Ambersuz and Debbie gloat over the possibility that Tony Bennett will be in trouble from Carter-Ruck

smith wrote:Hello clarity.

First let me apologise to JATYK for my post being too long for them: in the case of evaluating the evidence in a missing child case, apparently, it should be all snappy one liners. Still.

I think you might agree that all these stories might have been easier to confirm or deny had the parents not used “cut-outs” to make everything deniable. I do not mean one spokesman answering questions openly on their behalf at press conferences. Mr Mitchell made a habit of answering a media question in his own name, following it up with another version to the same media outlet under the name “a source close to the family” and very often – and all this on the same day – a third version under the name “a pal.”

There is no doubt that the McCanns, using trusted interviewers, implied in the first few months that KM’s immediate certainty that it was an abduction derived from certain facts that she was not allowed to reveal in because of the Portuguese secrecy rules and the risk that such information might help the abductor.

When they did speak on the record they said things like:

“I have no doubt in my mind that she was taken by somebody from the room,” says Kate. “We don’t know if it was one person, two, or if it was a group of people, but I know she was taken.”

When a person with a university education uses a phrase like that she does not mean “I think”; she is implying that she had knowledge, the same knowledge, for example, that enabled the interviewer to say, “This is the first time that the McCanns have confirmed that the apartment was broken into.” Adding, “this information does not compromise Madeleine’s safety, and rules out one of the numerous red herring theories that the police have explored, that Madeleine wandered away on her own. There is no logic in withholding it from the public.”

Implying, of course, that there was logic in withholding certain other information from the public. And we have Gerry McCann’s additional comment in a different interview but in the same context that “we wouldn’t tell you [certain things] if we did know."

We know now that KM did not have any evidence for her assertion that the apartment was “broken into.” Nor did her statements to the police as revealed in the case files contain any additional information that would have provided the certainty that she claimed.

And we know that a series of leaks – completely untraceable – in the tabloids suggested much later the cuddlecat stories and the imprint of the child on the bed as being the missing information that made her certain. Those stories were clearly planted to suggest that the police were saying these things - but the police had never been told those things, as the papers reveal.

In view of the game of cut-outs, leaks and deniabilty games that the parents quite clearly participated in, especially when their full legal team was assembled and began leaking what their defence strategy was going to be, I think one should be careful about accepting any of the stories and counter stories without, in every case, asking why they were leaked and who gained.

SYM's not stupid: she knows what the McCanns were playing at.

clarity wrote:

smith wrote:Hello clarity.

First let me apologise to JATYK for my post being too long for them: in the case of evaluating the evidence in a missing child case, apparently, it should be all snappy one liners. Still.

I think you might agree that all these stories might have been easier to confirm or deny had the parents not used “cut-outs” to make everything deniable. I do not mean one spokesman answering questions openly on their behalf at press conferences. Mr Mitchell made a habit of answering a media question in his own name, following it up with another version to the same media outlet under the name “a source close to the family” and very often – and all this on the same day – a third version under the name “a pal.”

There is no doubt that the McCanns, using trusted interviewers, implied in the first few months that KM’s immediate certainty that it was an abduction derived from certain facts that she was not allowed to reveal in because of the Portuguese secrecy rules and the risk that such information might help the abductor.

When they did speak on the record they said things like:

“I have no doubt in my mind that she was taken by somebody from the room,” says Kate. “We don’t know if it was one person, two, or if it was a group of people, but I know she was taken.”

When a person with a university education uses a phrase like that she does not mean “I think”; she is implying that she had knowledge, the same knowledge, for example, that enabled the interviewer to say, “This is the first time that the McCanns have confirmed that the apartment was broken into.” Adding, “this information does not compromise Madeleine’s safety, and rules out one of the numerous red herring theories that the police have explored, that Madeleine wandered away on her own. There is no logic in withholding it from the public.”

