Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mountainsandh

TheZohan wrote: »

you're defending them with anecdotal evidence, stuff you "read" but cannot source and your own opinion. Whilst you're entitled to your own opinion it doesn't negate the mountain of evidence currently stacked against the McCanns, and you know it.

Tut tut tut... and you're doing the exact same thing, except your stuff (not evidence) is much more available because it's been taken up by the tabloids.

No evidence, or they would be in prison.

TheZohanS

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tut tut tut... and you're doing the exact same thing, except your stuff (not evidence) is much more available because it's been taken up by the tabloids.

No evidence, or they would be in prison.

Tut tut tut my anal cleft. Anything I have quoted I have provided a source to, I have not said I read it somewhere bur ya kno I dunno wher lol.

azvor

ISDW wrote: »

Of course people are entitled to their opinion, but your posts come across as though they are facts.

Your theory rests on them taking Madeleine's body away in a car, sorry, you must keep missing my posts, I think this is now the 3rd of 4th time I've asked you, did they have a hire car on the night she went missing? I'll do a deal with you, if you answer that point, then I'll give you my opinion on the Narco-interrogation.:)

Firstly apologies for not replying to you question.....Now...I don't know if they had a Hire car on the night of the "incident"...but I don't think I would be anywhere on Hols without one...especially with 3 kids to entertain.....
My instincts tell me they did have a Hire car or else had instant availability to some form of transportation....SO there, that's my input on that issue...
Now...what about the use of Narco-Interrogation as an investigative tool on this matter....I believe that it would definitively indicate Guilt or Innocence or Collusion one way or the other.....

Ann22

I read somewhere that they hired the car 25 days after Maddy's disappearance, which would mean they would've had to have hidden her body somewhere 'til moving her somewhere else going by the dogs' evidence.

Mountainsandh

TheZohan wrote: »

Tut tut tut my anal cleft. Anything I have quoted I have provided a source to, I have not said I read it somewhere bur ya kno I dunno wher lol.

So because you have a source on the internet it doesn't make it anecdotal ?

Ok you have one source from the Institute of Legal Medicine, which validates one study. Not the so-called evidence, it just validates that one study. Which the courts have not relied on so far.

What about all the other damning "evidence" ?

I know it's a bit repetitive at this stage, but really if you do have reliable "evidence", supported by reliable sources, then maybe that should be made known to the authorities.

Mountainsandh

For anyone interested, here is an extended version (the Levy guy version) of the dog sniffing the cars.

A lot of insisting on the part of the handler when approaching the McCanns car. And not really a "blind" experiment, since theirs was the only car with Madeleine's posters, and not a van (where would the twins go), not a mini campervan (chances of them hiring that ???), not an old banger... Theirs was the most likely "hire" car, along with maybe 2 others.

If it wasn't such a serious matter that would make me laugh.

Scroll down for vid :
http://www.slippingthroughmyfingers.com/2011/04/06/now-why-do-they-do-it-to-me/

TheZohanS

Mountainsandh wrote: »

So because you have a source on the internet it doesn't make it anecdotal ?

Ok you have one source from the Institute of Legal Medicine, which validates one study. Not the so-called evidence, it just validates that one study. Which the courts have not relied on so far.

What about all the other damning "evidence" ?

I know it's a bit repetitive at this stage, but really if you do have reliable "evidence", supported by reliable sources, then maybe that should be made known to the authorities.

:rolleyes:

Gawd...do I really have to explain this to you?:rolleyes:

A poster pointed to a silly study on cadaver doggies, are you with me? Then I pointed to a grown-ups study on the cadaver doggies(one with scientists, medical research and law stuff) that was recent and was carried out properly. Still with me? Then another poster said that both studies were valid, I argued the point and suggested that the poster Google the Institute that I quoted as a sourrce, cos it's a big place with stuff like accreditation and all those thingamagigs that you need to have a proper study.

You're free to look up me aul posts and find where I haven't quoted a source for any of the evidence that I have quoted. I'm trying to be as logical as possible when dealing with facts here....


....not like your post:

Or the police could have planted the evidence.

Eh do you have a source for that, anything like? or is it just from make-believe-land?

Saila

dear thread,

Please fuck off to conspiracy theories.

k,tksbai

or at least edit some tags to amuse me more..the old ones are getting old..like the thread.
e.g maybe.. hide and seek champion

or just change the title even so only those who are involved in it now can know what its about, and the rince repeat cycle can come to an end and someone can hang out the washing

sunflower27

TheZohan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Gawd...do I really have to explain this to you?:rolleyes:

A poster pointed to a silly study on cadaver doggies, are you with me? Then I pointed to a grown-ups study on the cadaver doggies(one with scientists, medical research and law stuff) that was recent and was carried out properly. Still with me? Then another poster said that both studies were valid, I argued the point and suggested that the poster Google the Institute that I quoted as a sourrce, cos it's a big place with stuff like accreditation and all those thingamagigs that you need to have a proper study.

