Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

aiyoyo on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:09 pm

Except here we are not taking about scientific concept where a set of facts can be changed if it does not fit the theory.

It's not about experimenting with theories to come up with a scientific discovery.

The mccanns did not counter for the dogs.

And, if they make the mistake of thinking facts are changeable to fit a theory then they might be in for another SURPRISE as facts surrounding the science of crime solving is somewhat limited, starting from elimination.

Kololi on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:11 pm

Jean wrote,

"Kololi states she is female but that's the thing with people you know only through the Internet - who knows if the information given out is correct; not that there's a problem with adopting a new identity unless there's an intention to deceive."

Not sure I did state I was female before this point but hey maybe I did or maybe I didn't.

Jean states that Kololi states that she is female and then babbles on about decpetion.
I think I took it how you meant it Jean and having Rainbowfairy back you up is like having one pygmy telling another that short is beautiful.

Kololi on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:17 pm

aiyoyo wrote:
Except here we are not taking about scientific concept where a set of facts can be changed if it does not fit the theory.

It's not about experimenting with theories to come up with a scientific discovery.

The mccanns did not counter for the dogs.

And, if they make the mistake of thinking facts are changeable to fit a theory then they might be in for another SURPRISE as facts surrounding the science of crime solving is somewhat limited, starting from elimination.

I never said that we were talking about scientific concepts Aiyoyo and I do hope that you intend to chastise everyone on this board that does what you have stated should not be done in your second sentence. Afterall it surely isn't about experimenting with theories to come up with a guilty verdict. I always understood guilt was proven because of evidence that was shown to be true. We don't have that evidence - we only have our thoughts and beliefs and a little bit of information that has been provided and sits in the public domain.

Our sneaking suspicions are just that - sneaking suspicions and if you stopped hitting me with the big bat at every turn you may read long enough to understand that maybe my sneaking suspicions are not so very far removed from your own. ooops

nomendelta on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:27 pm

Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

russiandoll on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:40 pm

could not agree more nomendelta, very well said.

Kololi on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:47 pm

nomendelta wrote:Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

Nomendelta, whilst I don't agree totally with your post, I do agree in part.

I struggle however, when at times, maybe because there is no new news, some people choose to rehas stuff or go off on a tangent trying to find that all important fact that might prove that Madeleine has come to harm and that her parents are in some way knowledgeable about her fate. I know the argument likely to be put to me for this - that "we" are here with the child's best interests in mind trying to uncover the truth. I believe that some people actually believe themselves when they type that. I have never claimed that actually. I am here simply becaue I have an interest in the case and whilst I have my own thoughts on what may or may not have happened and people like Candyfloss do keep this site very much up to date so that I can read pretty much all that gets printed about it in one place. And also because, on the whole, the people are pleasant enough here.

I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.

I have my thoughts and as said to Aiyoyo, some of my thoughts may be very much viewed by some as "anti" if I were to post them in the way that some post here. My heart says to me that I should at least try and be kind when airing my views and I should always be ready to eat humble pie should my thoughts or suspicions be proven wrong. I am probably no different than a great many people posting here except I just haven't been convinced either way as to what actually happened to Madeleine McCann that night based upon the information we have access to or their behaviour since.

Jumping off my soapbox now - hope I didn't bore or offend to much.

tigger on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:13 pm

Kololi wrote:
I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.
unquote

As to your first sentence here, I feel partly responsible. However consider this:
Maddie's health records were refused ( they would have remained confidential so that is no argument- it's also standard procedure)
The photographs supplied by the parents are varied and show what most mothers would consider to be a child that doesn't look entirely healthy.
Kate has told us in the bewk that Maddie was difficult, cried a lot and they didn't know what was wrong with her.
The McCann family have given us indications that Maddie was a difficult child.
Kate tells us in the bewk and the diary about Maddie's 'fear of pain' - that indicates some treatment - a child wouldn't have a fear of pain about falling of a bike for instance. It's a very curious remark and it is repeated three times in the diary.
Her official height is given as 90 cm. which is off the bottom end of the scale for her age.
On the evidence given by the parents the health of the child is in doubt.

Therefore it is not surprising that we look at the photographs - some of which are blatantly photoshopped - to see if there are indications what might have ailed her. Because it would help to explain her disappearance. Because it might help explain her parents' behaviour.

