Re: So the Game has Changed (Updated post now added)

by aiyoyo 01.09.11 18:20

At the end of the day, it's the court judges opinions that matter.

Have their cult disciples ever wonder why their leaders, the mccanns, didnt dare to carter ruck the Portugul Court judges who said that Amaral and operative colleagues' works and thesis were valid since they are experts in their field; and prosecutor's opinion is just that - subjective to prosecutor-in-question only and not the be all and end all? Would it be because they're not that convinced about their self-proclaimed exoneration?

by lj 01.09.11 20:22

aiyoyo wrote:I wonder how that thuggish dutch is related to mccanns?
To resort to threaten people on mccanns' behalf must mean they were bonded like conjoined twins.

by Gillyspot 01.09.11 20:28

lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I wonder how that thuggish dutch is related to mccanns?
To resort to threaten people on mccanns' behalf must mean they were bonded like conjoined twins.

Aiyoyo means Chicane is the "thuggish dutch" (person). Not you and not the whole country. I am sure there are other mindless idiots in Holland as we certainly have in the UK.

by lj 01.09.11 23:18

The relation that the "thuggish dutch" has with the McCanns is that apparently they are all British.

All the Dutch I know hope that in the future you keep these type of people on the island.

by littlepixie 02.09.11 1:07

I am surprised at how many husband and wife teams there seem to be that support the McCanns. I remember a few from 3AS (weren't a couple mods?). Then there was the acid tongued lady who had her thread full of "sparkly angels" and "healing" who had many followers and was someones' Gran and her husband travelled.

by Me 05.09.11 12:48

Latest nugget from the black hole forum:

They really hate when it is pointed out to them that the McCanns have been cleared and are innocent.
It's that simple inarguable fact that makes 99% of what they say libelous.
Witness the big rigamarole of trying to deny that fact through judicious use of circular logic and cognitive dissonance.
The Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail, ITV, BBC, Sky, The Mirror, The Guardian and the other few hundred thousand sources VS. Anonymous haters on the Internet.
Hmmmm.....which to choose....?

Despite this poster attempting valiantly to demonstrate he has taken possession of the forum’s brain cell for the week, he ultimately suffers an epic fail because of his failure to grasp / understand / stick his fingers in his ears and hope it will all go away, some fairly basic truths and concepts.

Allow me to try and spell it out clearly for him / them once again.

In the eyes of the law the McCann’s are, at this moment in time, “innocent” because there hasn’t been sufficient evidence brought before a court to attempt to prove their guilt.

That means as it stands right now they are “innocent”. That’s without getting into the issue of why there isn’t more evidence available, that’s another story.

Had these people on that forum been able to read properly they would have seen the parts of my posts where I readily state this, absolutely and unequivocally.

However as the Prosecutor’s report, a Portuguese Judge and a UK assistant chief constable pointed out they haven’t been cleared or exonerated from suspicion in the case precisely because of their refusal to cooperate further in the investigation.

There is a huge difference between the two positions that this forum dimwit (and the overuse of a thesaurus doesn’t fool anyone) is either unable or unwilling to accept.

Remember that this poster specifically used the word “cleared” and if you look at the Prosecutor’s report and the Assistant Chief Constable’s report to a UK court they explicitly state they have not been “cleared”.

So despite the information being there in black and white direct from two sources they still believe they have been “cleared”.

You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Given recent events I don’t think it’s too wise to be championing the street of shame as some kind of barometer of truthfulness and justice!

Irrespective of that I don’t need to rely on some journalist’s spin or newspaper’s editorial line to provide me with my opinions.

I’d rather look at the information myself and draw my own conclusions. Still it provides valuable insight in to the way the Pro’s arrive at their conclusions.

It can be summarised along the lines of “If it’s in the newspapers then it must be true”.

Oh dear.