Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

sunflower27

Saila wrote: »

die thread DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE
is there a way to block threads which you dont want to show up when you log-in

Well, don't open it for starters

sunflower27

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Shocker indeed when you haven't paid for a babysitter.

Shocker indeed when you return home with two, when you came with three.

lugha

OutlawPete wrote: »

Okay, you have all had ample time to view the evidence, I'm gonna have to ask you all to retire for deliberation at this point in proceedings. Unanimous verdict will not be required given the fact that almost half of after hours are certifiably insane, so a Majority verdict will be acceptable and must be reached by midday tomorrow. Thread adjourned ..

I respectfully submit that your honour has not properly instructed the jury, on two counts.

First, you should have sternly warned them that they are only to consider whether or not the McCanns were in some way involved in the disappearance of their daughter and in particular, that they should set aside any views they have on how responsible or not they have been as parents.

Second, (though I am unsure if judges do this, but they should) you should caution them that there is a logical error in considering a body of evidence against a defendant, assessing (perhaps correctly) that such evidence is unlikely to have arisen if the defendant was innocent and concluding that the defendant is likely to be guilty.

There is a very good explanation of this here

Coincidently, the speaker uses as an example, a case where a mother was wrongly accused of killing her children.

If you have pressing calls on your time you can start the clip at 11:00. But as I know m’lord has an interest in probability related subtleties, you may be interested in watching the whole (21 min) show.

iamwhoiam

Saila wrote: »

die thread DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE
is there a way to block threads which you dont want to show up when you log-in

Why bother look ? There are many thread I am not keen on , I wouldnt dream of opening them and acting so rude .

Mistyeyes321

thebullkf wrote: »

i never heard about the fridge. .. surely this is false:eek:

if its true... lemme get this straight:

he paid for a replacement fridge.


but wouldn't pay for a fucking babysitter:mad::mad::mad:

FFS.

Never heard this regarding a Fridge surely if this was True it would have been Talked about by now?!! Can everyone on this Thread & other Board's have missed such a Massive thing like this? I'm very soryy but I just don't belieive this Claim. Unless someone has a Link to prove me wrong?!

I must say Regarding the None Presence of Babysitter's I't still makes me wonder why they didn't use the rescourses?! I mean to go to a Restarant to book a Table for a Whole week, But to just totally not bother with the most important thing that should have been a Priority in Their Lives Their Precious Children didn't even warrant a Maesly 10-12 Euro's??....Makes you wonder why some still insist how Inteligent these Parent's are supposed to be...When Commen Sense doesn't Occure to them, That Protecting Their Children should have come Naturally to them I wonder why it didn't?!

I really don't know what Happened to Maddie but I do know nothing will shock me oneway or another, I hope if the MCS have had a Hand in her disappearance " Which I doubt" Well apart from the Obvious Neglect Issue...I just hope SY get to the Bottom of this once & for all...You know the Saying Be careful what you wish for!!:eek:

Saila

sunflower27 wrote: »

Well, don't open it for starters

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Why bother look ? There are many thread I am not keen on , I wouldnt dream of opening them and acting so rude .

the thread was originally about mccanns on late late next week, 2 weeks have passed and its the same old conspiracy nuts and idiots who believe what papers like the daily mail say are at their usual tricks, get it moved to conspiracy theories ffs

Silver Moon

Typically a conspiracy theory involves the rejection of the account of certain events as made available by the proper authorities, or the creation of a theory that explains events as connected in some way that constitutes an overarching plan by shadowy people who control how events are portrayed in the mainstream media.

The case against the McCann's version of events falls at the first hurdle here, because the view I and others expressed here was endorsed by the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court in Portugal as consistent with the facts established in the investigation, and a logical interpretation of those facts. Therefore the Portuguese Supreme Court must be 'in on it'.

That is 1 point against the McCann's case, nil against the account given here. (You could argue that the fact that the media in the UK and Ireland are unquestioning of the McCann's account and willfully or accidentally ignorant of events in Portugal constitutes a conspiracy, but this really only applies in the two countries where the media has been hit with large fines and threats and are controlled by a relatively small number of owners).

Secondly, a conspiracy theory typically expands to include new facts and other factors that do not lend credence to the conspiracy theory, or completely ignores them if they are not useful. (for example, Popular Mechanics magazine published a long, detailed account that explained the physical processes that caused the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11, the conspiracy response: They're in on it. Noam Chomsky, the most prominent critic of American domestic and foreign policy calls 9/11 conspiracies ridiculous. The conspiracy response: He's in on it, and worse, he's a 'gatekeeper' keeping the outer boundaries of disaffection with the government safe from attack).