You're free to look up me aul posts and find where I haven't quoted a source for any of the evidence that I have quoted. I'm trying to be as logical as possible when dealing with facts here....


....not like your post:



Eh do you have a source for that, anything like? or is it just from make-believe-land?

..... and you know it

hondasam

TheZohan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Gawd...do I really have to explain this to you?:rolleyes:

A poster pointed to a silly study on cadaver doggies, are you with me? Then I pointed to a grown-ups study on the cadaver doggies(one with scientists, medical research and law stuff) that was recent and was carried out properly. Still with me? Then another poster said that both studies were valid, I argued the point and suggested that the poster Google the Institute that I quoted as a sourrce, cos it's a big place with stuff like accreditation and all those thingamagigs that you need to have a proper study.

You're free to look up me aul posts and find where I haven't quoted a source for any of the evidence that I have quoted. I'm trying to be as logical as possible when dealing with facts here....


....not like your post:



Eh do you have a source for that, anything like? or is it just from make-believe-land?

LOL I love reading your posts, they are so entertaining

needless to say always good.

Mountainsandh

TheZohan, no need to be condescending, and flippant.

What other super reliable sources have you got then to demonstrate the "damning evidence" ?


When I say police could have planted the evidence, I am absolutely not trying to pass that as a fact, simply expressing my opinion, gut feeling yes. Not trying to source it anywhere. You take it or leave it.

Again, no need to become condescending. You are stating that the evidence blames the McCanns, so again, if you do have evidence from reliable sources, then you're one step ahead of all of us, and the police too.

TheZohanS

Mountainsandh wrote: »

TheZohan, no need to be condescending, and flippant.

What other super reliable sources have you got then to demonstrate the "damning evidence" ?


When I say police could have planted the evidence, I am absolutely not trying to pass that as a fact, simply expressing my opinion, gut feeling yes. Not trying to source it anywhere. You take it or leave it.

Again, no need to become condescending. You are stating that the evidence blames the McCanns, so again, if you do have evidence from reliable sources, then you're one step ahead of all of us, and the police too.

You "tut tut tut"ted me so I figured we were all cool and that was our "thing", no?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

For anyone interested, here is an extended version (the Levy guy version) of the dog sniffing the cars.

A lot of insisting on the part of the handler when approaching the McCanns car. And not really a "blind" experiment, since theirs was the only car with Madeleine's posters, and not a van (where would the twins go), not a mini campervan (chances of them hiring that ???), not an old banger... Theirs was the most likely "hire" car, along with maybe 2 others.

If it wasn't such a serious matter that would make me laugh.

Scroll down for vid :
http://www.slippingthroughmyfingers.com/2011/04/06/now-why-do-they-do-it-to-me/

So the dogs went and had a look at all the cars and said "ah there's an MPV sure it had to have been that one sure look it's a rental car, case closed"?

Like they're not Brian Griffin...

You do realise they're highly trained dogs when it comes to smell only, not car shapes/makes/models? And that there were two dogs? And both gave a positive result? And that the handler brought each dog around each car? I watched the video that you quoted and it was plain to see...

Mistyeyes321

azvor wrote: »

Firstly apologies for not replying to you question.....Now...I don't know if they had a Hire car on the night of the "incident"...but I don't think I would be anywhere on Hols without one...especially with 3 kids to entertain.....
My instincts tell me they did have a Hire care or else had instant availability to some form of transportation....SO there, that's my input on that issue...
Now...what about the use of Narco-Interrogation as an investigative tool on this matter....I believe that it would definitively indicate Guilt or Innocence or Collusion one way or the other.....

Just interested in this Narco investigation, What isit?:) For anyone interested in finding out what this is here is a Link I found....http://www.crystallizable.com/is-narco-analysis-a-reliable-science-the-present-legal-scenario-in-india.html

Mountainsandh

TheZohan wrote: »

You "tut tut tut"ted me so I figured we were all cool and that was our "thing", no?
QUOTE]


My Tut tut-ting was not meant in a condescending and flippant manner, but there you go, that's tone mis-interpretation for you, that happens with messages posted online. (there is no sarcasm intended in this, for example).

The reason I mentioned the car's "session" was not blind, is that the handler would obviously guess quickly which was the McCann's car. I think (not sure) the handler was not supposed to know which car it was either.

