Jump to content

"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case


Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But it's not 'most likely' that's the point...it's

> just a theory. It could be the ONLY theory and

> that still doesn't make it MOST LIKELY......that

> is something you have decided for yourself.

> There's no hard evidence for any of it....

>

> If you can't deal with counter argument without

> taking it personally Sue then maybe you shouldn't

> post in a forum. That's all I can say really to

> the rein you feel you have to put on yourself from

> making personal comments about someone you know

> nothing about in person.


DJKQ - Are you referring to yourself here or the McCanns?

If the posters on this thread were taking part in an actual jury,the judge would call for a retrial.

Ther is always evidence withheld that are not for public consumption.

Like the Fred West killings, they said at the time he was involved with organising paedophile parties which involved

people of standing. Next thing he hangs himself, that line of inquiry was stopped. Odd yes.

We can only speculate.

I think the thing about which theory is most likely in any situation would depend on the evidence available. In this situation there are 2 theories that most people think most likely to have happened. One is that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and the other that she died in the flat.


I am unaware of any evidence that supports the abduction theory, even circumstantial so as the only evidence available points to Madeleine dying in the flat, it seems that this is the most likely theory.


As Sue pointed out you could also say that she might have been taken by aliens, or eaten by a wolf or something. These could be theories, but without even circumstantial evidence pointing towards them, they would seem to be very unlikely theories.

Chick Wrote:

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

> Sue you are sick and need professional help.

> Please drop this thread.


xxxxxxx



Eh? What in your opinion is the evidence a) that I am sick and b) that I need professional help?


Why should I drop the thread just because you don't like it?


What is wrong with disseminating information which is already in the public domain but which the British press is on the whole ignoring?


ETA: I have explained above why I started the thread. Please read the post. How does that make me sick?

I wouldn?t call you sick Sue, but I would say that, regardless of how genuinely correct one is (and it?s arguable in this case), but if several people (ranging from Mockney, to Bellenden Belle, to more extreme versions like chick) all shout out that you might be over-egging a pudding?.


?. Then it MIGHT be time to think about how you are coming across


I would also add that your argument


?What is wrong with disseminating information which is already in the public domain but which the British press is on the whole ignoring? ?


Is essentially what every nutjob organisation from David Icke, to BNP, etc etc all say with wearying regularity - ie it doesn?t help your case very much


The louder you shout the less you convince

Fair enough Sean, but if you look through the sequence of posts, you will see that almost all my posts have been in response to points made by other people.


If I don't reply it looks as if I am agreeing with them.


:-S


ETA: and if the organisations you mention say the same thing, and the press is withholding factual information (you surely aren't comparing this to David Icke's lizard theory?), then isn't that a bit worrying, regardless of who the organisations are?

This is a local forum and in the lounge people are allowed to discuss within reason whatever they like. This would be similar to having a debate around a table in the pub IMO. To call Sue sick is completely out of order. Those who don't wish to debate this subject shouldn't read the thread if it upsets them.


Sean, you are too impressed by who has posted what. This may be based on how well you know these people but is adding nothing to the debate. Implying Sue is a nutjob or could be construed as one is unfair. I don't believe Sue is trying to shout louder or convince people of anything. She is posting information and discussing possibilities.


I find this 'case' intriguing. Some people here are treating the postings of Sue as if she were writing about a best friend of theirs. It's a debate, nothing more and nothing less. I can't see any reason not to debate it if one chooses to.

The McCann debate has been had before in here. For more than 5 fekkin pages too


I'm not calling sue a nutter either. I just pointed out that the sentence she used isn't dissimilar to that used by nutters. So I wouldn't use it for example



Narnia I'm not impressed by any particular individuals. There just comes a point in some threads where it reaches an impasse. Does anyone really believe this will end well?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> The McCann debate has been had before in here.

> For more than 5 fekkin pages too

>


xxxxxxxx


Where? If I'd known that I wouldn't have started a new thread.


I just did a search on McCann, but all that came up was the thread about young kids cycling to school by themselves, in which a comparison was made to this case. Is that what you mean?

Nice song Tarot.


Sean, it reaching an impasse is neither here nor there. There are other threads which may never reach a conclusion but it doesn't mean you have to stop debating the subject.


This wont end well as over 3 years have passed, so how can it? However the death of JFK is still debated and that was a long time ago. If this couple were from South America say, nobody would be bothered. As it's close to home,people are.


I would rather discuss it with people on this forum than gobble up whatever a tabloid journalist might write about it.

Sue I dont think your sick,I think some people dont understand why you are so tenacious about the subject.

It is a sick world and no doubt in time, the truth will out.


Everyone has their own views on this, and no doubt are just as ardent as you, everyone should agree to disagree and end it before it degenerates further into hostility between each other, it is the season of goodwill after all.



Indeed Narnia but I would say there are other factors at play here


1) This particular thread makes a lot of people uneasy. Argue all you like, it does. The sooner it disappears the better

2) It's upsetting not just for the readers but the main participants, including the OP, appear to be getting ever more agitated - to what end? Noone is going to prove anything here, but the agitation will continue.

3) From a forum perspective, the prospect of someone saying something libellous on this thread is higher than usual - again for all pain and no gain

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> The thread spans five months and kind of

> chronicles all the developments at the time. You

> might find some of the comments of

> interest....maybe.


xxxxxxxx


I doubt it. I was a member of forums devoted solely to the McCann case at the time.


I've got no interest in reading or rehashing old stuff. I'm solely interested in what is known at the moment.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...