Here again, the McCann's case falters and the account given here is upheld. First the Portuguese police were incompetent, then it was revealed that it was the British police who built the case against the parents and who carried out the forensics. Either both police forces are incompetent or they are 'in on it'.

McCann's case: 2 points, case given here, 0.

Thirdly, conspiracy theorists question the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with them, facts are no defence against this tactic because of points 1 and 2 above. It is simply inconceivable to the conspiracy theorist that there are facts out there which contradict their wild speculations, they can all be used or ignored while those bringing them up are either stupid or evil.

McCann's case: 3 points, case given here, 0.
That's three nil to the McCann's defenders as conspiracy theorists.

iamwhoiam

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Never heard this regarding a Fridge surely if this was True it would have been Talked about by now?!! Can everyone on this Thread & other Board's have missed such a Massive thing like this? I'm very soryy but I just don't belieive this Claim. Unless someone has a Link to prove me wrong?!
!!:eek:

I wouldnt make anything up , I also dont know if it happened , it was seen by many on Gerrys blog and then it was taken down ,.I didnt read it so cant vouch for it .Maybe it never happened , you are right and so I guess it cant be taken for gospel at all ,So maybe it was a rumour spread by other forums and thats were I read it .I will take it back an say I simply have no proof except gossip on forums .
Here are a few references to it ,
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t10635p15-hadn-t-seen-this-before-gerrys-strange-behaviour

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread533950/pg6

AudreyHepburn

So now Kate and/or Gerry hid Madeleine's body in fridge....is that what the new theory is?

First I've heard of it so therefore not going to led it much credence.

What theory will be next I wonder?

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So now Kate and/or Gerry hid Madeleine's body in fridge....is that what the new theory is?

First I've heard of it so therefore not going to led it much credence.

What theory will be next I wonder?

As a matter of fact it was mentioned by the PJ from very early on . I dont hold much credence to it either but I dont close my mind to everything except what I want to hear ,
From the Times 2007 soits by no means new ,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2551987.ece

_feedback_

Saila wrote: »

the thread was originally about mccanns on late late next week, 2 weeks have passed and its the same old conspiracy nuts and idiots who believe what papers like the daily mail say are at their usual tricks, get it moved to conspiracy theories ffs

What do you think happened?

What did you make of the interview?

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

As a matter of fact it was mentioned by the PJ from very early on . I dont hold much credence to it either but I dont close my mind to everything except what I want to hear ,
From the Times 2007 soits by no means new ,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2551987.ece

I'm not close-minded thanks very much. I hadn't heard it before so I assumed it was somthing newly made up.

But it's not so fair enough. That still does not mean I believe it, I don't feel it's true but if it is I'll be the first to admit I am wrong.

AudreyHepburn

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Shocker indeed when you haven't paid for a babysitter.

As we know they were checking regularly on the children.....not regularly enough for some I know.

Tbh I think people are looking for any reason to critise them now......running, have a drink etc.

The fact that they were able to actually function at all will be next :rolleyes:

Jesus Wept

Silver Moon wrote: »

Typically a conspiracy theory involves the rejection of the account of certain events as made available by the proper authorities, or the creation of a theory that explains events as connected in some way that constitutes an overarching plan by shadowy people who control how events are portrayed in the mainstream media.

The case against the McCann's version of events falls at the first hurdle here, because the view I and others expressed here was endorsed by the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court in Portugal as consistent with the facts established in the investigation, and a logical interpretation of those facts. Therefore the Portuguese Supreme Court must be 'in on it'.

That is 1 point against the McCann's case, nil against the account given here. (You could argue that the fact that the media in the UK and Ireland are unquestioning of the McCann's account and willfully or accidentally ignorant of events in Portugal constitutes a conspiracy, but this really only applies in the two countries where the media has been hit with large fines and threats and are controlled by a relatively small number of owners).

Secondly, a conspiracy theory typically expands to include new facts and other factors that do not lend credence to the conspiracy theory, or completely ignores them if they are not useful. (for example, Popular Mechanics magazine published a long, detailed account that explained the physical processes that caused the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11, the conspiracy response: They're in on it. Noam Chomsky, the most prominent critic of American domestic and foreign policy calls 9/11 conspiracies ridiculous. The conspiracy response: He's in on it, and worse, he's a 'gatekeeper' keeping the outer boundaries of disaffection with the government safe from attack).

Here again, the McCann's case falters and the account given here is upheld. First the Portuguese police were incompetent, then it was revealed that it was the British police who built the case against the parents and who carried out the forensics. Either both police forces are incompetent or they are 'in on it'.

McCann's case: 2 points, case given here, 0.

