Sergey Malinka took pictures of Madeleine McCann on the beach?

by ufercoffy 15.11.10 9:27

http://the-elite-and-child-abduction.blogspot.com/2009/12/did-sergey-malika-took-pictures-of.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-540909/Murat-friend-quizzed-Madeleine-finds-car-torched--word-speak-scrawled-it.html

by Avery 15.11.10 13:41

Why are you bringing up a bunch of discredited garbage of questionable source. It was proven there was no child pornography on Murats computer. All lies about these two who did receive settlements. I think it should be taken down from this site as I do not think it should repeat slander. Who are you to want to republish this nonsense?

by Guest 15.11.10 14:09

OK I have deleted the copied article, link is there.

by Daoud 15.11.10 15:01

Avery wrote:Why are you bringing up a bunch of discredited garbage of questionable source. It was proven there was no child pornography on Murats computer. All lies about these two who did receive settlements. I think it should be taken down from this site as I do not think it should repeat slander. Who are you to want to republish this nonsense?

Hi Avery,
There's no denying the fact that Malinka's car was set on fire - do you have an expalanation for that? Or the word 'FALA' scrawled on the pavement? And don't forget the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas 9 received settlements - do you therefore not question anything they have said? If so just about everything on this site should be 'taken down'. Is that your intention?

by Judge Mental 15.11.10 15:13

@ Avery

One believes that on balance, the scales would weigh in favour of Daoud's posting.

by soulthief 15.11.10 16:30

Why did Malinka and Murat give differing time scales of when and what they spoke about? Malinka said it was almost a year over a web site. Cant recall what Murat said but do recall it was different. Not sure on this next bit, but were the pair of them not accused of cleaning their hard drives of their pc's?

by Guest 15.11.10 18:11

I had heard that Malinka had cleaned his hard drive but dont know if that is rumour or fact but it would appear he may be involved in some way due to the car being torched and the warning that was given imo

by Avery 15.11.10 23:28

Cherry wrote:I had heard that Malinka had cleaned his hard drive but dont know if that is rumour or fact but it would appear he may be involved in some way due to the car being torched and the warning that was given imo

There is no evidence that the torching of his car had anything to do with the Madeleine case. It is all speculation. We have no idea what he might have been involved in that he might not want the police snooping around. Again no evidence it had anything to do with Madeleine. Do we even know if he cleaned his hard drive of is it just another planted story to discredit. I cleaned my hard drive because I got a virus, does that make me a criminal.

by Guest 15.11.10 23:34

Thats why I said he may be involved not he was involved. I dont know either way but cannot be discounted as a mere coincidence imo.

by Avery 16.11.10 2:32

Daoud wrote:
Avery wrote:Why are you bringing up a bunch of discredited garbage of questionable source. It was proven there was no child pornography on Murats computer. All lies about these two who did receive settlements. I think it should be taken down from this site as I do not think it should repeat slander. Who are you to want to republish this nonsense?

Hi Avery,
There's no denying the fact that Malinka's car was set on fire - do you have an expalanation for that? Or the word 'FALA' scrawled on the pavement? And don't forget the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas 9 received settlements - do you therefore not question anything they have said? If so just about everything on this site should be 'taken down'. Is that your intention?

I had heard that his car had been set on fire once before. Long before the Madeleine case. Until I read a police report that suggests that Malinka may be involved and some evidence of that involvement I will not go down the path falsely incriminating him. There is factual evidence of police questioning the McCanns and the Tapas group and reporting that they lied to them. Hence we are free to question their accounts and veracity.

You should consider taking a philosophy course. They have them in logic. You could use it. as your reasoning ability is a bit off.

by Avery 16.11.10 2:38

Judge Mental wrote:@ Avery

One believes that on balance, the scales would weigh in favour of Daoud's posting.

And just how do the scales weigh in favour of someone who can't reason in a logical manner.

by soulthief 16.11.10 7:54

What's your opinion Avery? Of the whole shenanigans form the 3rd of May onwards?

by Judge Mental 16.11.10 14:10

Avery wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:@ Avery

One believes that on balance, the scales would weigh in favour of Daoud's posting.

And just how do the scales weigh in favour of someone who can't reason in a logical manner.

Sergey Malinka took pictures of Madeleine McCann on the beach? 234726

I see, sir, you are liberal in offers
You taught me first to beg; and now methinks
You teach me how a beggar should be answer'd.

One's own reason and logic in law; with Madeleine's case; with fellow posters; and all else, would usually commence with something along the lines of this quote below. However, this does not prevent one from continuing to ask questions simply because it appears to have been put to bed or lain to rest.

''Therefore prepare thee to cut off the flesh.
Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more
But just a pound of flesh: if thou cut'st more
Or less than a just pound, be it but so much
As makes it light or heavy in the substance,
Or the division of the twentieth part
Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn
But in the estimation of a hair,
Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate.''

by soulthief 16.11.10 14:16

Merchant of Venice Judge? I get the feeling someone is wanting a fight...not you of course

by Judge Mental 16.11.10 17:36

soulthief wrote:Merchant of Venice Judge? I get the feeling someone is wanting a fight...not you of course

Of sourse not, soulthief. Of course not. One will monitor the situation awhile, in case somebody is simply having a bad hair day. However, one's finger will be quivering and hovering in anticipation of any displays of bad manners during the McCanns uneasy time.

