Re: Matt Oldfields 'check'

by notlongnow 27.10.13 21:26

Hi Nick..yes i agree.

by Jackie Regan 27.10.13 21:47

NickE wrote:Did Oldfield have a rental car this day?

Do you mean May3rd??

by NickE 27.10.13 21:53

Jackie Regan wrote:
NickE wrote:Did Oldfield have a rental car this day?

Do you mean May3rd??

Yes.

by Hicks 27.10.13 22:02

NickE wrote:
Jackie Regan wrote:
NickE wrote:Did Oldfield have a rental car this day?

Do you mean May3rd??
Yes.

Was it a brown car?

by suzyjohnson 27.10.13 23:43

Fierljepper, I used to think along those lines, but it doesn't explain the evidence of the dogs. Have you read Pat Brown on the Daily Profiler web page? She gives a good explanation for quite a few things that initially seem impossible.

by Fierljepper 28.10.13 11:13

suzyjohnson wrote:Fierljepper, I used to think along those lines, but it doesn't explain the evidence of the dogs. Have you read Pat Brown on the Daily Profiler web page? She gives a good explanation for quite a few things that initially seem impossible.

Have read quite few of her articles and must honestly say that I am utterly unimpressed. She comes across as completely biased and doesn't provide a single bit of hard evidence that could incriminate the McCanns. I actually believe that Pat should be careful not to be sewed for making such strong personal attacks against the McCanns without any substance underpinning her claims. The problem is that she presents herself as a criminal profiler, i.e. as an expert in the field. Well, profiling is more of an art than a science and based on this 'expertise' she has taken a too firm position in which she has now totally entrenched herself. This tunnel vision is re-enforced by the fact that she has gone public as an expert and also now collected a group of followers. So, she now is in a position that her strongly (and very cynically, not objectively/fact-based) defended position is the only religion she can continue to spread. There is no face-saver left for her to switch opinion and she probably must feel relieved that the Redwood team did not come up (yet!) with harder evidence. So her rant about the Redwood investigation fits perfectly in the profiling I just did of her...

Take this quote as a good example: "So, where is this new evidence coming from? If the McCanns aren't involved in the disappearance of their daughter, there are only three possibilities for abduction: sex predator, child sex ring, and abduction for adoption."

The consistent undertone is: the McCann's are guilty, but for the sake of the argument let's assume for a crazy moment they are not guilty (***Pat shivers***), then the alternatives are laughably unlikely, hence the McCanns must be guilty. That sounds like somebody talking to herself imo...

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 11:39

Hi, didn't expect that response :)

I have always thought that what Pat had to say was worth consideration.

Anyway Fierljepper, I always think it's good to keep an open mind on things isn't it? I always think there is a chance the McCanns were not involved in MM's disappearance, although I suspect they were. It's good to consider all the options.

by Fierljepper 28.10.13 12:00

suzyjohnson wrote:Hi, didn't expect that response :)

I have always thought that what Pat had to say was worth consideration.

Anyway Fierljepper, I always think it's good to keep an open mind on things isn't it? I always think there is a chance the McCanns were not involved in MM's disappearance, although I suspect they were. It's good to consider all the options.

Fully agree, Suzy. And also want to let you know that I really do appreciate the balanced and 'gentle yet effective' tone of your posts smilie

A few years ago I have been very active on the Natalee Holloway case (due to its Dutch connection) and have been amazed about how 'religious opinions' divided entire Internet forums into separated camps with 'religiously moderated censorship' that were constantly throwing bricks at each other. This experience has now turned me into a sniffing dog that is trained to immediate smell the scent of bias substantiated into self-censored religious dogmas that are strongly defended by self proclaimed 'expert' leaders...

by NickE 29.10.13 6:26

I'm sure Mr. Oldfield knows more than he says.

by suzyjohnson 29.10.13 13:31

Fierljepper wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:Hi, didn't expect that response :)

I have always thought that what Pat had to say was worth consideration.

Anyway Fierljepper, I always think it's good to keep an open mind on things isn't it? I always think there is a chance the McCanns were not involved in MM's disappearance, although I suspect they were. It's good to consider all the options.
Fully agree, Suzy. And also want to let you know that I really do appreciate the balanced and 'gentle yet effective' tone of your posts

Thanks Fierljepper

Log in for more topics