Justice or Whitewash?

Realist wrote:

The findings of the dogs indicate to me that there was a corpse in the McCann's apt. In the vein that there was no history of anyone else dying in the aforementioned, it is a violent presumption that it was that of their daughter, Madeleine.

Nevertheless, in legal terms, this cannot be classified as evidence, only an indication for the reasons previously stated. I am certainly not a McCann sympathiser, but by the same hypothesis, neither am I a fantasist and am only interested in reality, hence my chosen username.

whodunit wrote:


You must be new

Again, you appear to exhibit signs of speculative conclusions without first checking the facts. I actually joined this forum in 2013, a couple of yrs. prior to your good self. Maybe, Ladyinred would be willing to confirm this if you care to check with her.


. A little advice: If you wish to be mistaken for a sincere person, you should scale back your use of words and phrases like 'wild conspiracy theories' and 'fantasists'. At least try and restrain yourself to every other post instead of  unleashing each time your fingers hit the keyboard. Oh, and stop pretending to be so concerned that we will be dismissed as 'cranks'.

Maybe I should add 'authoritarian' to my other adjectives.

"Had the test results been conclusive, undoubtably the McCanns would have been charged at the time."

You're hilarious.

I'm not sure I understand what you are intimating here by describing me as being hilarious. You appear to be inferring that my assertion that had the tests been conclusive, the McCanns would undoubtably have been charged as a ridiculous statement.

Why, there may even be a school of thought who would subscribe to this as being somewhat ambiguous at best and hypocritical at worst, particularly in the vein that you appear to be advocating the indictment of the McCanns on the findings of the dogs, even although the laboratory tests were inconclusive. 

The object of the exercise is not to convince others of the guilt of the McCanns, everyone already knows this, even Clarence Mitchell, but to prove their guilt. This will not be achieved by muddying the waters with unsubstantiated claims of paedophiles, swingers pimps, comic singers et al. The only people suggestions of paedophiles, negligence etc. will benefit are the McCanns. It is the McCanns who would have us believe paedophiles are involved, hence the abduction claim. It is the McCanns who would have us believe there was an element of negligence involved, because without the negligence aspect, there couldn't have been an abduction.

There is a direct conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, in that it is in the interests of the McCanns to infer negligence, but not in the case of their acquaintances, hence the contradictions in their statements.

BlueBag wrote:So anyone who looks at the shortlist of people who could have died in that apartment and left cadverine in all those places (and clothes) and is of the opinion it was MBM is a fantasist?

Wow... what kind of realist-->fantasist scale are you using? Are there any increments inbetween?