Regarding the Merchant of Venice, one has to say without sounding sexist that Portia's measure of the law would have put many male lawyers to shame had she continued in her career. One often wonders if Wills had based her character upon a real woman who had indeed pulled off such a cunning stunt.

by Daoud 16.11.10 18:15

My dear Avery,
I'm so sorry that you stubbed your toe on my earlier post - once the pain has subsided I look forward to hearing a more considered response. It was not my intention to pick a fight but merely to apply your standards to other matters discussed here (and in the interests of harmonious discussion I made no reference to your confusing slander with libel - now that you have identified yourself as a master of Logic and Philosophy, I feel no such compunction).

As for my taking a Philosophy course - well if my reasoning ability is as off as you state, that would do me as much good as a course on Musical Appreciation were I tone deaf, but I think I understand your point...

But to return to the topic: you say that there is no evidence for the burning of Malinka's car being connected to Madeleine's disappearance - fair enough, but that isn't an explanation of why it was burned, nor do you provide any sources for your conclusions. More than your word is needed on this, and some substantiation of your claims would certainly be welcome.

The only other of my questions that you address is the one about not questioning the T9's statements because they received settlements. Your response was:

There is factual evidence of police questioning the McCanns and the Tapas group and reporting that they lied to them.

Again a source for the PJ reporting that the T9 lied to them would be appreciated (and Tony Bennett has written a whole essay on RM's apparent lies to the PJ - but maybe they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance and so are beyond scrutiny).

From your response quoted above, are we to assume that only those statements which the PJ themselves have questioned may be questioned by others?

ps I'd love to hear your ideas on reasoning in an illogical manner - a paradox worthy of Bertrand Russell himself, so I'm all ears!

by soulthief 16.11.10 19:31

Judge Mental wrote:
soulthief wrote:Merchant of Venice Judge? I get the feeling someone is wanting a fight...not you of course

Of sourse not, soulthief. Of course not. One will monitor the situation awhile, in case somebody is simply having a bad hair day. However, one's finger will be quivering and hovering in anticipation of any displays of bad manners during the McCanns uneasy time.

Regarding the Merchant of Venice, one has to say without sounding sexist that Portia's measure of the law would have put many male lawyers to shame had she continued in her career. One often wonders if Wills had based her character upon a real woman who had indeed pulled off such a cunning stunt.

@ McCanns uneasy time.

by Judge Mental 16.11.10 19:51

by Avery 16.11.10 23:01

Daoud wrote:My dear Avery,
I'm so sorry that you stubbed your toe on my earlier post - once the pain has subsided I look forward to hearing a more considered response. It was not my intention to pick a fight but merely to apply your standards to other matters discussed here (and in the interests of harmonious discussion I made no reference to your confusing slander with libel - now that you have identified yourself as a master of Logic and Philosophy, I feel no such compunction).

As for my taking a Philosophy course - well if my reasoning ability is as off as you state, that would do me as much good as a course on Musical Appreciation were I tone deaf, but I think I understand your point...

But to return to the topic: you say that there is no evidence for the burning of Malinka's car being connected to Madeleine's disappearance - fair enough, but that isn't an explanation of why it was burned, nor do you provide any sources for your conclusions. More than your word is needed on this, and some substantiation of your claims would certainly be welcome.

The only other of my questions that you address is the one about not questioning the T9's statements because they received settlements. Your response was:

There is factual evidence of police questioning the McCanns and the Tapas group and reporting that they lied to them.

Again a source for the PJ reporting that the T9 lied to them would be appreciated (and Tony Bennett has written a whole essay on RM's apparent lies to the PJ - but maybe they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance and so are beyond scrutiny).

From your response quoted above, are we to assume that only those statements which the PJ themselves have questioned may be questioned by others?

ps I'd love to hear your ideas on reasoning in an illogical manner - a paradox worthy of Bertrand Russell himself, so I'm all ears!

I believe there was testimony at the January libel trial that the Tapas nine lied in their statements to the police regarding the timeline.

Sorry if I snapped at you but I really do lose patience when people try to use false reasoning to make a point. Yes the McCanns and Tapas received out of court settlements. That does not mean that what the papers reported was ALL false, only one story or fact need be unproven to force such a settlement. Your argument that I must abandon ALL questioning of the McCanns because SOME of the things written were untrue is of course absurd and childish.

Sorry I am not going to engage in anymore discussions as you seem to only enjoy twisting in a psuedo intellectual fashion. I am not baffled by bullshit and namedropping.

by Daoud 17.11.10 7:21

Avery wrote:
Yes the McCanns and Tapas received out of court settlements. That does not mean that what the papers reported was ALL false, only one story or fact need be unproven to force such a settlement.
Your argument that I must abandon ALL questioning of the McCanns because SOME of the things written were untrue is of course absurd and childish.

It would indeed be absurd and childish, but as I didn't make that argument it's hardly relevant; you really seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. But you're right about one thing, there's is no point continuing this exchange of posts (hardly a discussion) - ad hominem arguments and straw men are unlikely to lead to anything productive.