Madeleine McCann

Babooshka

LiquidZeb wrote: »

First of all, I haven't spewed bile or made anything personal. If you're so precious that anyone disagreeing with you is immediately seen as vitriol or being a hater you should probably lay off the internet. All I did was question an odd statement made by a poster on the forum where anyone questioning the McCann's dubious parenting skills is immediately put down as being jealous of the beautiful and successful Kate and Gerry McCann as the poster alleged.

You got personal, you alluded to the poster "fancying" Kate McCann, and I don't see you telling mean spirited people who post deliberately unflattering photos of them or people labelling them as having done all sorts to lay off the internet, why should I just because I think there's a lot of malice going on. Not how it works.

Shefwedfan

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I have no proof they were involved etc . All we have proof of is that they are covering something up . Maybe their own negligence to avoid prosecution themselves i dont know. But they talked utter BS from the day she disappeared

What proof have you they are covering up something?

Just supposing the Portuguese police were correct and that it was a tragic accident that was covered up, what I couldn’t get my head around is HOW the parents could manage the frat without breaking apart at the seams, and without having at least one or two of their travelling companions becoming suspicious enough and/or abhorred to the degree that they would feel compelled to relate the facts to authorities as they know/believe them to have been.

The practicalities of a cover up would be very complex and time consuming. Supposing they were back and forth to the apartment from the tapas bar and at one point a parents stumbled upon a horrible fatal accident, eh where child had hit head and was unconscious. Remembering the parents and group were mostly doctors, there would have been a fairly lengthy attempt at resuscitation, and realistically one of them would have phoned for an ambulance in the hope that however bad things looked there might be a little hope of saving her.

The only situation I could think of where a cover-up would be made is if the child had been found stone cold dead, dead for many hours with rigid Morris etc set in, after parents having left the child alone for many many hours. Maybe an accidental death from over-sedation, maybe Initial desperate attempts to resuscitate having resulted in injury to the body and leaking of blood etc.

That scenario would have played out over time, the parents would have appeared desperate, a desperate phone call would have been made by one to the other if it were one parent to discover theIt child’s body. Then there would have been the matter of bringing deceased child in a vehicle to a place of disposal after the inevitable discussion as to what might be the plan of action.

As for disposing of a body, Praia da Luz is a very short drive from the cliffs at Sagres, where parking is available very close to the cliffs. That part is “easy” and it is unlikely a small body thrown into the very wild Atlantic there would turn up, or if it did much evidence would be washed from it. The eventual disposal of the body to me is very obvious, and made more obvious when I visited Sagres on a tour some years ago. It would have been done under cover of dark, although I imagine it is a favourite spot for people having intimacy in cars, camping overnight etc. Speaking of the latter, it is highly likely the German suspect was very familiar with that spot.

Back to the theory of the parents covering up, then there was the not small matter of a clean up of apartment with bleach etc, another time consuming event. To cover up such an accident would have taken quite a Little number of hours after the initial agreement to do this in the first place. The parents would have appeared very edgy, shifty and distracted all the time at the Yapas bar if they were attempting to hide it from their friends.

And if their friends were “in on it” or even were part of what caused Madeleine’s accidental demise it is unlikely they would ALL have maintained their composure or silence all these years. Somebody would surely have said “there were actually two hours in the difference in the timings” etc. Loyalties change over years.

The theory of the McCanns being involved is maybe not impossible, but unlikely. However I think as a group they all collectively took measures to cover up their negligence over not taking due care of the safety of their children, and this has muddied up the course of the investigation.

LiquidZeb

Babooshka wrote: »

You got personal, you alluded to the poster "fancying" Kate McCann, and I don't see you telling mean spirited people who post deliberately unflattering photos of them or people labelling them as having done all sorts to lay off the internet, why should I just because I think there's a lot of malice going on. Not how it works.

I'm responding to you because right off the bat you started accusing me of spreading bile and vitriol and the like. I was merely questioning why the poster I mentioned believed that people are jealous of the McCann's.

Now I didn't see the pictures people put up and I don't give enough of a **** to see them but accusing people of being jealous of someone's looks or success is an odd path to go down and I called it out. I notice you're so quick to take issue with what other people say when you yourself have referred to people as sewer dwellers. Maybe a bit of introspection is needed.

retro:electro

I think one of my favourite theories is that they found her dead and hid her body because they didn’t want to lose their jobs as Doctors, even though Kate hasn’t worked a day in her position since.

