"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[katie1997]

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?

[Tarot]

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.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

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]

Sue you are sick and need professional help. Please drop this thread.

[Sue]

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?

[SeanMacGabhann]

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

[Sue]

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?

[katie1997]

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier Sue...

Edited to add: I mean about the bit that your responses were to the persistent questions from others.

[Sue]

katie1997 Wrote:

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

> Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier

> Sue...

xxxxxx

Sorry, what is?

ETA: Sorry Katie, I posted this before you edited your post above, ignore this post!

[HAL9000]

Sue has presented reasoned and coherent arguments in this discussion - to compare her with conspiracy theorists is disingenuous, in my view.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I agree with HAL. I think the personal attacks on Sue are disturbing me more than any other content on this thread.

[Narnia]

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.

[Tarot]

Should this debate be on the drawing room thread perhaps?

[Narnia]

Perhaps, but that would be a first. You don't usually get thrown into the Drawing Room,just out of it!

[SeanMacGabhann]

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?

[Tarot]

I agree with Sean,

This thread is getting very similar to the lyrics to this song, going round and round!

 

[Sue]

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?

[Narnia]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's here Sue

Lost Child - Madeleine McCann

The thread is from 2007 so a search needs to be set to 'all dates' to find it.

[Sue]

Oh well if it's from 2007 I won't bother looking.

Virtually everything about the case was speculation until the police conclusion and files were made public (or the parts of them that the police made public, anyway).

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[Tarot]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

  Quote

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

[Sue]

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.

[Narnia]

I really don't understand where you are coming from Sean but I will stop posting, given your request.