Madeleine McCann

[Sue]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

>

> let it go people, just walk away,

xxxxx

Like you are, you mean?

:))

[Chillaxed]

Fook me, just read the other thread on this.

Not sure whether I'm more or less informed on the case now.

[*Bob*]

Murder Casefile Collection - Now Available from The House of Ghoul Publishing.

18 grisly and abominable occurrences, fully documented for your pleasure. Part two FREE with part one. Stunning binder FREE with part five - featuring clipart graphics of a fingerprint, shelock homes in silhouette and one of Fred West. Collect all 18 and send off for your FREE vial of victim's tears.

[Sue]

Chillaxed Wrote:

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

> Fook me, just read the other thread on this.

>

> Not sure whether I'm more or less informed on the

> case now.

xxxxx

What other thread?

The previous thread which was on this forum a year or so back turned into a repetitive head-against-a-brick-wall farce, and was eventually deleted - if memory serves, after a newly registered troll started posting stuff which was almost certainly libellous.

[El Pibe]

Probably this one which was all pretty reasonable and measured really.

Aah how I mourn the lost innocence of 2007, even if pretty much everybody there is still on it apart from dulwichmum, unless she has a pseudonym and ditched the persona, which I guess is entirely possible.

Chillaxed, consider yourself lucky the other one is gone forever, though like japanese knotweed it is a persistent little sod.

[Chillaxed]

Nope, the one Sue refers to above where she went toe to toe with DJKQ for 9 pages. No idea how to link threads and maybe shouldn't if it was deleted for legal reasons.

[*Bob*]

That narrows it down.. to about 138 threads.

[Sue]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

>

> Chillaxed, consider yourself lucky the other one

> is gone forever, though like japanese knotweed it

> is a persistent little sod.

xxxxxxx

For someone who has been urging others to "just walk away", you yourself also seem to be a "persistent little sod" on this thread, El Pibe :)

[Sue]

Chillaxed Wrote:

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

> Nope, the one Sue refers to above where she went

> toe to toe with DJKQ for 9 pages. No idea how to

> link threads and maybe shouldn't if it was deleted

> for legal reasons.

xxxxxx

Yes that was the one, and I have no wish to repeat the soul-destroying experience.

I was ripped to shreds by a number of people (some of whom subsequently apologised) for posting facts which were already in the public domain. It all became very personal and some very nasty verging on offensive comments were made about me.

Sadly some people will always believe what they want to believe, and others will pursue their own irrelevant agendas regardless of the subject matter of the thread.

Human nature, innit.

The thread was either deleted or blocked (is that the technical term, can't remember, anyway nobody able to post on it again) at my request (I started the thread in the first place).

I requested the deletion because of the afore-mentioned troll, who made probably libellous accusations instead of sticking to facts, and could have got the forum into trouble, especially considering the litigious nature of the persons under discussion.

[Chick]

> Chick - you were one of the people who seemed to

> take great pleasure in goading me on the previous

> thread, which eventually had to be deleted.

I took no pleasure from the last sick thread about this. I didn?t goad you, just asked you to drop it several times, as did other people.

As for schadenfreude, if the cap fits.

I wont be posting again on this.

[Sue]

Chick Wrote:

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

>

> I took no pleasure from the last sick thread about

> this. I didn?t goad you, just asked you to drop

> it several times, as did other people.

>

xxxxxxx

You told me that I was sick, amongst other things, for daring to suggest that some things in the case were not as they had been portrayed.

Perhaps you have forgotten.

And why do you think I would "drop" something just because you (or others) thought I should? What do you think gives you the right to police what I post?

And why has this turned into some kind of meta-thread about a past thread? Bizarre.

[Salsaboy]

I've always thought that the parents did it.

[Voyageur]

Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> I've always thought that the parents did it.

I've always thought that people who thought the parents did it needed their heads examining.

[RosieH]

Why? Children are more likely to be murdered by their parents than by a stranger.

This whole thing is, as *Bob* says, ghoulish and icky. Why the obsession with this one child but none of the many, many others?

[SCSB79]

Why has there never been any talk of charging the parents with child neglect?

If it were Bernadette & Wayne from the local council estate, I'd bet my house on them having the other kids removed.

[Voyageur]

Because I absolutely don't think they did it, both from their demeanours, their behaviour since and the evidence.

As for whether they should have been charged with child neglect then so should my loving parents in that case - we were left in bedrooms in Pontins like the other nippers whilst the parents were out in the entertainments areas, nothing was thought of it. Still really hope that Madeline and any other missing kids are found - can't imagine anyone else thinking otherwise.

[Sue]

Well hopefully after all this time there will soon be some kind of resolution.

It has all been going on long enough.

I do not normally read about cases like this, in fact I go out of my way not to as I find them very upsetting, particularly where children are involved.

I do not believe that I am either ghoulish or icky, but for some reason this case has continued to interest me. Well, I do know what sparked my interest in the first place, but I'm not going to risk another full-on attack by the forum police for saying what it was :(

Anyway, hopefully as I say there will soon be some kind of closure.

[Sue]

Voyageur Wrote:

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

Still really hope that Madeline and any

> other missing kids are found - can't imagine

> anyone else thinking otherwise.

xxxxxx

Who has ever suggested that anyone hopes any missing kids won't be found?

Not me.

Voyageur, what evidence exactly are you talking about in your post? I don't understand.

[numbers]

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh please god no, not this again!

this should be added to the forum's banned topics list.

[SCSB79]

Don't reply then numbers.

[Voyageur]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Voyageur Wrote:

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

> -----

> Still really hope that Madeline and any

> > other missing kids are found - can't imagine

> > anyone else thinking otherwise.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Who has ever suggested that anyone hopes any

> missing kids won't be found?

>

> Not me.

>

> Voyageur, what evidence exactly are you talking

> about in your post? I don't understand.

I didn't suggest you had, did I?

Evidence presented via the media natch - like all of us I have no other knowledge base.

[Salsaboy]

I have done. The examiner thought the parents did it.

Voyageur Wrote:

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

> Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I've always thought that the parents did it.

>

> I've always thought that people who thought the

> parents did it needed their heads examining.

[numbers]

SCSB79 Wrote:

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

> Don't reply then numbers.

oh I know, I know. I'm going...gone.

cancels subscription, incl. FREE vial of victim's tears with next installment

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmm libellous is a 'theory' being presented as fact, that a portuguese judge (in 2009) described as being supported by no evidence whatsoever (a judges words) before banning the sale of the Amaral book and DVD (later overturned because lawyers successfully argued that banning it was an infringement of free speech).

On which note, I am free to enter into debate on any thread where I have something relavant to add to the debate, and am very capable of doing that without being rude or offensive to those that don't agree with my views.

There are plenty of theories, but there is no conclusive hard evidence wholy supporting any of them. If there was, arrests would have be made and convictions seccurred. It is a fact that no forensic evidence has ever been found to support cadaver or blood from Madeleine in that appartment or anywhere else.

http://exposingthemyths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/analogy-why-cadaver-dogs-are-not.html

Edited to add, there is a very good reason why indicatve evidence is not grounds for conviction (and rightly so) as it makes possible wronged conviction and miscarriages of justice.

[Sue]

Let's just wait and see what the outcome is from the investigation, shall we?

I'm not being drawn into entering any further discussion with you on this subject, DJKQ.