Babooshka

LiquidZeb wrote: »

I'm responding to you because right off the bat you started accusing me of spreading bile and vitriol and the like. I was merely questioning why the poster I mentioned believed that people are jealous of the McCann's.

Now I didn't see the pictures people put up and I don't give enough of a **** to see them but accusing people of being jealous of someone's looks or success is an odd path to go down and I called it out. I notice you're so quick to take issue with what other people say when you yourself have referred to people as sewer dwellers. Maybe a bit of introspection is needed.

Again with the unsolicited advice. Go away will ya.

LiquidZeb

Babooshka wrote: »

Again with the unsolicited advice. Go away will ya.

As mature and measured a response as ever.

Babooshka

LiquidZeb wrote: »

As mature and measured a response as ever.

Yes there's the added unfortunate side effect that you get dragged down to the level of what you're contending with on these threads, I always have a shower after spending some time on them.

LiquidZeb

Babooshka wrote: »

Yes there's the added unfortunate side effect that you get dragged down to the level of what you're contending with on these threads, I always have a shower after spending some time on them.

Considering I've done nothing to insult you or anyone else on this discussion I'd like to know what you're referring to. Considering how you insulted me out of nowhere I don't think much dragging had to be done. Enjoy your shower. Another weird detail to add but whatever.

Panrich

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't see how this could have been opportunistic. Given how soon the alarm was raised after the abduction (20 mins?) and the enormous attention it received immediately, I don't think it would have been possible to move the child undetected and without leaving a trail or evidence without some form of plan and help. Even without help, the window of opportunity to do anything would have been very small with little margin for error. I cant see how someone who unexpectedly found themselves with a little girl could either kill her and dispose of the body so quickly without leaving any evidence, or contact someone who would take her and get her to that person alive without leaving any evidence, particularly if it is all happening in the spur of the moment with the alarm already having being raised.

Whatever about the abductor, any help which was solicited after the abduction without any prior knowledge would surely have been likely to slip up in some way given they were reacting to a situation and there would have been some degree of panic. I find it hard to believe that any accomplice would not have done something stupid, either in the heat of the moment or as the attention grew. Particularly someone not in on the initial abduction, they are far more likely to go to the police at some point and pin it on the other person, rather than risk getting caught and have themselves look more guilty.

I find it very hard to believe that someone acting on impulse could abduct her, get her to a location to kill her, then dispose of the body without leaving evidence. Passing her on would have been very difficult and I doubt any pedophile even wanted her after the initial few hours as the story was so hot. More likely is there was a plan in place to move her somewhere immediately and someone was already arranged to take her. The people involved all being in on it from the beginning makes them more likely to stick together all this time.

If the child woke up during a burglary attempt, then it is conceivable that this was a spur of the moment decision.

It seems from what we know about the suspect that he was living in a camper van. That is an ideal scenario for an abduction. It is true that the alarm was raised within 20 minutes but he could have been nearly twenty miles away by then and counting. He had been living in Portugal for 12 years so would know the area very well and could therefore have brought her to a remote area where he was unlikely to be disturbed or arouse suspicion.

splinter65

Sweet.Science wrote: »

It would be a massive help if her parents told the truth about the 24 hrs leading up to her disappearance

Who says they’re not telling the truth?

splinter65

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I have no proof they were involved etc . All we have proof of is that they are covering something up . Maybe their own negligence to avoid prosecution themselves i dont know. But they talked utter BS from the day she disappeared

You really should provide the evidence you have of this cover up that the McCanns completed to at least one of the national police services that are investigating this disappearance for 12 years. I’m sure they’d be very glad to have it as they have found no evidence of cover up on behalf of the McCanns in all that time, or at least not enough to charge them.
I’m sure you’ll agree that you really have a duty to provide them with this evidence?

walshb

What are they covering up?

They did not abduct their own daughter, did not arrange-pay to have someone else abduct their own daughter, nor see of or know of someone was doing it and turning a blind eye to such knowledge

So, what are they covering up?

SlowBlowin

walshb wrote: »

What are they covering up?

