"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[Tarot]

Rosemary and Thyme.

[DJKillaQueen]

Not even worth me replying tarot...when someone is not prepared to consider any possible theory apart from her own for which she has provided NO hard evidence (and you haven't Sue...which is why no prosecution has ever been brought). All of your 'evidence' is circumstantial theorising all of which can be easily discreditted or dismissed as having no meaning beyond what it is....therefore being evidence of nothing. Until you accept that, there is no point in anyone debating this case with you.

[Sue]

And so it goes on .... and on ..... and on .....

You're not actually debating this case with me, DJKQ.

I answer your points one by one, but you don't respond to the points I make. That's not a debate.

You say I'm "not prepared to consider any possible theory apart from my own" - yet you haven't presented any other credible theories.

As has been pointed out to you by others, it would be a theory to say that Madeleine was abducted by aliens, or eaten by wolves. Or swept from the apartment by a random whirlwind.

Jesus Christ, talk about banging my head against a brick wall. How many times must I repeat that yes, there is no hard evidence, and yes, that is why no prosecution has been brought.

We are eight pages on and you still seem to be stuck on page one.

[Sue]

And to pre-empt yet another post about "evidence", I made a distinction early in this thread between conclusive evidence and indicative evidence.

If you can present me with any indicative evidence for your theory that Madeleine was abducted by an organised gang and that the police tried to lay the blame on her parents, I am very happy to consider your theory.

If you can't, then I'm afraid I don't think there is any point.

[Horsebox]

This has to be a contender for most sinister, cringe-inducing thread of the year, no?

[Tarot]

Sue are you writing a book on, theory and evidence of murder.

I cannot see why you are dragging this out,its begining to sound like a kangaroo court.

It even smacks of slander and libel in some places.

If this is read by the Mcanns or friends somewhere, I dont think they would be too happy.

i gather this forum stretches far and wide.

[Sue]

As I have previously posted, I bear full responsibility for everything I've written on this thread.

So far as the McCanns are concerned, they and their "spokesman" have kept this story in the news, so they can hardly be surprised if people like myself want to discuss it. I have been very careful in what I have said, and I have tried to keep away from any kind of speculation which could be construed as slander or libel.

I have tried to keep to the known facts, though I can't be responsible for other people's posts.

It was not at all my intention to make the thread seem like a kangaroo court, merely - as I said at the start - to bring to people's attention some information which the UK press has not publicised.

I've said all I've got to say, and I agree there is absolutely no point in dragging it out any further.

There is little point in attempting to discuss the case with people who don't address the points I am making.

[zeban]

Sue Wrote:

> I've said all I've got to say, and I agree there

> is absolutely no point in dragging it out any

> further.

Thank God for that. Only took 8 pages to realise that

[Sue]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> > I've said all I've got to say, and I agree

> there

> > is absolutely no point in dragging it out any

> > further.

>

> Thank God for that. Only took 8 pages to realise

> that

xxxxxxxx

Let's be fair here.

If you look back through those 8 pages you will see that almost all my posts were in response to other people dragging it out.

As I already said about 6 pages back (:))) if I had not responded to other people's posts it would have looked as if I agreed with them.

It wasn't me who said I was making my final post and told admin I would no longer post on the thread, and then started again.

[Sue]

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue are you writing a book on, theory and evidence

> of murder.

xxxxxxxxx

To repeat yet again what I have already repeated ad nauseam (well I'm sick of repeating it, anyway) I have never at any point suggested that murder was involved in this case, and nor do I believe it.

I do think that it is possible that Madeleine accidentally died in the apartment whilst left alone, and I have explained why I think that is a possibility.

That is a very long way from murder. That would really be a dark thread. Think badly of me if you must, but please don't think I am suggesting that.

[HAL9000]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... [there is] NO hard evidence (...which is why no

> prosecution has ever been brought). All of [the]

> 'evidence' is circumstantial ...

Many famous British criminal trials (and miscarriages of justice resulting therefrom) have been based on circumstantial evidence in whole or part. A successful prosecution could easily have resulted if these events had happened within this jurisdiction.

The McCanns are fortunate that the Portuguese criminal justice system is not as speculative, unprincipled or rapacious as our own, in my view.

[zeban]

But the thing is Sue, if you had already made your points there's no need to reply to other peoples' posts in order to show that you don't agree with them because if their viewpoints are different to yours in the first place then obviously you wouldn't agree with them. Anyway, you've all ended up agreeing to disagree (I think) so I just think this thread has been an insane waste of your energy. BUT maybe some people have enjoyed it? Who knows.

[Sue]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the thing is Sue, if you had already made your

> points there's no need to reply to other peoples'

> posts in order to show that you don't agree with

> them because if their viewpoints are different to

> yours in the first place then obviously you

> wouldn't agree with them.

xxxxxxxxx

Unfortunately, experience has shown me that if you don't respond to a post then it will be assumed that you have given up attempting to make your point.

It is very hard when you are trying to argue based on logic and other people do not seem to be able to do the same.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyway, you've all ended

> up agreeing to disagree (I think) so I just think

> this thread has been an insane waste of your

> energy. BUT maybe some people have enjoyed it? Who

> knows.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Yes it has been a bit harrowing because I don't like to play games.

