Re: One coherent theory apart from abduction

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:06

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 17:08

DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

And, the closing statement by PP/AG - ie that Maddie is likely dead? Which incidentally her parents did not object!

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:09

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:(why is the thread now in italics again????)

[For the New Black according to one poster (can't recall name)]!

It happened after you posted in italics.

Oh! apologies. It's easier for differentiation imho.

I think you must be changing some global setting rather than just highlighting the text you want in italics and clicking the I button.

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:10

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

And, the closing statement by PP/AG - ie that Maddie is likely dead? Which incidentally her parents did not object!

More likely dead is in fact stated - by who hands is not stated.

by Old Nick 03.01.10 17:13

Did Tavares put forward a coherent theory in his Interim report? I would LOVE to read it. Can anyone reproduce it here please?

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:17

Old Nick wrote:Did Tavares put forward a coherent theory in his Interim report? I would LOVE to read it. Can anyone reproduce it here please?

See GAs book.

by Guest 03.01.10 17:19

DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

And, the closing statement by PP/AG - ie that Maddie is likely dead? Which incidentally her parents did not object!

More likely dead is in fact stated - by who hands is not stated.

So why are they suing Mr.Amaral if that is what is stated. The reason they give is that people will not search if they think she is dead??

by Old Nick 03.01.10 17:20

Is there a coherent theory in Dr Amaral's book?

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 17:21

DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

And, the closing statement by PP/AG - ie that Maddie is likely dead? Which incidentally her parents did not object!

More likely dead is in fact stated - by who hands is not stated.

That's true, but without irrefutable evidence on the suspected parents, the PP/AG would be stupid to spoil their position with further inclusion comment. What else is in the unreleased files no one knows but a larger propotion was held back.

Since her parents were last persons with her and with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support abduction, which way can people deduce? It's inevitable where the answer fells, not saying it's absolute, but pretty high percentage!

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:24

candyfloss wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

And, the closing statement by PP/AG - ie that Maddie is likely dead? Which incidentally her parents did not object!

More likely dead is in fact stated - by who hands is not stated.

So why are they suing Mr.Amaral if that is what is stated. The reason they give is that people will not search if they think she is dead??

How many interviews did GA do (and in fact is still doing) for the press and on TV? Did GA not make a documentary for TV?

I don't recall the Portuguese authorities repeating the same things over and over again week and week.

I don't recall the Portuguese authorities making an official documentary for TV.

And who knows - after GA maybe the authorities are next?

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:26

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:How did it happen then?[i]

How did what happen? Abduction?

Could it be - it DIDN'T happen, hence no 'how' - simple as that

No - this thread is about a theory apart from abduction. It was you that said there is an alternative thesis.

Oh, you mean you missed the obvious "Tavares' Report" or plain refusal to acknowledge it?

I have read and fully acknowledge the first interim report.

I have also read the second interim report.

The final summary by the PJ.

And the archiving despatch by the PP/AG.

And, the closing statement by PP/AG - ie that Maddie is likely dead? Which incidentally her parents did not object!

More likely dead is in fact stated - by who hands is not stated.

That's true, but without irrefutable evidence on the suspected parents, the PP/AG would be stupid to spoil their position with further inclusion comment. What else is in the unreleased files no one knows but a larger propotion was held back.

Since her parents were last persons with her and with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support abduction, which way can people deduce? It's inevitable where the answer fells, not saying it's absolute, but pretty high percentage!

Apparently not a high enough percentage to take them to court and secure a conviction. I know what I deduce from that - that there may be a chance that something else really did happen.

by Guest 03.01.10 17:28

As is usual, no one has come up with a plausible theory as to how the McCanns accidentally killed their daughter and what they did afterwards.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 17:59

[quote="DCB1]

Apparently not a high enough percentage to take them to court and secure a conviction. I know what I deduce from that - that there may be a chance that something else really did happen.[/quote]

Like what? Not going to chant the same abduction mantra are you?

