The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Why didn't you come last night...?

Page 6 of 25 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Guest on 21.03.12 10:58

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

I remember when I got Pat's book being quite surprised because it seemed like she didn't believe the McCann's had any involvement.. but actually what she is doing is building up her profile.. starting with facts then examining what are the possible scenarios and progressing with her profile as each chapter goes on.. it's only at the end she gets to her conclusions based on what has gone before... so anything taken out of context can be used to say anything.. I guess that's why links are not given... you don't have to backup what you say and others can't go and check what is being stated is the whole truth.. I personally find it really annoying....

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Lady-Heather on 21.03.12 12:22

Stewie wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

I remember when I got Pat's book being quite surprised because it seemed like she didn't believe the McCann's had any involvement.. but actually what she is doing is building up her profile.. starting with facts then examining what are the possible scenarios and progressing with her profile as each chapter goes on.. it's only at the end she gets to her conclusions based on what has gone before... so anything taken out of context can be used to say anything.. I guess that's why links are not given... you don't have to backup what you say and others can't go and check what is being stated is the whole truth.. I personally find it really annoying....


Indeed and a further attempt at misrepresentation IMO. In order to quote from the text, there must have been an awareness of the title of the source, so why not just state 'chapter/publication' so we could go read it for ourselves? Having read the book a number of times I knew that the quote was taken out of context, but there was the possibility that some who hadn't read it might actually accept that the author 'admits that they (the parents) could not have gone out to dinner & acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly', when in fact the profile concludes that the most likely scenario is that they were very involved from start to finish.
avatar
Lady-Heather

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 21.03.12 12:28

Stewie wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

I remember when I got Pat's book being quite surprised because it seemed like she didn't believe the McCann's had any involvement.. but actually what she is doing is building up her profile.. starting with facts then examining what are the possible scenarios and progressing with her profile as each chapter goes on.. it's only at the end she gets to her conclusions based on what has gone before... so anything taken out of context can be used to say anything.. I guess that's why links are not given... you don't have to backup what you say and others can't go and check what is being stated is the whole truth.. I personally find it really annoying....


Me too Stewie. Its getting so tiresome, same all the time.

Still, when logic and evidence go so stongly against the Pro-Abductionist's theories, I guess they have no choice but to grab hold of something, anything, that sounds remotely like it backs them up (even though it's taken out of context)... Just weakens their stance even further, IMO, if they have to resort to cherry-picking - like the infamous Archiving Report which 'clears the McCanns' (except it does no such thing)

Just an aside, I wonder what Pat Brown will think of Merrymo's assertion of what she believes? Maybe if she comes here soon she'll see and can tell us herself. I was almost tempted to start a new thread 'Pat Brown in 'I beleive Madeleine was Abducted Shocker' but thought better of it!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 21.03.12 12:34

@Lady-Heather wrote:
Stewie wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

I remember when I got Pat's book being quite surprised because it seemed like she didn't believe the McCann's had any involvement.. but actually what she is doing is building up her profile.. starting with facts then examining what are the possible scenarios and progressing with her profile as each chapter goes on.. it's only at the end she gets to her conclusions based on what has gone before... so anything taken out of context can be used to say anything.. I guess that's why links are not given... you don't have to backup what you say and others can't go and check what is being stated is the whole truth.. I personally find it really annoying....


Indeed and a further attempt at misrepresentation IMO. In order to quote from the text, there must have been an awareness of the title of the source, so why not just state 'chapter/publication' so we could go read it for ourselves? Having read the book a number of times I knew that the quote was taken out of context, but there was the possibility that some who hadn't read it might actually accept that the author 'admits that they (the parents) could not have gone out to dinner & acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly', when in fact the profile concludes that the most likely scenario is that they were very involved from start to finish.

Our posts crossed, Lady-Heather. I totally agree.

Just from reading Pat Brown's 'Criminal Profiling' topics I knew the quote must have been taken out of context. She wouldn't state two such contradictory conclusions anyway!

Unfortunately, I don't have a Kindle. I'd like to read it. I may not agree with all her conclusions about what happened, eg T.O.D, but I do think she has made some fantastic observations.

Perhaps that is why some seek to discredit her by posting misleading quotes?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by dentdelion on 21.03.12 16:10

You dont need a Kindle to read things that are ebooks. You can download some free software onto your PC / laptop to enable you to read ebooks.
avatar
dentdelion

Posts : 129
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by PeterMac on 21.03.12 16:28

for a Mac just click on

http://www.amazon.com/gp/kindle/mac/download
and it sets up a Kindle folder for you.
for a pc
www.amazon.com/gp/kindle/pc/download

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Merrymo on 21.03.12 18:18

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Stewie wrote:
@Lady-Heather wrote:If it helps, I have checked my Kindle version of Pat's book 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' and I can verify that the above is indeed quoted verbatim from 'Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing'.

I was just doing the same and indeed the quote is from that chapter. However, to use that quote out of context is quite selective as it is part of Pat building a theory chapter by chapter. She does believe that the emotions displayed by the Mccanns were real and showed they were in anguish... however she also states in that chapter , and I quote "the reasons for Kate and Gerry acting in such a fashion (kneeling on the floor praying and crying) can be debated (and I will discuss my views on this later in the profile).