They did not abduct their own daughter, did not arrange-pay to have someone else abduct their own daughter, nor see of or know of someone was doing it and turning a blind eye to such knowledge

So, what are they covering up?

This thread has degraded into utter rubbish.

Can we all agree, some people think they were involved in some way and others don't.

No one on boards has hard evidence either way. Plenty of people saying they did it, many others saying categorically they did not. Both are as bad as each other.

retro:electro

SlowBlowin wrote: »

This thread has degraded into utter rubbish.

Can we all agree, some people think they were involved in some way and others don't.

No one on boards has hard evidence either way. Plenty of people saying they did it, many others saying categorically they did not. Both are as bad as each other.

Both as bad as each other? Absolutely not. How does saying I don’t think two parents killed their child as bad as saying they did? There is no evidence to suggest they had any involvement in her disappearance, which is why many people are reluctant to lay the blame on two grieving people.

In all my years on these threads I’ve never read one reasonable account of how they could have managed to do it, any kind of believable version of events or a credible timeline. I’ve read nothing only fantasy, exaggeration, filling in the blanks and waffle. If something credible was to come to light that indicated they were involved, then I would be all ears. But nothing has. So no, I don’t believe that people who fail to see how two parents could have killed their child or covered up her death and carried the charade for thirteen years without a shred of proof are “just as bad” as those who do badly want it to be true they have dreamt up a narrative and stick to it at all costs.

callmehal

retro:electro wrote: »

Both as bad as each other? Absolutely not. How does saying I don’t think two parents killed their child as bad as saying they did? There is no evidence to suggest they had any involvement in her disappearance, which is why many people are reluctant to lay the blame on two grieving people.

In all my years on these threads I’ve never read one reasonable account of how they could have managed to do it, any kind of believable version of events or a credible timeline. I’ve read nothing only fantasy, exaggeration, filling in the blanks and waffle. If something credible was to come to light that indicated they were involved, then I would be all ears. But nothing has. So no, I don’t believe that people who fail to see how two parents could have killed their child or covered up her death and carried the charade for thirteen years without a shred of proof are “just as bad” as those who do badly want it to be true they have dreamt up a narrative and stick to it at all costs.

Both as bad as eachother for sure. Let it go.

retro:electro

callmehal wrote: »

Both as bad as eachother for sure. Let it go.

Great contribution there. Fair play.

splinter65

callmehal wrote: »

Both as bad as eachother for sure. Let it go.

Let it go? One side wants to be allowed to present opinions and feelings as facts and lies and myths and rumours as evidence of a crime. The other side wants to challenge that for the cruel and damaging nonsense that it Is.
Also, I’d say that if you don’t like a thread or don’t like the direction it’s going in you can simply Unfollow it. Telling people to “let it go” is the preserve of the mods. If you you think a post is outside the forum charter then report it.

SusieBlue

retro:electro wrote: »

I think one of my favourite theories is that they found her dead and hid her body because they didn’t want to lose their jobs as Doctors, even though Kate hasn’t worked a day in her position since.

My personal favourite was that Kate & Gerry found the terrible twos/threes to be very difficult with Madeleine, she needed a lot of attention and they were sick of it, they loved the twins more than her and they wanted her gone.
So they had arranged to sell her for quite a sum of money to a gang of pedophiles before they ever arrived to Portugal and pretended she was kidnapped to cover it up. And their friends all helped with this so they wouldn’t get the blame.

It’s almost as bad as the one where Kate was secretly a devil worshipper and murdered and tortured Madeleine to death as sacrifice to the devil.

Someone actually offered these up as legitimate, reasonable theories as to how Madeleine came to be missing. It’s mind blowing.

retro:electro

splinter65 wrote: »

You really should provide the evidence you have of this cover up that the McCanns completed to at least one of the national police services that are investigating this disappearance for 12 years. I’m sure they’d be very glad to have it as they have found no evidence of cover up on behalf of the McCanns in all that time, or at least not enough to charge them.
I’m sure you’ll agree that you really have a duty to provide them with this evidence?

Interesting that they haven’t answered what this “proof of a cover up” is. I notice that post was thanked by 5 people, maybe one of them will fill us in?
More shlte that people come out with when they haven’t an iota what they’re on about. They draw a blank then when they’re asked to elaborate.

kanadams123

retro:electro wrote: »

I think one of my favourite theories is that they found her dead and hid her body because they didn’t want to lose their jobs as Doctors, even though Kate hasn’t worked a day in her position since.