Implying, of course, that there was logic in withholding certain other information from the public. And we have Gerry McCann’s additional comment in a different interview but in the same context that “we wouldn’t tell you [certain things] if we did know."

We know now that KM did not have any evidence for her assertion that the apartment was “broken into.” Nor did her statements to the police as revealed in the case files contain any additional information that would have provided the certainty that she claimed.

And we know that a series of leaks – completely untraceable – in the tabloids suggested much later the cuddlecat stories and the imprint of the child on the bed as being the missing information that made her certain. Those stories were clearly planted to suggest that the police were saying these things - but the police had never been told those things, as the papers reveal.

In view of the game of cut-outs, leaks and deniabilty games that the parents quite clearly participated in, especially when their full legal team was assembled and began leaking what their defence strategy was going to be, I think one should be careful about accepting any of the stories and counter stories without, in every case, asking why they were leaked and who gained.

SYM's not stupid: she knows what the McCanns were playing at.

Oh to have so much time on one's hands to be able to anlyse each and every word 'reportedly' uttered by a family during the worst time of their life, I wonder do you analyse the words chosen by others so carefully or are does that not give the same frisson? And how verbatim do you think reports are and were, do you really think individuals have so much control over the world around them at any one time to make it valid to analyse things such as this to the n'th degree?

sym seems only to have believed what the tabloids told her, she is not alone in that, Mr Bennett being the most high profile victim of such nonsense, I still chuckle when I recall his visit to the Commons culture, media and sport committee debate regarding the mistreatment received by the Mccann family and friends, he couldn't have made Gerry's McCanns point more clearly if he tried when he allegedly passed around his grubby little hate booklet full of nonsense cherry picked from the more outrageous tabloid stories to those in attendance.

Autumn wrote:Oh dear, the Dragon has awoken on MM - anti dragon fire shields at the ready

Autumn wrote:Im banned also, as are most of us here

The 'Tony' section is open to public viewing - think amberbum should re-name her forum 'missing tony' as, every new day she adds a new thread about him :lol:

Patty O'Daws wrote:

Autumn wrote:Im banned also, as are most of us here

The 'Tony' section is open to public viewing - think amberbum should re-name her forum 'missing tony' as, every new day she adds a new thread about him :lol:

Don't know about renaming it missing tony they should rename it 'attack everyone who doesnt' agree with us'

smith wrote:

clarity wrote:

smith wrote:Hello clarity.

First let me apologise to JATYK for my post being too long for them: in the case of evaluating the evidence in a missing child case, apparently, it should be all snappy one liners. Still.

I think you might agree that all these stories might have been easier to confirm or deny had the parents not used “cut-outs” to make everything deniable. I do not mean one spokesman answering questions openly on their behalf at press conferences. Mr Mitchell made a habit of answering a media question in his own name, following it up with another version to the same media outlet under the name “a source close to the family” and very often – and all this on the same day – a third version under the name “a pal.”

There is no doubt that the McCanns, using trusted interviewers, implied in the first few months that KM’s immediate certainty that it was an abduction derived from certain facts that she was not allowed to reveal in because of the Portuguese secrecy rules and the risk that such information might help the abductor.

When they did speak on the record they said things like:

“I have no doubt in my mind that she was taken by somebody from the room,” says Kate. “We don’t know if it was one person, two, or if it was a group of people, but I know she was taken.”

When a person with a university education uses a phrase like that she does not mean “I think”; she is implying that she had knowledge, the same knowledge, for example, that enabled the interviewer to say, “This is the first time that the McCanns have confirmed that the apartment was broken into.” Adding, “this information does not compromise Madeleine’s safety, and rules out one of the numerous red herring theories that the police have explored, that Madeleine wandered away on her own. There is no logic in withholding it from the public.”

Implying, of course, that there was logic in withholding certain other information from the public. And we have Gerry McCann’s additional comment in a different interview but in the same context that “we wouldn’t tell you [certain things] if we did know."