But my purpose in starting the thread was .... oh, wait, I've explained that several times already :-S

Edited to attempt to disentangle zeban's post from mine :)

[Huguenot]

Am I right in saying that the parents weren't even the legal guardians of Madeleine at the time because she was caught up in some dispute?

[DaveR]

"But my purpose in starting the thread was .... oh, wait, I've explained that several times already"

I still don't understand your purpose in starting (and perpetuating) this thread. You are obsessed with the case, that much is clear (that's not a criticism, by the way). You are determined that everybody should recognise, if not the accuracy, then the validity of your point of view. However, there does not appear to be any other point you are trying to make.

I should make it clear that I have zero interest in the specific facts of the McCann case, although the surrounding arguments about parental responsibility are kind of interesting.

[Sue]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I still don't understand your purpose in starting

> (and perpetuating) this thread. You are obsessed

> with the case, that much is clear (that's not a

> criticism, by the way). You are determined that

> everybody should recognise, if not the accuracy,

> then the validity of your point of view. However,

> there does not appear to be any other point you

> are trying to make.

I have explained several times why I started the thread. I'm now trying to let it finish, as should have been clear from my posts last night. So why are you continuing a pointless conversation?

>

> I should make it clear that I have zero interest

> in the specific facts of the McCann case, although

> the surrounding arguments about parental

> responsibility are kind of interesting.

If you have zero interest, why on earth are you posting on this thread and perpetuating it?

Why not start another thread about parental responsibility?

I'm sorry for the bold font, I'm not trying to shout, but I find a load of plain text makes it hard to disentangle one person's comments from another, and maybe other people do too.

Edited to add: Sorry if any of the above sounded rude, but I really was hoping that last night's posts would be the end of it.

[juandan]

To any logical person it is blatantly obvious thing are not as they seem in the McCann case, on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann?s went to bed, while the police and half the town and holiday makers where searching right through the night for her,

The McCann?s were so distressed they had presents of mind to set up a so called fund

With in days of Madeleine going missing, they went jogging and played tennis?

It just doesn?t make sense, come on people if your daughter disappeared could you go jogging and play tennis?

Cadaver scent detected in the McCann?s holiday apartment, in the hire car, car keys, on Kate?s clothes the sniffer dogs where used in the McCann?s friends holiday apartments and found nothing, until they go into the McCann?s apartment and the dog detects the Cadaver scent. Martin Grimes the dog handler said the dogs are 100% and never wrong

Kate refusing to answer questions, McCann?s and friends refusing to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction,

Plenty of substantial evidence against the McCann?s, not one shed of evidence to support abduction

Substantial evidence "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). [w]here there is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence. Landes v. Royal, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

[louisiana]

"Plenty of substantial evidence against the McCann?s"

Juandan, have you joined this forum just to spread more rumour and innuendo?

Surely a better place to do that would be the EDT or similar...

[Sue]

The uncomfortable thing though, Louisiana, is that much of what has been said on this thread is not actually rumour and innuendo.

Are you saying that it is just rumour that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the police (and yes she was within her legal rights to do so)?

Are you saying that it is just rumour that the McCanns and their friends refused to return for a reconstruction when requested to do so by the police?

Are you saying that it is just rumour that two highly trained British police dogs alerted in places connected to the McCanns and nowhere else?

What one may infer from the above may vary, but the facts themselves are not rumour or innuendo, I think.

I would not have posted again but other people have now let this thread come to the top again.

[DJKillaQueen]

Juandan clearly hasn't read the thread where most of his/ her points are discussed and dismissed. There are no overwhelming facts. If there were there would have been a prosecution bought. Time to let this thread sink.

[Sue]

And so it goes on ... and on .... and on ....

"Time to let this thread sink" - well, unlike you, I tried!

Where were Juandan's points dismissed, DJKQ?

Just for once, could you answer a question I ask you on this thread? And try to answer it logically?

And have you actually read the posts concerning why there has been no prosecution?

And have you read Hal's posts, for example?

Just asking.

[Jeremy]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Time to let this thread sink" - well, unlike you, I tried!

You've got to be joking.

[juandan]

@louisiana come on these are facts not rumour and innuendo.its all in the Police files,

or should we dismiss the police files?

not one shed of evidence to support abduction.

would the pro McCann's like to see the case reopended?, not a review as the McCann's would like but a reopening of the case,

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > "Time to let this thread sink" - well, unlike

> you, I tried!

>

> You've got to be joking.

xxxxxx

DJKQ said pages and pages back that she wasn't going to post again - which admin commended - and then continued to post a large number of posts.

I said on NYE that I was trying to let the thread die, and didn't post again for 6 days. The thread had slipped well down, and was off the first page. I expected that that would be the end of it.

I only posted again today because I felt that Louisiana's post was inaccurate (and because by then the thread had gone back to the top, so my post made no difference) and then DJKQ started again.

[david_carnell]

Sue - you could always ask Admin to lock the thread as you are the OP and it is at your behest.

Please.