Gerry McCann conducted his own research on the subject, and did not only rely on online studies like we are doing, he actually spoke to experts, and found that handlers' behaviour has been questioned. I could go find it for you in the book, if you like, but apparently handlers' expectations or behaviour while searches were conducted were found to influence results.

I'm not bothered enough tbh, but I'm sure if you were to time and count the amount of time and attention drawn to the McCann's hire car, you would find it is more significant than the time allocated to other cars.

On a less "reliable" note, I have read online (a forensic dog handler's page I think) that if a dog was tired for example, it might "point" inaccurately, to please its handler and finish the assignment sooner.
edit : ^^^ not saying this happened in this case, simply illustrating relationship between handler and dog.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Gawd...do I really have to explain this to you?:rolleyes:

A poster pointed to a silly study on cadaver doggies, are you with me? Then I pointed to a grown-ups study on the cadaver doggies(one with scientists, medical research and law stuff) that was recent and was carried out properly. Still with me? Then another poster said that both studies were valid, I argued the point and suggested that the poster Google the Institute that I quoted as a sourrce, cos it's a big place with stuff like accreditation and all those thingamagigs that you need to have a proper study.

You're free to look up me aul posts and find where I haven't quoted a source for any of the evidence that I have quoted. I'm trying to be as logical as possible when dealing with facts here....


....not like your post:



Eh do you have a source for that, anything like? or is it just from make-believe-land?

Just a tip Zohan, but you might find people would be more willing to listen to your points if you dropped the arrogant, condescending attitude.

In relation to my own post, I don't believe I have contradicted myself in anyway. I merely pointed out that both studies were equally valid and that the 13 year gap is irrelevent......and you know it.

Also as has been said over and over again if there truely were such 'damning' evidence then Kate and Gerry would have been jailed long ago.

But since you have clearly decided the McCanns are guilty I doubt anything I say will change your mind.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

You've contradicted yourself in your first two sentences of your post, and you know it. One test was carried out by an amateur organisation and the other by the Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center, Hamburg,Germany. Now if you're not familiar with this institute I highly recommend that you Google it. I suppose you believe that first astronomers who surmised that the world is flat is as valid as the scientific findings that the world is round?

The McCanns are guilty, guilty of not taking proper precautions to ensure the safety of their daughter, and you know it. They're also guilty of neglect, and you know it. Whether they played a bigger part in their childs disappearance is not for me to say, all I will say is that there is a lot of evidence against them, and you know it.

I'm keeping an open mind on the cadaver dogs and all the evidence that has been presented, I think it's foolish to think that these people are not capable of doing something more sinister given the facts, and that's exactly what they are. Facts.

You seem to have a bit of a hard-on for the McCanns and are defending them no matter what facts are put to you, but you're defending them with anecdotal evidence, stuff you "read" but cannot source and your own opinion. Whilst you're entitled to your own opinion it doesn't negate the mountain of evidence currently stacked against the McCanns, and you know it.

1.) Drop the arrogant know-it-all attitude please, it doesn't help your point and only turns people off reading what you have to say.

2.)If you possess evidence that conclusively points to the McCanns as guilty you really ought to turn it over to the authorities because you clearly think you know something they, and we, don't.

3.)I have always believed the McCanns to be innocent because aprt from the serious lack of evidence against them, I simply cannot fathom how they could have kept up such an elaborate charade for so long. O

ne report on cadaver dogs is not going to change my mind. If the evidence Keela and the other dog had found was conclusive Kate and Gerry would have been jailed them as you very well know.

4.)You don't know they are guilty or innocent anymore than any of us do so please don't pass your theories off as fact.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just a tip Zohan, but you might find people would be more willing to listen to your points if you dropped the arrogant, condescending attitude.

In relation to my own post, I don't believe I have contradicted myself in anyway. I merely pointed out that both studies were equally valid and that the 13 year gap is irrelevent......and you know it.

Also as has been said over and over again if there truely were such 'damning' evidence then Kate and Gerry would have been jailed long ago.

But since you have clearly decided the McCanns are guilty I doubt anything I say will change your mind.

You did contradict yourself, and you know it. You mustn't have read my post correctly and are mistaken if you believe that you you didn't contradict yourself, or maybe you know you're mistaken and guess what? You know it.

I have put several questions to you in this thread and you have not answered any, and you know it.

I asked you for sources to some of your posts and you skipped over those, and you know it.

You know it but you just won't admit it, and you know it.