Why bring this up? Your giving out to the people who put out such theories (as ludicrous as most of them may be).
Why bring one up yourself? Quite hypocritical of you to be quite honest.

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

Both as bad as each other? Absolutely not. How does saying I don’t think two parents killed their child as bad as saying they did? There is no evidence to suggest they had any involvement in her disappearance, which is why many people are reluctant to lay the blame on two grieving people.

In all my years on these threads I’ve never read one reasonable account of how they could have managed to do it, any kind of believable version of events or a credible timeline. I’ve read nothing only fantasy, exaggeration, filling in the blanks and waffle. If something credible was to come to light that indicated they were involved, then I would be all ears. But nothing has. So no, I don’t believe that people who fail to see how two parents could have killed their child or covered up her death and carried the charade for thirteen years without a shred of proof are “just as bad” as those who do badly want it to be true they have dreamt up a narrative and stick to it at all costs.

My father was murdered in 2006, there was lots of speculation on a family level (and in the national press), some totally wrong and some totally right.

It was found in high court that a family member was guilty of murder, a person was sentenced to life (they have been released now), but they still proclaim their innocence.

You obviously have an opinion, which is valid, but just because you fail to see something to convince you otherwise does not mean your opinion is anything more than an opinion. As I said, without proof everyone's opinion is just an opinion, including yours.

My comment was based on personal experience, and its my "opinion" that unless you 100% know the real facts of the case you should recognise that your thoughts are just an opinion..

retro:electro

kanadams123 wrote: »

Why bring this up? Your giving out to the people who put out such theories (as ludicrous as most of them may be).
Why bring one up yourself? Quite hypocritical of you to be quite honest.

How is it “hypocritical” of me to poke a hole in something that is so often trotted out as a theory and repeated ad nauseam? I don’t need your permission to bring something up on a thread dedicated to the topic.

retro:electro

SlowBlowin wrote: »

My father was murdered in 2006, there was lots of speculation on a family level (and in the national press), some totally wrong and some totally right.

It was found in high court that a family member was guilty of murder, a person was sentenced to life (they have been released now), but they still proclaim their innocence.

You obviously have an opinion, which is valid, but just because you fail to see something to convince you otherwise does not mean your opinion is anything more than an opinion. As I said, without proof everyone's opinion is just an opinion, including yours.

My comment was based on personal experience, and its my "opinion" that unless you 100% know the real facts of the case you should recognise that your thoughts are just an opinion..

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what your personal case has to do with anything. Maybe you’re letting that interfere with your perception on this case? None of us know the facts of this case, that is the whole point. So in the absence of anything, why even speculate that the parents were involved? Why write awful things down on the internet and imply they had a hand in her disappearance, where their other two children who are now teenagers can one day read every brain fart from total randomers.

Having an opinion on the case is one thing, writing hateful lies and vicious tripe without a shred of proof to back it up is shameful and should be called out at every opportunity. In your case, there was a trial and someone was found guilty. In this case, there hasn’t been. That’s the key difference but it doesn’t stop the amateur sleuths from mud slinging and posting opinion as fact.

kanadams123

retro:electro wrote: »

How is it “hypocritical” of me to poke a hole in something that is so often trotted out as a theory and repeated ad nauseam? I don’t need your permission to bring something up on a thread dedicated to the topic.

I just find it hypocritical that those who give out about people writing all these nasty things about Kate and Gerry feel it's ok for themselves to bring up nasty thinks about them. You may not be saying they killed her, but you (and Susie Blue) are bringing up nasty theories yourself that weren't mentioned on this particular thread before.
I'm not saying your not aloud do this. It's a discussion thread after all...but by bringing it up do you want someone to discuss that theory with you..just so you can tell them they are wrong? Hence your bringing out the people you keep shutting down?

