Jump to content

Madeleine McCann

UncleBen

By UncleBen
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

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

Sue

Posted
Posted

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

El Pibe

Posted
Posted

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.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

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

Sue

Posted
Posted

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

Posted
Posted

> 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

Sue

Posted
Posted

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.

Voyageur

Voyageur

Posted
Posted

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

Sue

Posted
Posted

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

Sue

Posted
Posted

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.

Voyageur

Voyageur

Posted
Posted

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

Salsaboy

Posted
Posted

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.

DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

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.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • smith 41
      Blu ray player

      By smith 41 · Posted

      Hi if anyone has one pm me cheers 
    • Sue
      Plumber recommendation - A.F.E Plumbing Services

      By Sue · Posted

      You can always check when they registered on the forum, if you are suspicious. But I recommended Aria, and it certainly wasn't my only post on here, and it was a genuine recommendation. ETA: And he didn't ask me to make it, to the best of my recollection. But even if he had, many local tradespeople ask people to post on here if they are happy with the work that has been done.
    • Sue
      Forest Hill Road Group Practice, Patient Participation Group (PPG), Next Meeting, 6:30pm, Thursday 23rd January 2025 

      By Sue · Posted

      I am not a patient at this practice, but surely it is more sensible to have an initial  phone discussion, as often the GP wouldn't need to see someone face to face unless they actually needed to physically examine them? This then leaves the available face to face appointments for patients who need them. And if during  the phone call the GP felt you needed examining, then arrangements could be made for a face to face. If you feel your ailment is such that you will definitely need to be physically examined, can you not explain that to the receptionist?
    • Sue
      Noticeboard on Northcross Road

      By Sue · Posted

      Give Labour a chance, they've only been in government for a short time, and they inherited a mess! As regards the notice boards, to the best of my recollection they were originally intended as community notice boards, and certainly not for advertising local businesses (who would decide which businesses  should have the limited space on the boards, anyway?) East Dulwich may have become more gentrified since the boards were first introduced, but that surely doesn't mean they should now be completely  taken over for the benefit of  the "middle classes", to the exclusion of everybody else? As  NewWave says, surely these people have other ways to find out about groups and events of interest to them, which the "non middle classes" may not have access to, and even if they did may not be able to afford them. Several people including myself have complained to councillors about the state of the noticeboards in the past.  I think one of the issues is that they were originally maintained by local volunteers, who may have either moved out of the area or lost interest - or given up in despair when the boards were flypostered and/or vandalised. I completely  agree that the boards should be used for information about not for profit organisations in the area, but if regular maintenance can't be provided and/or they continue to be vandalised, then I think it would be better if they were removed altogether.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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