Thirdly, conspiracy theorists question the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with them, facts are no defence against this tactic because of points 1 and 2 above. It is simply inconceivable to the conspiracy theorist that there are facts out there which contradict their wild speculations, they can all be used or ignored while those bringing them up are either stupid or evil.

McCann's case: 3 points, case given here, 0.
That's three nil to the McCann's defenders as conspiracy theorists.

What are you blathering about.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not close-minded thanks very much. I hadn't heard it before so I assumed it was somthing newly made up.

But it's not so fair enough. That still does not mean I believe it, I don't feel it's true but if it is I'll be the first to admit I am wrong.

Fair enough . Actually I have no idea what happened , nor does anyone but some of it makes very interesting reading, if for no other reason but to see how the human mind is not always a reliable witness and can make you think something you didnt see .
The discrepencies with witness accounts is astonishing and makes you wonder how accurate we ever are . I have to say I was far more accepting of what the Mc Canns felt was safe till I saw that apartment with my own two eyes and am still flabbergasted at any adult carer thinking it was ok to leave precious cargo in there .

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As we know they were checking regularly on the children....

Actually we don't know this. We weren't there. This is what the Tapas 9 have been telling us. It doesn't mean it's true. We do know, courtesy of Kate's book, that a staff member of the Ocean Club put a notice at Reception stating that the children were being left alone each night.

I would guess that they DID check on the children but how regularly we do not know.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As we know they were checking regularly on the children.....not regularly enough for some I know.

Tbh I think people are looking for any reason to critise them now......running, have a drink etc.

The fact that they were able to actually function at all will be next :rolleyes:

We have no idea how often they were checked. The bottom line is a child is missing and most probably dead. You can dress it down as much as you like, but children don't regularly get snatched from holiday resorts. The simple reason is that they are supervised round-the-clock. It only takes seconds for a child to be snatched/fall/choke/burn themselves.

Those children were far too young to be left for any amount of time on their own in an apartment that was not even secure.

For parents that went through so much to have children it is astounding how lacking their parenting skills were.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

but children don't regularly get snatched from holiday resorts. The simple reason is that they are supervised round-the-clock.

The simpler reason is that it is exceedingly rare for a child to be snatched. The risk is so small as to be negligible. There are good reasons why you should both secure your abode and not leave children unattended but to save them from the bogey man is not one of them.*

Out of curiosity, would you criticise Denise Bolger or the parents of the Soham girls for not protecting their children from predators?

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

The simpler reason is that it is exceedingly rare for a child to be snatched. The risk is so small as to be negligible. There are good reasons why you should both secure your abode and not leave children unattended but to save them from the bogey man is not one of them.*

Out of curiosity, would you criticise Denise Bolger or the parents of the Soham girls for not protecting their children from predators?

The Soham girls were not a pair of one year old twins and a three year old child left all alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country.

They were both 11 years of age when they were lured into the house of a man they both knew and probably felt sure of who was the caretaker in their school.

That was a case of two much older children in the neighbourhood they were from.


Trying to compare the actions of their parents to that of the McCanns in terms of leaving children unatteneded is a pretty weak attempt.

The Bolger case is nothing like the McCanns neglect in providing security either, and the simple fact that the Bolger case is backed up by CCTV footage should have seen you not make that comparison.

Both Thompson and Venables admitted that their purpose that day was to try and find a small child to kidnap so that they could push that child in front of traffic.

When they came across James Bolger, he was in a butchers with his mother. Denise Bulger turned away from her son to get meat from the counter and to pay the butcher. Liitle James was walking around behind her as she paid and he went near the door. Venables and Thompson are on camera as watching Denise and getting James by the hand and quickly leading him away.

The whole thing took just over a minute.


Denise Bolger was not guilty of leaving her son alone for hours in an unlocked apartment in another country, her live was changed by the one minute she turned away to pay the butcher and take the meat from the counter.


If you want to find cases to compare to the McCann's case, then find ones where parents left children of three or under alone in an unlocked building for hours totally unsupervised rather than use comparisons that are radically different, not to mention proven through courts of law.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

The simpler reason is that it is exceedingly rare for a child to be snatched. The risk is so small as to be negligible. There are good reasons why you should both secure your abode and not leave children unattended but to save them from the bogey man is not one of them.*

Out of curiosity, would you criticise Denise Bolger or the parents of the Soham girls for not protecting their children from predators?

How are those cases even remotely similar. The Soham girls were 9? 10? and Jamie Bolger was not left unattended for half an hour at a time (if we are to believe that the parents kept to their rigid checking as the night went on and the wine flowed).