I don't think Kate and Gerry had any involvement (I'll be honest and say about 13years ago, I may have thought it was a possibility...due to all the press etc. at the time) But since reading into the actual facts the last 12/13 years, I don't see how it's plausible.
I really hope this lead on the German Man gives some closure to the parents.

splinter65

SusieBlue wrote: »

My personal favourite was that Kate & Gerry found the terrible twos/threes to be very difficult with Madeleine, she needed a lot of attention and they were sick of it, they loved the twins more than her and they wanted her gone.
So they had arranged to sell her for quite a sum of money to a gang of pedophiles before they ever arrived to Portugal and pretended she was kidnapped to cover it up. And their friends all helped with this so they wouldn’t get the blame.

It’s almost as bad as the one where Kate was secretly a devil worshipper and murdered and tortured Madeleine to death as sacrifice to the devil.

Someone actually offered these up as legitimate, reasonable theories as to how Madeleine came to be missing. It’s mind blowing.

No no no. There was the theory that she was accidentally killed and Gerry just by luck found a dead dog, brought it back to the flat cut it open stuffed the child in to the dogs body, took the dog and threw it into a volcano.

retro:electro

kanadams123 wrote: »

I just find it hypocritical that those who give out about people writing all these nasty things about Kate and Gerry feel it's ok for themselves to bring up nasty thinks about them. You may not be saying they killed her, but you (and Susie Blue) are bringing up nasty theories yourself that weren't mentioned on this particular thread before.
I'm not saying your not aloud do this. It's a discussion thread after all...but by bringing it up do you want someone to discuss that theory with you..just so you can tell them they are wrong? Hence your bringing out the people you keep shutting down?

I don't think Kate and Gerry had any involvement (I'll be honest and say about 13years ago, I may have thought it was a possibility...due to all the press etc. at the time) But since reading into the actual facts the last 12/13 years, I don't see how it's plausible.
I really hope this lead on the German Man gives some closure to the parents.

Sorry but this very theory was brought up in the first few pages of this thread.

ShineOn7 wrote: »

When they came home and found a deceased Madeleine they both knew the sleeping tablets in her system would be found in the autopsy. They also knew this marked the end of their careers as doctors and likely the end of custody of their other two kids

The amount of evidence out there about these parents is staggering and I believe one day, eventually, they'll face jailtime

In the meantime, they'll whirl their highly paid PR machine out once a year with nonsense like this latest German guy

As with everything from day one of this from Gerry and Kate McCann, it's all smoke and mirrors]

Apparently they knew this would mark the end of their careers. See that? Opinion so casually written there as fact. Sorry but it’s absolute bull**** and deserves to be called out and ridiculed at any opportunity.

kanadams123

retro:electro wrote: »

Sorry but this very theory was brought up in the first few pages of this thread.



Apparently they knew this would mark the end of their careers. See that? Option so casually written there as fact. Sorry but it’s absolute bull**** and deserves to be called out and ridiculed at any opportunity.

Sorry. I must have missed this particular post. And I agree it should have been called out. I thought you were the first to bring it up. My mistake.

I do stand by what I said about Suzie Blues comment though. Unless it was previously mentioned in the thread that Kate was the "devil worshipper"

splinter65

kanadams123 wrote: »

Sorry. I must have missed this particular post. And I agree it should have been called out. I thought you were the first to bring it up. My mistake.

I do stand by what I said about Suzie Blues comment though. Unless it was previously mentioned in the thread that Kate was the devil.

Dozens of opinions on this thread presented not only as proven facts, but as evidence.

retro:electro

kanadams123 wrote: »

Sorry. I must have missed this particular post. And I agree it should have been called out. I thought you were the first to bring it up. My mistake.

I do stand by what I said about Suzie Blues comment though. Unless it was previously mentioned in the thread that Kate was the devil.

There’s been a myriad of Madeleine threads on boards over the years, and they always attract the same cohort of posters, myself included there. There was a thread running in the True Crime forum last year and those were some of the theories people trotted out so casually. Those same posters are still posting here today. People have wild imaginations that should be put to better use.

y0ssar1an22

this new fella, was he a suspect back in the day?

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what your personal case has to do with anything. Maybe you’re letting that interfere with your perception on this case? None of us know the facts of this case, that is the whole point. So in the absence of anything, why even speculate that the parents were involved? Why write awful things down on the internet and imply they had a hand in her disappearance, where their other two children who are now teenagers can one day read every brain fart from total randomers.