'especially if I was telling the truth'. Well, why not give her health records to the police? The coloboma affair already has proved they are not telling the truth.
People will speculate as to why not.

Just because they were not charged, does not mean they are telling the truth. Far from it. All it means is that the evidence isn't at present sufficient to secure a conviction in court. There is plenty of evidence with the police and in the public domain.

rainbow-fairy on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:20 pm

Kololi wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

Nomendelta, whilst I don't agree totally with your post, I do agree in part.

I struggle however, when at times, maybe because there is no new news, some people choose to rehas stuff or go off on a tangent trying to find that all important fact that might prove that Madeleine has come to harm and that her parents are in some way knowledgeable about her fate. I know the argument likely to be put to me for this - that "we" are here with the child's best interests in mind trying to uncover the truth. I believe that some people actually believe themselves when they type that. I have never claimed that actually. I am here simply becaue I have an interest in the case and whilst I have my own thoughts on what may or may not have happened and people like Candyfloss do keep this site very much up to date so that I can read pretty much all that gets printed about it in one place. And also because, on the whole, the people are pleasant enough here.

I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.

I have my thoughts and as said to Aiyoyo, some of my thoughts may be very much viewed by some as "anti" if I were to post them in the way that some post here. My heart says to me that I should at least try and be kind when airing my views and I should always be ready to eat humble pie should my thoughts or suspicions be proven wrong. I am probably no different than a great many people posting here except I just haven't been convinced either way as to what actually happened to Madeleine McCann that night based upon the information we have access to or their behaviour since.

Jumping off my soapbox now - hope I didn't bore or offend to much.

Yes - you did - both.
The only people you seem to post fairly about are the McCanns. You cause mischief and bad feeling, then come over all 'hurt' and lash out. Your comments earlier about me backing Jean up were uncalled for, and your comment to me weeks ago is just horrible. IIRC, Kate McCann wrote about her daughters private bits (how degrading for a daughter she claims to be alive) and I was one of many posters to comment on it - many times. Yet I get accused of being some kind of deviant! You truly are a nasty piece of work Kololi, I can see right through your 'I'm being kind and fair' nonsense.

Why don't you TRY posting some of these 'anti' thoughts you have? I will be the first to roll over and piddle in submission if I'm ever proven wrong about the McCanns. But, by their lies, spin and dishonesty they cause a lot of the wilder theories.

Oh, and I AM a pygmy, and small IS beautiful...

nomendelta on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:31 pm

So it's OK for Kate and Gerry to rehash the same old BS time after time without being challenged and indeed daring to suggest nobody has the right to be challenged yet if anyone "rehashes" old news here it's a problem?

Respectfully, I am going to ignore Kololi from now on. It's like talking to a brick wall and I have the distinct impression she is deliberately derailing threads.

Kololi on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:39 pm

Tigger wrote,

"Just because they were not charged, does not mean they are telling the truth. Far from it. All it means is that the evidence isn't at present sufficient to secure a conviction in court. There is plenty of evidence with the police and in the public domain."

I couldn't agree more Tigger.

When I decided to get my grey matter moving again and studied law we learnt that the CPS makes a decision as to whether the hard work of the Police will see the inside of a courtroom or not. If they feel there isn't enough evidence to secure the conviction they may be reluctant to take it forward on the grounds of the money being spent not being in the public interest. Obviously things may work differently in Portugal - I honestly don't know.

It appears that the evidence was not sufficient enough so no charge was brought but, like you, I don't necessarily believe that this means that they were not telling the odd porkie or two. It's like the dogs signalling isn't it. It cannot be used alone and requires some further evidence to support it. That doesn't mean that the dogs were wrong however.

I know why you and others look at the photos and I believe that you and others believe that it may give a vital clue in determining what may have happened on that evening and why. I try and not comment on it and usually managed to stick to it but have lapsed on that stand lately possibly because I have considered that it seems that no holds are barred in comments made to me so hey let's give as good as I get. Best I go back to my ignoring the bits I don't like and hope that others do the same when reading something that they feel I may be totally off whack with.

The coloboma is a wtf moment. Initially used as a poster and then later played down. Very odd indeed. Your guess is as good as mine as to why their accounts changed.