Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 212 comments are related to the topic:
McCanns vs Amaral verdict soon
McCanns vs Amaral verdict soon
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 212
|
By:
Naydam deserves to be Knighted for his services to clear thinking, common sense and logic.
|
|
By:
Awwwww, shucks.
  |
|
By:
naydam.
it's a mistake to discount one account of events because when considered on its own it seems improbable. (this is called the Prosecutor's fallacy) yes, it's extremely unlikely that any parent kills their child, be it accidentally or not. but it's also extremely unlikely that a child is kidnapped is the manner the mccanns have claimed. you have to consider the likelihood of the two version of events when compared to each other, not in isolation. even before we start to consider some inconsistencies in their description of events, as well as some odd happenings, there is no way any rational person can conclusively rule out a version of events which involved the mccanns being responsible for their daughter's death. |
|
By:
akabula
26 Mar 15 15:04 Joined: 13 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 11,054 | Blogger: akabula's blog BTW I don't subscribe to any particular theory and if forced would probably come down on the side of an abduction. In saying that there is no concrete proof of one but neither is there any concrete proof of anything else. But, as I've said, I can't fathom out why the McCanns won't do a 'warts n'all' tv interview. They would be paid fortunes which they could add to the 'Find Madeleine Fund' so why won't they do it. Strange. That's what I had already posted naydam yet you then post this: naydam Akabula. I'll agree with anything that is the truth, but I won't just accept wild theories which accuse two parents of killing their child. I can't how any of you can. You are doing yourself a disservice if you just glibly accept all of the rumours to be true. You are blindly opposing everything that doesn't fit in with the McCanns version of events. DStyle's post sums it up rather well. The McCann's version of events is riddled with contradicting statements from them and their friends, statements changed and a reluctance to face the press. Again I repeat that I still think the abduction the more likely of all the theories but you can't fault people for thinking otherwise given their erratic behaviour and the conflicting statements. |
|
By:
I don't rule it out. But I see a total lack of proof AND a lack of opportunity on the part of the McCanns.
|
|
By:
well said naydam,
but no harm in stating theories |
|
By:
pretty pointless defending or accusing people we dont know, indeed if we know them we
still may get it wrong plenty of germans on tv this past week telling us this co pilot they knew isnt the type to murder 149 people |
|
By:
I don't disagree with you. I thought the theory about giving the kids sedatives to make them sleep was plausible.
If that was the case then it was plausible that Madeleine died as a result of this. Then I thought that if that had happened how could they have got rid of her body. Less plausible now. Then I thought the rest or at least some of their friends must be in on it. But the longer nobody said anything the less likely this was, I couldn't see a group of people keeping a secret as horrible as that. But again I would ask why don't the McCanns go on air without conditions. I think it is because they have something to hide and I think that it is that the checks got less frequent as the days passed. |
|
By:
its simple akbula they know they left their kid unattended and at risk, thats enough to hide
and makes it difficult for them to face any questioning |
|
By:
To me the McCanns themselves are responsible for all the conjecture that is appears online.
They could clear up most of this by facing the cameras. Until they do this, and I doubt they ever will, the theories will gather pace and more speculation will become fact to some. |
|
By:
why is there 31 officers in the case £10,000,000 & rising
|
|
By:
^ The McCanns have friends in high places.
|
|
By:
akabula
28 Mar 15 12:21 I don't disagree with you. I thought the theory about giving the kids sedatives to make them sleep was plausible. Only plausible? The McCanns say she wasn't a good sleeper. The McCanns say she didn't like strangers. How did the 'alleged abductor' quietly carry off a child who wasn't sedated and, never made a sound of distress? How was the 'alleged abductor' spotted by a Tapas friend in her statement, where Gerry McCann and a sports coach stated they were in the same street at the same time, but saw nobody. |
|
By:
Well I can't prove it but I found it plausible ie a reasonable assumption.
|
|
By:
Given the reports, I'd say sedated is a 2/5 chance
unsedated 2/1 |
|
By:
Naydam holds all the aces on this thread because no matter what anyone says (apart from the child neglect aspect) against the McCanns he will say you can't prove it.
|
|
By:
Put either McCann in a room with me and a copy of yellow pages, and I'll get a confession.
 |
|
By:
PERHAPS
they're not guilty of child neglect, after all, they haven't been charged with it. |
|
By:
Perhaps she wasn't 'carried off' by a stranger. Perhaps it was somebody she knew. Perhaps it was somebody that she knew from the crèche who also knew that the group always dined at THAT bar, at THAT table, at THAT time. Somebody who knew that the McCann's apartment could not be properly observed from that point. Somebody who could have noted the time lapse between parental checks. Somebody who would know that they didn't lock the apartment door. Somebody who, in case they HAD bumped into the parents, could just have said "I was passing and heard her crying. I knocked but there was no answer. The door was open so I picked her up and was comforting her until you came back."