Having an opinion on the case is one thing, writing hateful lies and vicious tripe without a shred of proof to back it up is shameful and should be called out at every opportunity. In your case, there was a trial and someone was found guilty. In this case, there hasn’t been. That’s the key difference but it doesn’t stop the amateur sleuths from mud slinging and posting opinion as fact.

My personal case has shown me that when opinions are toted as something more is damaging for the family and the case. The opinions that were touted as fact in my case happened pre-trial, so no difference.

You now attack me saying my perception is wrong because of my experience, I guess thats your opinion. I prefer to take the stance that everything is a possibility until the facts are established, and my comment, that you disagree with, is simply that opinions should not be touted as facts, including yours. It was a neutral comment, I am sorry it upsets you so much.

y0ssar1an22

retro:electro wrote: »

There’s been a myriad of Madeleine threads on boards over the years, and they always attract the same cohort of posters, myself included there. There was a thread running in the True Crime forum last year and those were some of the theories people trotted out so casually. Those same posters are still posting here today. People have wild imaginations that should be put to better use.

thats the nauture of unsolved crimes. People theorise about what may have happened. whats the problem with that?

kanadams123

splinter65 wrote: »

Dozens of opinions on this thread presented not only as proven facts, but as evidence.

quote="retro:electro;113648629"] Why write awful things down on the internet and imply they had a hand in her disappearance, where their other two children who are now teenagers can one day read every brain fart from total randomers.[/quote]

I agree 100% with retro:electro in what is said here.
This is my point. Although you and Susie Blue aren't the conspiracy theorists to initially come up with these ludicrous theories...ye were the ones who brought them up on this particular thread for others to read.

I hadn't read the theory about Kate being a devil worshipper before. Yet it's now on this thread for others to discuss. Also your one about the volcano?
Ludicrous of course, I agree with ye both on this. TBH Any theory that Kate and Gerry had involvement, I would find very hard to beleive. It's just not credible.

retro:electro

SlowBlowin wrote: »

My personal case has shown me that when opinions are toted as something more is damaging for the family and the case. The opinions that were touted as fact in my case happened pre-trial, so no difference.

You now attack me saying my perception is wrong because of my experience, I guess thats your opinion. I prefer to take the stance that everything is a possibility until the facts are established, and my comment, that you disagree with, is simply that opinions should not be touted as facts, including yours. It was a neutral comment, I am sorry it upsets you so much.

My opinion is I don’t know what happened. My opinion isn’t damaging to anything or anyone because I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I don’t know what happened. In the absence of any evidence I assume she was taken but I don’t know? If something substantial comes to light about the parents I would be interested but unless that day occurs I will not blame them or say they are involved. I’m sorry but maybe you need to read your first line over again and direct it at those who truly need to read it, those who not only present opinion as fact but as proof that they were involved. You seem slightly confused.

kanadams123

retro:electro wrote: »

There’s been a myriad of Madeleine threads on boards over the years, and they always attract the same cohort of posters, myself included there. There was a thread running in the True Crime forum last year and those were some of the theories people trotted out so casually. Those same posters are still posting here today. People have wild imaginations that should be put to better use.

Another thread 😮 . I thinks it's best I keep away from that one if it's as bad as you are saying!!

TheW1zard

retro:electro wrote: »

My opinion is I don’t know what happened. My opinion isn’t damaging to anything or anyone because I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I don’t know what happened. In the absence of any evidence I assume she was taken but I don’t know? If something substantial comes to light about the parents I would be interested but unless that day occurs I will not blame them or say they are involved. I’m sorry but maybe you need to read your first line over again and direct it at those who truly need to read it, those who not only present opinion as fact but as proof that they were involved. You seem slightly confused.

The most fluffy, on the fence, no opinion, garbage Ive read on boards.ie. Thats takes some doing. Youre contributing absolutely nothing.
Maybe no one killed her and She just ran away :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

You seem slightly confused.

No confusion, I said speculation presented as fact, on both sides of the argument was bad.

You disagreed, re-read your reply.

retro:electro

SlowBlowin wrote: »

No confusion, I said speculation presented as fact, on both sides of the argument was bad.

You disagreed, re-read your reply.