We know now that KM did not have any evidence for her assertion that the apartment was “broken into.” Nor did her statements to the police as revealed in the case files contain any additional information that would have provided the certainty that she claimed.

And we know that a series of leaks – completely untraceable – in the tabloids suggested much later the cuddlecat stories and the imprint of the child on the bed as being the missing information that made her certain. Those stories were clearly planted to suggest that the police were saying these things - but the police had never been told those things, as the papers reveal.

In view of the game of cut-outs, leaks and deniabilty games that the parents quite clearly participated in, especially when their full legal team was assembled and began leaking what their defence strategy was going to be, I think one should be careful about accepting any of the stories and counter stories without, in every case, asking why they were leaked and who gained.

SYM's not stupid: she knows what the McCanns were playing at.

Oh to have so much time on one's hands to be able to anlyse each and every word 'reportedly' uttered by a family during the worst time of their life, I wonder do you analyse the words chosen by others so carefully or are does that not give the same frisson? And how verbatim do you think reports are and were, do you really think individuals have so much control over the world around them at any one time to make it valid to analyse things such as this to the n'th degree?

sym seems only to have believed what the tabloids told her, she is not alone in that, Mr Bennett being the most high profile victim of such nonsense, I still chuckle when I recall his visit to the Commons culture, media and sport committee debate regarding the mistreatment received by the Mccann family and friends, he couldn't have made Gerry's McCanns point more clearly if he tried when he allegedly passed around his grubby little hate booklet full of nonsense cherry picked from the more outrageous tabloid stories to those in attendance.

What a truly extraordinary reaction to a polite post dealing with evidence and the way in which we interpret it.

First we had the nonsense about the prints on the window which, after patient exchanges, I simply demolished. There has been no repetition of those fibs since. Now this. The pros are really not doing well with the intellectual side of the argument, are they?

People disapprove of me losing my rag when posters treat one with a contempt for the truth. If they read this exchange they might understand why, and why I rarely bother to post about the case anymore.

[Shouts from intellectual pro experts on the McCann case: "Yeah, good riddance. Get out of here. Go away etc etc"]

WOODWARD wrote:CLARITY ,Do you know why bonnybraes,janz and co suddenly went over to the dakside when they left 3A,S. ?

WOODWARD wrote:Do you know Raffles? They have consistantly refused to explain their sudden and complete change of opinion,just because one has fallen out with a forum owner one doesnt completey change an opinion from one side to the opposite but they did and have never explained why.

Raffle wrote:

WOODWARD wrote:CLARITY ,Do you know why bonnybraes,janz and co suddenly went over to the dakside when they left 3A,S. ?

Who cares? Forum wars are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo last week for goodness sake.Move on.

Majic wrote:

Raffle wrote:

WOODWARD wrote:CLARITY ,Do you know why bonnybraes,janz and co suddenly went over to the dakside when they left 3A,S. ?

Who cares? Forum wars are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo last week for goodness sake.Move on.

Brenda calls it a forum war, but if it truly was just a forum war then the national press would not be involved would they ? She trivialises it by calling it a forum war to try and appease any members who are still completely in the dark about what they have been up to collectively.

WOODWARD wrote:Baconbutty,you put it so much better than I did ,it really is a mystery. Just as odd is the behaviour of their erstwhile friend who.I fully agree with you,should never be allowed to run a forum again after her disgraceful breaches of the data protection act. On Bren.s newforum she has blatantly posted up the most nauseating ,fawning piece of you tube mcpropaganda under the pretext of critcizing Tony Bennett as though she needed such a vehicle when she insults him daily on MM forum. What do all these converts have in common apart from their admitted contacts with clarrie and carter -ruck?

WOODWARD wrote:Propaganda propogated by proper PR propagandists on behalf of the parents and friends of a neglected missing little girl whos surname is prefixed by Mc . Do you think it will make it into the next edition of the OED?