Maybe you should look at your own posts before you go lecturing other people, good honest to god salt of the earth people who only want justice for that poor little girl that went missing in Portugal, and you know it. Do you not want justice for that poor little girl? Do you hate Maddie? Do you hate her so much that you made up your mind and no matter what facts and evidence decent honest to god people put to you you still think this is all a conspiracy against your beliefs and the McCanns? Are you a conspiracy believer? is that what you are? Do you not want justice? Do you?

You have a closed mind, open your mind...be free!!

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

You did contradict yourself, and you know it. You mustn't have read my post correctly and are mistaken if you believe that you you didn't contradict yourself, or maybe you know you're mistaken and guess what? You know it.

I have put several questions to you in this thread and you have not answered any, and you know it.

I asked you for sources to some of your posts and you skipped over those, and you know it.

You know it but you just won't admit it, and you know it.

Maybe you should look at your own posts before you go lecturing other people, good honest to god salt of the earth people who only want justice for that poor little girl that went missing in Portugal, and you know it. Do you not want justice for that poor little girl? Do you hate Maddie? Do you hate her so much that you made up your mind and no matter what facts and evidence decent honest to god people put to you you still think this is all a conspiracy against your beliefs and the McCanns? Are you a conspiracy believer? is that what you are? Do you not want justice? Do you?

You have a closed mind, open your mind...be free!!

If my mind were any more open my brain would fall out!

I know there is a possibilty the McCanns are guilty but so far I have seen no evidence that would prove beyond doubt that they are. But clearly you knwow something I don't.

Perhaps you could point out where I contradicted myself because I genuinely can't see it myself. But you know I haven't really.

While you are at it point out where you asked me for sources.
I must have missed it.

Of course I'm not a conspiracy believer, of course I don't hate Madeleine, of course I want justice for her. How ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Do you really believe that only those who believe the McCanns are guilty want justice? Do you honestly think they are they only ones who care? Do you actually believe that only those think Kate and Gerry are killers are good salt of the earth types?

Get over yourself! You are so cocky and self righteous that you do yourself no favours at all. You may be making good points but no-one is going to listen some-one so snide and arrogant.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Get over yourself! You are so cocky and self righteous that you do yourself no favours at all. You may be making good points but no-one is going to listen some-one so snide and arrogant.

So when you lose an argument you start with the personal abuse?

Attack the post, not the poster.

hondasam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Get over yourself! You are so cocky and self righteous that you do yourself no favours at all. You may be making good points but no-one is going to listen some-one so snide and arrogant.

Attack the post not the poster.

ye are both as bad as one another at this stage.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

So when you lose an argument you start with the personal abuse?

Attack the post, not the poster.

I haven't lost any argument and you know it. Get of your high horse before he bucks you off.

If the above is all you have to say in reply to my post then I guess I am fighting losing battle.

You have clearly decided you are right and everyone else is wrong so there is no point in continuing this any further.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Mountainsandh wrote: »

My Tut tut-ting was not meant in a condescending and flippant manner

Yeah, right.

Mountainsandh

It was meant in a tongue in cheek, friendly reprimanding way, Smug Bastard, oops sorry, Frada

genericguy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

1.) Drop the arrogant know-it-all attitude please, it doesn't help your point and only turns people off reading what you have to say.

"Hello pot, this is the kettle calling..."

I have always believed the McCanns to be innocent because aprt from the serious lack of evidence against them, I simply cannot fathom how they could have kept up such an elaborate charade for so long. .

Do you think OJ Simpson killed his wife?

.

One report on cadaver dogs is not going to change my mind. If the evidence Keela and the other dog had found was conclusive Kate and Gerry would have been jailed them as you very well know.

Nope, it doesn't prove that they killed madeleine, it just proves that someone died there. No record of anyone dying there before, thus it means that it is highly likely that the one person recorded as going missing from the apartment is the one person who could own the cadaver odour.

You don't know they are guilty or innocent anymore than any of us do so please don't pass your theories off as fact.

Yet you maintain for 180 odd pages that they are saintly folk who were wronged by some shapeshifting guy described by their friend as having multiple different faces and wearing many different types of clothes at the same time, depending on what day she was asked?

Couple that with your flagrant disregard for what is a deluge of damning evidence, be it forensic, circumstantial or anecdotal, and your own points are the least compelling in this whole thread.

I'm waiting for you to start imploring us to buy the new Maddie novel by her mother (yes, novel, as it is a work of fiction), as I am beginning to suspect you of being Kate McCann.

*sits back and waits for attack on my character...*

Mountainsandh

TheZohan wrote: »

and guess what? You know it.

and you know it.
and you know it.

You know it but you just won't admit it, and you know it.