Nothing suspicious at all. The parents wouldn't even have complained. Why would they? You would never imagine that somebody was in the act of stealing your child. This was not a botched burglary. The apartment and the child were targeted. Probably by some body with a lot of information regarding routine and opportunity. It is also probably fair to add that many people who work with children, do it for evil purposes. |
|
By:
Probably by some body with a lot of information regarding routine and opportunity.
Parents? |
|
By:
No body.
|
|
By:
The child was removed (ie abducted).
|
|
By:
For the umpteenth time naydam, the apologist-in-chief, this case is a disappearance and not an abduction.
Where is the evidence that proves beyond doubt that the child was abducted? |
|
By:
If Naydam's theory is correct it would give us a very limited number of very obvious suspects.
ie people that the child and the parents knew and who also worked at the resort with children. |
|
By:
It is not possible to prove beyond doubt that it was an abduction or that it wasn't an abduction.
Therefore you cannot declare it to be definitively 'not an abduction'. |
|
By:
Wesdaq. You wanna wait till I explain the only, desperate piece of 'evidence'(!) that lends any credence to Amaral's theory.
It would still be very useful if somebody/anybody could put a figure on the length of time that the body (assuming Amaral's theory to be correct) would have spent in the apartment. So far I have received no help on this matter.  It would be really helpful. It could be important. |
|
By:
That's why I say disappearance Ozy, duh!
|
|
By:
you don't follow, wesdaq. Let me try putting it another way for you.
You are forever saying 'it wasn't an abduction' despite the fact you cannot prove this. Making a definitive statement about it being or not being an abduction is foolish. |
|
By:
Okay then, she was murdered.
|
|
By:
I at no stage have said that it wasn't an abduction.
My point is, is that the McCanns version that there was an abduction has been accepted without any evidence to support it. That being the case, we can not say definitively one way or the another. Therefore, the matter should be regarded as a disappearance. |
|
By:
Accepted by who? I would say that the majority of people are in the Spellingandgrammarchecker camp.
That's the value of rumours. |
|
By:
^ The mainstream media and plod.
|
|
By:
That being the case, we can not say definitively one way or the another.
Therefore, the matter should be regarded as a disappearance. That implies we can definitively say it was a disappearance; we can't. |
|
By:
so what do we call it
 |
|
By:
Wesdaq. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that mainstream media (I assume you mean the Press) have accepted the McCanns' story. How can people say that the parents have been 'given an easy time' by the press?
The McCanns had to sue the 'papers for printing scandalous headlines which were totally unfounded and based upon 'an undisclosed source'. They settled out-of-court but the damage had been done. Huge swathes of people like have a totally distorted view of these proceedings. You also mention 'plod'. Why do you believe that the police have not treated the parents as they would in any other case. They were p[potential suspects. I have no doubt that they believe their version of events NOW. But that would only be after ruling them out by way of their own investigations. |
|
By:
'like yourself'
|
|
By:
BBC, ITV, SKY and most newspapers buy the abduction story.
What do you think the Crimewatch reconstruction a couple of years ago was about? |
|
By:
The news channels only report the news. They don't create it. The press, on the other hand, tend to make their own stories in order to sell newspapers. Yes, I know they are called 'news' papers, but they frequently step way beyond that description.
I don't know what the 'Crimewatch' thingy was about as I didn't watch it. You could tell me. |
|
By:
Ozymandius
That being the case, we can not say definitively one way or the another. Therefore, the matter should be regarded as a disappearance. That implies we can definitively say it was a disappearance; we can't. That is the only fact in this case that is undisputed. A child has disappeared and the conjecture is then split on why she disappeared. |
|
By:
Thanks aka for stating that succinctly.
I'm staggered that some mugs even dispute the child has disappeared! |