TheZohanS

The McCann apologists in this thread are sickening, how the hell can any right minded person say it's OK to leave two year old twins and a three year old on their own in an apartment in a foreign country? You'd have to be one idiotic, sick individual.

At no stage throughout their marketing campaign have the McCann's turned around and said "never leave children home alone" and that's the one message any decent parent would have garnered from this experience, the one piece of advice that they should be hammering home to everyone.

123balltv

lugha wrote: »

Out of curiosity, would you criticise Denise Bolger or the parents of the Soham girls for not protecting their children from predators?

No I would never, ever criticise Denise or Soham girls parents

Denise took her eye off Jamie for a few seconds she did not leave her baby for a full hour alone like the Mccanns.
The Soham parents let their kids out to play thats not a crime

The Mccanns did commit a crime they left those babies alone night after night :mad:

Kess73

123balltv wrote: »

No I would never, ever criticise Denise or Soham girls parents

Denise took her eye off Jamie for a few seconds she did not leave her baby for a full hour alone like the Mccanns.
The Soham parents let their kids out to play thats not a crime
The Mccanns did commit a crime they left those babies alone night after night :mad:

They were not even going out to play. They had gone to the local shop to get sweets to bring back with them to a family BBQ.

lugha

@last 4 posters
The argument, sometimes implied, made against the McCanns is that if their child was snatched, it was solely as a result of their negligence. The cases I have cited demonstrate that this is patently not so. You can be responsible, as were the parents in the examples I cited, and still have your child snatched.
Pointing out the differences on the cases misses the point

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

@last 4 posters
The argument, sometimes implied, made against the McCanns is that if their child was snatched, it was solely as a result of their negligence. The cases I have cited demonstrate that this is patently not so. You can be responsible, as were the parents in the examples I cited, and still have your child snatched.
Pointing out the differences on the cases misses the point

I think you are the one missing the point.

How can you compare turning away to pay somebody in a shop, to going out for dinner in a foreign country and leaving your kids behind?

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

I think you are the one missing the point.

How can you compare turning away to pay somebody in a shop, to going out for dinner in a foreign country and leaving your kids behind?

As had been pointed out, it only takes a second to snatch a child. Turning away for even a minute gives a predator an opportunity. What would you say is an acceptable look away time?

And why the continuous reference to a "foreign" country? Your child can be snatched at home too you know?

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

As had been pointed out, it only takes a second to snatch a child. Turning away for even a minute gives a predator an opportunity. What would you say is an acceptable look away time?

And why the continuous reference to a "foreign" country? Your child can be snatched at home too you know?

Well, I'd say 20mins (at least) in an unlocked apartment complex is most certainly acceptable time for an 'abductor' to snatch a child and be the hell out of there before anyone even noticed.

Of course a child can be snatched in a minute, but knowing that, parents don't usually take such ridiculous risks.

There is no justification at all for the way the McCanns behaved. It was 100% neglect.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

As had been pointed out, it only takes a second to snatch a child. Turning away for even a minute gives a predator an opportunity. What would you say is an acceptable look away time?

And why the continuous reference to a "foreign" country? Your child can be snatched at home too you know?

The foreign country bit gets highlighted because surely if you have a pair of one year old twins and a three year old child that you would be even more attentive to them in strange surroundings that you would be in your own home.

Your other comment is a joke to be honest if it is a genuine one. Are you really comparing Denise Bulger, or Denise Fergus as she is now, turning away for literally a minute to pay money at a cash register whilst only feet from her son to the McCanns leaving their children unsupervised in an unlocked apartment hundreds of feet away in terms of what is acceptable look away times.

Denise Bolger is the only one who briefly looked away from her child, the McCanns went away from their child.

There is no genuine comparison between your "look away" time in each case or how it came about.

AudreyHepburn

Let's try this again shall we? No-one, repeat no-one is saying that what the McCanns did was right.

What we are saying is you cannot hold them solely responsible for what happened. You cannot say that it is they're the kidnapper decided to take a child, that he/she/they chose to act that night, chose their daughter,their apartment.

Nor is it reason enough to suspect them of involvement.

No-ones justifying anything.

NTMK

lugha wrote: »

As had been pointed out, it only takes a second to snatch a child. Turning away for even a minute gives a predator an opportunity. What would you say is an acceptable look away time?

And why the continuous reference to a "foreign" country? Your child can be snatched at home too you know?

theres is a massive difference. looking away for a few second is acceptable, parents cant have their kids in sight 24 hours a day. The Mccanns repeatedly left their kids unsupervised for hours while the went off wining and dining

this is neglect there is no excuse for it

If madeline was abducted they primed her for it by leaving her unattended for hours repeatedly. did bolger do that? no