Maybe you should look at your own posts before you go lecturing other people, good honest to god salt of the earth people who only want justice for that poor little girl that went missing in Portugal, and you know it. Do you not want justice for that poor little girl? Do you hate Maddie? Do you hate her so much that you made up your mind and no matter what facts and evidence decent honest to god people put to you you still think this is all a conspiracy against your beliefs and the McCanns? Are you a conspiracy believer? is that what you are? Do you not want justice? Do you?

You have a closed mind, open your mind...be free!!

That's an obvious attempt at riling another poster.
If that's not using the "getting personal" strand, then I don't know what is.

Audrey Hepburn you are right, it is difficult to have any kind of a conversation with a poster who is going to adopt that attitude. It's a pity, because the discussion, albeit going nowhere (and we all know it ) was a civil enough discussion, before that.

TheZohan, do you realize that people who support the McCanns are more likely to wish the little girl back ? Simply because, if, hopefully, some day she is found, that will prove that all the well wishers were right to believe the grieving parents.
(no narkiness or agressiveness intended here)

TheZohanS

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That's an obvious attempt at riling another poster.
If that's not using the "getting personal" strand, then I don't know what is.

Audrey Hepburn you are right, it is difficult to have any kind of a conversation with a poster who is going to adopt that attitude. It's a pity, because the discussion, albeit going nowhere (and we all know it ) was a civil enough discussion, before that.

TheZohan, do you realize that people who support the McCanns are more likely to wish the little girl back ? Simply because, if, hopefully, some day she is found, that will prove that all the well wishers were right to believe the grieving parents.
(no narkiness or agressiveness intended here)

The irony...

AudreyHepburn

genericguy wrote: »

"Hello pot, this is the kettle calling..."

How and where have I been arrogant?

Plus I have no intention of attacking your character so don't even go there.

Do you think OJ Simpson killed his wife?

Yes. What relevence is that?

.

Nope, it doesn't prove that they killed madeleine, it just proves that someone died there. No record of anyone dying there before, thus it means that it is highly likely that the one person recorded as going missing from the apartment is the one person who could own the cadaver odour.

I agree with this. It could have been the parents but it could also have been an abductor/intruder that killed Madeleine, that is all I am saying.

Yet you maintain for 180 odd pages that they are saintly folk who were wronged by some shapeshifting guy described by their friend as having multiple different faces and wearing many different types of clothes at the same time, depending on what day she was asked?

Couple that with your flagrant disregard for what is a deluge of damning evidence, be it forensic, circumstantial or anecdotal, and your own points are the least compelling in this whole thread.

I'm waiting for you to start imploring us to buy the new Maddie novel by her mother (yes, novel, as it is a work of fiction), as I am beginning to suspect you of being Kate McCann.

*sits back and waits for attack on my character...*

As it happens I am reading Kate McCann's book and enjoying it but it is entirely up to you and everyone else what they read.

However to suggest it is work of fiction is inaccurate. You don't this anymore than I know it is 100% true, although I see no reason to suspect otherwise.

I could just as easily state that Goncalo Amaral's book is fiction but that would be nothing short of sacriligious wouldn't it.

I'll ask again to be pointed to this 'damning evidence'. If there was such evidence then the McCanns would have been jailed long ago.

I am not ignoring anything, I simply haven't seen anything that would convince me beyond doubt Kate and Gerry are killers/responsible for Madeleine's accidental death.

Just because I support the McCanns does not make my points any less valid and you know it. Or do you believe only the anti-McCann brigade should be allowed to post.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

The irony...

If you want irony read your own posts.

Mountainsandh

genericguy wrote: »

a deluge of damning evidence, be it forensic, circumstantial or anecdotal ...

" circumstantial and anecdotal evidence" = speculation
"forensic evidence" >>> not evidence, intelligence in this case, otherwise they would be convicted.

genericguy wrote: »

"I am beginning to suspect you of being Kate McCann."

^^^ would be funny only it's a serious matter and I feel it wouldn't be nice to laugh. Might sneak a snigger though. (have to use smileys otherwise my tone might be mis-interpreted).

NTMK

Mountainsandh wrote: »

TheZohan, do you realize that people who support the McCanns are more likely to wish the little girl back ? Simply because, if, hopefully, some day she is found, that will prove that all the well wishers were right to believe the grieving parents.
(no narkiness or agressiveness intended here)

I don't see how anyone wouldn't want Madeline to be found safe and well.

Personally i hope I'm proved wrong but with the current evidence it seems to me that all signs lead to the parents and they haven't been charged because the police lack that one bit of evidence to have a strong case against them.