Where is one coherent reason?

by Autumn 03.01.10 18:01

aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:02

aiyoyo wrote:[quote="DCB1]

Apparently not a high enough percentage to take them to court and secure a conviction. I know what I deduce from that - that there may be a chance that something else really did happen.

Like what? Not going to chant the same abduction mantra are you?

Where is one coherent reason?[/quote]

Read the thread title. If you don't want to discuss it - then don't.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:02

Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:05

The heading of this thread is not misleading at all. It is an opportunity to provide theories for comment and discussion.

The very people who are knocking abduction are the very people who are knocking this thread.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 18:06

DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

Another? Explain yourself!

By the same token, are you another Team Mccann going around with a stick?

by Autumn 03.01.10 18:06

DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

I am not a member of any team so quit the childish comments. I formed my opinions long before ever hearing of Tony Bennett, as did many of us who do not believe the McCanns fairystories.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:08

Autumn wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

I am not a member of any team so quit the childish comments. I formed my opinions long before ever hearing of Tony Bennett, as did many of us who do not believe the McCanns fairystories.

Then this is the exact thread for you isn't it?

Your theory for discussion please.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:11

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

Another? Explain yourself!

By the same token, are you another Team Mccann going around with a stick?

Yes - why not - how many times has the leader of Team Bennett referred to anyone who disagrees with him and his team member as Team Mccann. The difference is - I didn't pay £10.

I don't have a big stick. The continuous repetition of the same things on every single thread is well........

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 18:26

DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

by vaguely 03.01.10 18:28

did we get a coherent parental involvement theory yet?

by Old Nick 03.01.10 18:36

There's one in Dr Amaral's book apparently.

by Guest 03.01.10 18:41

Errr ... No. And don't ask me to put it up, I tried and failed long time ago.
But it seems there's people who still hang on to non-abduction theories, yet they can't tell who, when, why, how, with whose help etc.

@ Old Nick that's why he's getting sued for libel, GA's theory isn't coherent nor corroborated by evidence.

by Guest 03.01.10 18:46

Molly wrote:Errr ... No. And don't ask me to put it up, I tried and failed long time ago.
But it seems there's people who still hang on to non-abduction theories, yet they can't tell who, when, why, how, with whose help etc.

@ Old Nick that's why he's getting sued for libel, GA's theory isn't coherent nor corroborated by evidence.

I thought he was getting sued for his information from the files, which is that Madeleine is more likely to be dead. The McCanns are suing him for saying this, and that it has greatly distressed them, and may hinder the search for Madeleine, even though they have admitted themselves this may be the case, and Clarence Mitchell has also said the same.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:47

aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

by Old Nick 03.01.10 18:47

Oh. Well if Dr Amaral can't provide a coherent theory then surely someone else can?

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 19:08

DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

It's true, but I happened to click on it and did see it and that was how it came across!

No offense but are people supposed to avoid any particular poster's thread - how is that going to help healthy debate ? Or am I mistaken and that you meant your thread to be one-sided, and any dissent is going to beget that sort of answer?

by Guest 03.01.10 19:14

candyfloss wrote:
Molly wrote:Errr ... No. And don't ask me to put it up, I tried and failed long time ago.
But it seems there's people who still hang on to non-abduction theories, yet they can't tell who, when, why, how, with whose help etc.

@ Old Nick that's why he's getting sued for libel, GA's theory isn't coherent nor corroborated by evidence.

I thought he was getting sued for his information from the files, which is that Madeleine is more likely to be dead. The McCanns are suing him for saying this, and that it has greatly distressed them, and may hinder the search for Madeleine, even though they have admitted themselves this may be the case, and Clarence Mitchell has also said the same.

Saying that she's more likely dead isn't libelous, though it might harm the search for a living child if everybody get's convinced by him she's dead.
It's what he's said/suggested about Madeleine dying in the apartment and parental involvement into her death or hiding of her body (his non-coherent theory which isn't corroborated by evidence) that's caused the libel suit and the injunction.

Latest topics