"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[Keef]

Indeed.

You could even make a closing statement, to make sure that you finish it off!

Would be interesting to see if one or two people could sit on their hands, and let it be finished, rather than sneaking a reply in before it's locked...

[Sue]

The honest truth is that I don't want the thread to end on vague generalisations, plus misrepresentation of what has been said on the thread.

I know that anybody reading the thread from start to finish will see the full picture of who has said what, but most people coming to it will just read parts of it.

I think it is unfortunate that the person who has restarted the discussion has brought in additional things which I would personally not have raised, but I can't help that.

[juandan]

@Sue you are one of the few who talks any sense,

[juandan]

Substantial evidence "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a (reasonable mind) might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

does anyone know of any Substantial evidence the McCann's have to support abduction?

[DJKillaQueen]

Does anyone know of any Substantial evidence the McCann's or police have to support any theory?

Answer - NO.......hence NO ARRESTS, NO PROSECUTION.

Read the thread Juandan and you'll see just why the points you made in your first post can not be accepted as evidence.

[Sue]

DJKQ - reading previous posts properly is not your strong point, is it?

Nor it seems is logic.

[juandan]

@DJKillaQueen not one shed of evidence to support abduction, but plenty of Substantial evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

[taper]

Juandan

Apologies if not, but are you the same "juandan" who Twitters on matters McCann and posts about the McCanns on David Icke's site?

And is this you?

http://dan-juandan.blogspot.com/

I enjoyed the piece that concluded "I honestly believe the McCann?s are being protected by the Freemasons in my opinion it?s the only explanation."

[david_carnell]

And this blog too.

Nice.

[DJKillaQueen]

DJKQ - reading previous posts properly is not your strong point, is it?

Nor it seems is logic.

Oh the irony.....

plenty of Substantial evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Such is the countless convictions made by such thinking only to be later overturned when forensic techniques caught up....so there's a very good reason why unsubstantiated (whether substantial or not) evidence is no longer admissable...and quite right too.

Nice one Taper and DC....lol.

[edcam]

This thread is the most unpleasant, tasteless crocks of rubbish I've ever read on here. It should be removed, or at least consigned to a new section labelled "Conspiracy Theories, Nuts and Weirdos." It makes my skin crawl.

[juandan]

Another explanation. the McCann?s are being Protected, is connected to Operation ORE, the investigation in to people who paid to access pedophile sites on the internet, operation ORE netted all walks of life, Tony Blair, then prime minister at the time slapped a D-notice on operation ORE to stop the reporting on the case, Jim Gamble of the CEOP, he was head of operation ORE at the time,

He knows pedophile government ministers, Judges, senior police officers who where not prosecuted, allot of high ranking people owe Jim Gamble big time, Jim Bates once recognized as one of the country?s leading computer forensic experts, has made the extraordinary claim that senior police officers in Avon & Somerset and in the Met have miss lead the public

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/ore_case/

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.html

[Tarot]

I think Proffessor Plum,done it in the library.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

>

> Such is the countless convictions made by such

> thinking only to be later overturned when forensic

> techniques caught up....so there's a very good

> reason why unsubstantiated (whether substantial or

> not) evidence is no longer admissable...and quite

> right too.

xxxxxxx

Yes, you're right about that DJKQ. I don't believe you'll find anything in the thread where anybody is suggesting otherwise. Or maybe you can point us to something?

Let me refer you to your posts where you put forward the theory that an organised gang abducted Madeleine, leaving no trace, and that an incompetent and corrupt police investigation (presumably including the British police who were involved) covered up their incompetence by trying to lay blame on the McCanns.

Anything more you'd like to share with us about that?

Your sole rationale for this theory - which is the only one you have advanced so far - appeared to be that there are gangs in Portugal.

There is fire in Portugal, and there are dogs, as well.

So, going by your argument, may we infer that you would also support theories whereby Madeleine was spontaneously combusted, leaving no trace, or eaten by dogs, leaving no trace?

They are equally as (non) logical, and there is just as much evidence to support either of them (ie none).

So far as this new poster is concerned - whatever their background is or whatever they have said elsewhere may discredit their own posts, but it does not affect other salient facts (and they are facts) put forward in the rest of the thread.

[Sue]

juandan Wrote:

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

> Another explanation. the McCann?s are being

> Protected, is connected to Operation ORE, the

> investigation in to people who paid to access

> pedophile sites on the internet, operation ORE

> netted all walks of life, Tony Blair, then prime

> minister at the time slapped a D-notice on

> operation ORE to stop the reporting on the case,

> Jim Gamble of the CEOP, he was head of operation

> ORE at the time,

>

> He knows pedophile government ministers, Judges,

> senior police officers who where not prosecuted,

> allot of high ranking people owe Jim Gamble big

> time, Jim Bates once recognized as one of the

> country?s leading computer forensic experts, has

> made the extraordinary claim that senior police

> officers in Avon & Somerset and in the Met have

> miss lead the public

>

>

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/ore_case/

>

> http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.h

> tml

xxxxxx

Unless you have facts to back this up I suggest you don't advance this kind of "explanation".

Edited to add: And it is at this point that I am going to ask for this thread to be locked. I don't want to be associated with rubbish like this.

[DJKillaQueen]

A bit rich of you to ask a thread/ debate you started to be locked. If you can't deal with other views (no matter how insane they may be) then don't start controversial debate.

[Sue]

I have reported the post about Operation Ore and asked for it to be removed.

I have also requested that the thread be locked.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> A bit rich of you to ask a thread/ debate you

> started to be locked. If you can't deal with other

> views (no matter how insane they may be) then

> don't start controversial debate.

xxxxxxxxx

The post is potentially libellous.

So were some of yours (where you accused the police of corruption and attempting to lay blame on the McCanns, and also where you said I had said that the McCanns killed Madeleine, when I had said nothing of the sort).

The difference is, the police are hardly likely to sue you when they had worse from the gutter press over the last three years, and I am hardly likely to sue you because I think you are - well, never mind.

If you can't see that difference, then you are even more - well, never mind.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well given that you are sporting a view that the McCanns...one or both of them, covered up the discovered of their dead child then I think many would find that pretty distasteful and unfounded too.

Yes the thread should be locked if only to stop any further discussion of your equally distasteful views.