ON THE CHILD NEGLECT ISSUE THEY HAVE DONE NO WRONG that is very strange. And that is the truth not conjecture and innuendo These know they have done wrong, have the public sympathy and believe (or know) they won't be found out so easy to continue the lie. As for the conspiracy issue, why would a government media official give up a £70,000 salary with public sector pension and other benefits give that up to become their full time PR guy. Now an unknown benefactor now revealed to be a double glazing magnate was/is paying the salary, however what of pension rights etc etc etc. it doesn't add up and on the face of it looks dodgy and the more you look at it raises lots more question of which there could be innocent or sinister explanations Isn't it possible that from the outset they attempted to diminish the guilt of their child neglect (by leaving the kids alone) and that's why their stories changed at the beginning? That's what they're guilty of - child neglect.It just doesn't make any sense for them to continue putting themselves out there if they actually did do it, none at all. Of course there are a lot of things that don't stack up but the most illogical thing of all would be for them to continue when they'd already got away with it. There's no way they could be assured of staying free, by keeping it going, if they were the guilty ones. The link that ************** has given to the Chomsky interview on 911, demonstrates this perfectly I think. Bingo! That's smart thinking Paul. You may well have hit the nail on the head there Squire. In some respects, and I suspect that between each other the McCanns are totally wracked with guilt and remorse about being neglectful parents on that night. Could it be those negative emotions, which Salop and Cartman are picking up on? They obviously feel that something isn't right. Noam Chomsky's view on matters of this nature do seem highly plausible. If you've not watched the YouTube video, Chomsky was talking about 9/11 and the fact that he is, perhaps oddly, more or less in full agreement with the official version of events. His observation states that even in a laboratory environment, using mankind's most sophisticated thinking and technically advanced laboratories, all controlled scientific experiments are still riddled with hundreds of anomaly's, what-if's, and mystery scenario's that seem to grow in number, importance and diversity as we move further away from the specific point in time when the event occurred. So, if you apply Chomsky's observation to Maddie's case, it's not too hard to make the jump and realise why there are so many differing and conflicting opinions in circulation. If you think on Chomsky's terms, then Paul's point really does seem to resonate a simple truth.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 27, 2013 12:08:32 GMT
You are treating the McCanns much as you might slightly exotic contestants on Big Brother. Especially foxy, photogenic, middle-class GP Kate, her class and apparent composure demands immediate respect, and then later suspicion and derision. It’s the usual thing: one moment she’s up, the next moment she’s down. Frankly it's just a nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 27, 2013 12:24:21 GMT
The strange thing about these two is why does the mother have the appearance of someone who is genuinely suffering a loss over time, She looks completely haggard whereas he dosnt have the appearance of someone tormented. He gives me the impression that hes a control freak. I read somewhere that's she a keen runner, she has the physique and physical appearance of someone who does a lot of running, distance running can make people look boney and haggard and generally sickly looking.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 27, 2013 12:58:52 GMT
The strange thing about these two is why does the mother have the appearance of someone who is genuinely suffering a loss over time, She looks completely haggard whereas he dosnt have the appearance of someone tormented. He gives me the impression that hes a control freak. I read somewhere that's she a keen runner, she has the physique and physical appearance of someone who does a lot of running, distance running can make people look boney and haggard and generally sickly looking. Ahhh that explains Wilson, Adam and Palacios then.
|
|
choc
Academy Starlet
Posts: 149
|
Post by choc on Oct 27, 2013 13:17:42 GMT
|
|