I disagree with you saying those don’t blame the parents are “as bad” as those who. That’s just a ridiculous thing to say.

retro:electro

TheW1zard wrote: »

The most fluffy, on the fence, no opinion, garbage Ive read on boards.ie. Thats takes some doing. Youre contributing absolutely nothing.
Maybe no one killed her and She just ran away :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wow 15 eye rolls. That’s me told. Weren’t you asked on another thread for this “forensic evidence” that proves they did it? Have you even found out what a resort is yet?

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

I disagree with you saying those don’t blame the parents are “as bad” as those who. That’s just a ridiculous thing to say.

Ok, so everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, got it...

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

I disagree with you saying those don’t blame the parents are “as bad” as those who. That’s just a ridiculous thing to say.

I will say it one last time for you.

People you represent their opinions as facts are wrong to do so.

Do you disagree with this point ???? Yes or No ?

retro:electro

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I will say it one last time for you.

People you represent their opinions as facts are wrong to do so.

Do you disagree with this point ???? Yes or No ?

Yes I agree but I’m not presenting my opinion as fact. I’m saying I don’t know what happened and I don’t see how they could have done it. Others are presenting theories, have a pattern of insinuating, provoking and dog whistling and are committed to making the parents look as questionable as possible at all costs. My opinion is I don’t know what happened, others is it’s the parents wot dunnit. One is damaging and the other is not. Surely you don’t need this explained to you, having been through it yourself.

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

Yes I agree but I’m not presenting my opinion as fact. I’m saying I don’t know what happened and I don’t see how they could have done it. Others are presenting theories, have a pattern of insinuating, provoking and dog whistling and are committed to making the parents look as questionable as possible at all costs. My opinion is I don’t know what happened, others is it’s the parents wot dunnit. You are right that they are not equal and should not be seen as so because one is damaging and the other is not.

So why did you so passionately disagree with my original post, here it is for your convenience:

"This thread has degraded into utter rubbish.

Can we all agree, some people think they were involved in some way and others don't.

No one on boards has hard evidence either way. Plenty of people saying they did it, many others saying categorically they did not. Both are as bad as each other."

limnam

retro:electro wrote: »

Yes I agree but I’m not presenting my opinion as fact. I’m saying I don’t know what happened and I don’t see how they could have done it. Others are presenting theories, have a pattern of insinuating, provoking and dog whistling and are committed to making the parents look as questionable as possible at all costs. My opinion is I don’t know what happened, others is it’s the parents wot dunnit. One is damaging and the other is not. Surely you don’t need this explained to you, having been through it yourself.

Can I use your thanking argument here?

danslevent

People also seem to forget that the Mccanns went through IVF to conceive. Why would they go through that to murder their child?

limnam

danslevent wrote: »

People also seem to forget that the Mccanns went through IVF to conceive. Why would they go through that to murder their child?

I'd say it's fairly irrelevant.

E.g. If it was accidental. The fact they used IVF doesn't matter.

retro:electro

SlowBlowin wrote: »

So why did you so passionately disagree with my original post, here it is for your convenience:

"This thread has degraded into utter rubbish.

Can we all agree, some people think they were involved in some way and others don't.

No one on boards has hard evidence either way. Plenty of people saying they did it, many others saying categorically they did not. Both are as bad as each other."

Because one is severely damaging and the other is not. Where is the harm in disbelieving they were involved and then shown to be wrong? But it’s severely damaging to believe the opposite and spread vicious lies and peddle untruths. I also don’t really see people saying outright they did not do it. Many people use logic and rational and don’t see how they could have done it, but if something came to light that involved them then they would accept that. But nothing ever has. We are just going around in circles here, so best leave it at that.

SlowBlowin

retro:electro wrote: »

Because one is severely damaging and the other is not. Where is the harm in disbelieving they were involved and then shown to be wrong? But it’s severely damaging to believe the opposite and spread vicious lies and peddle untruths. I also don’t really see people saying outright they did not do it. Many people use logic and rational and don’t see how they could have done it, but if something came to light that involved them then they would accept that. But nothing ever has. We are just going around in circles here, so best leave it at that.

It was damaging to me when people said my father was not killed by a family member, and deep down I held a belief in fact she did do it ?

There is no difference, you are blinded by what you perceive is the right, good thing to do.

You were quick to brush off my experience as irreverent, its not, it helped me see both sides.

SlowBlowin

And for the record, I have no view on who did it in this case.