So she is building a theory and at this point, chapter 3, she concludes the chapter by saying "Determinations thus far: 1. Madeleine went missing on 3 may 2007. 2. Madeleine went missing between 8.30 and 10pm that evening 3. the emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.


Subsequent chapters build up her theory.. so more useful to quote from her final profile determinations in chapter 10, where she has considered all elements and developed her final profile..

She repeats points 1 and 2 above.. but for point 3. she adds that the emotions were real, but they were the emotions of a scared person - two devastated parents who knew their child was not coming home. WE also saw emotions of defeat and odd kneeling and prostrating behaviour which are more signs of guild and seeking of forgiveness than any kind of hopeful outreach.
4. late person to claim to see MAdeleine alive between 8.30 and 10pm is gerry Mccann and it is likely that Gerry was the one that found and moved Madeleine's body to the beach
5. It is highly likely the group of friends (or most of them) knew that Madeleine had died in the apartment and helped Garry and Kate cover the crime by creating a timeline giving Gerry an alibi...etc

So her conclusions, after she has built up her profile, are very different picture from concluding that she believe they could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance..

Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

Rainbow may I just remind you that I made one small comment which I attributed to Pat Brown - i.e. 'Even Pat Brown didn't believe that'. You picked me up on that one comment and said you had read all her blogs but hadn't seen it and asked for a link. IOW you asked for proof.

I'm not able to do links so copied and pasted the relevent information for you to see, IOW I responded to your request.

I do not have the book in question and cannot therefore knowingly take anything 'out of context' or 'cherrypick' from it.

As far as I am concerned you asked for proof and I gave it to you. You did not ask for the whole book - just proof regarding the one claim which I had (quite correctly) attributed to Pat Brown and that is what I did.

I have no idea why you should feel the need to be so rude about me for simply doing that.

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by tuom on 21.03.12 20:18

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

aiyoyo Today at 10:05 am





Merrymo wrote
following my own comment that I did not believe the McCanns could have killed their daughter and then gone out and behaved normally -


Well. I beg to differ. We are not talking normal people here. We are talking extraordinary deceitful people who are narcissistic so I believe the mccanns can pretend nothing happens and put on an act for the world stage.
I believe them capable of acting normal and happy and in high spirits even after they had handled their "not alive" daughter and disposed of her.
Just look at photo of them laughing like larks 9 days later on Maddie's 4th b/day -is that normal? When according to them Maddie is supposed to have been taken by paedophile with kate visualizing what was been done to her 'perfect private parts"

Just look at the mccanns now - they continue to act and behave as if nothing has happened to her, that they are continuing to search for her even though they knew very well what they had done to her? Is that normal behaviour of parents who knew their child is "not alive"?

Ok, even if we grant them their abduction theory - is it normal behavior of parents with a missing child who can go jogging, market products, write a bewk about her ordeal (kate's ordeal and not Madeleine) hire PR and lawyers to spin and sue, and not got off their arse to search for her?

Fully agree with you !!

avatar
tuom

Posts : 531
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by lj on 22.03.12 1:17

Ah, Merrymo is back. Time to hear a humble apology for the lying in the US supreme court case.

I won't hold my breath.......................................................

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3322
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by aiyoyo on 22.03.12 1:59

That is why I agree with Dr Martin Roberts' analysis that she had died earlier than the timeline Pat Brown is looking at.
I know Police and Profiler have to work with the info and gradually available data to come to a theory; but who is to say the testimonies as provided by mccanns and chummies are the genuine in any way.

IF they can invent lies about window and she was taken etc etc they can invent lies about everything. Their dine out and checks on 3/5 is just their alibi for abduction nothing else. As for Maddie demise it is a different timeline altogether IMO.

IMV The cover up was premeditated ,and their 'cover up plan carried out, done and dusted" not within their charade timeline or they would be found out wouldn't they?
So to me the death must have happened earlier and they had time to dispose and get rid of evidence. In the time line they gave police there is hardly time for cadaverine development before Gerry carted her away, let alone explain how kate's pants of ganga got contaminated. I don't believe Kate was in contact with the cadaver post 3/5.

Their high spiritedness at the Tapas I put down to too many vino in their veins - that thing intoxicate you and even a depressed person can appear temporary gay and jolly, and maybe their high spirits appearance is for the benefit of witnesses.
One just needs to look at history of those perpetrators of homicide who came on national TV to make their appeal for info -- they appear normal, nonchalance, and some even capable of smiling for the cameras but they were later charged for the crime. History has proven perpetrators with a mind to hide their crime can and will act the way they want people to perceive them so as not to give their game away.
I believe the mccanns psychology is no different to any other normal human beings behavior when they found themselves in that situation.

The one certainty Police got correct is that she met her fate in the apt and they hid her.
IMO if the Police want to crack the crime they have to disbelieve their timeline, and re-establish mccanns' movements on the 3/5 prior to the charade time.
They are dealing with a very deviously clever pair and must think out of the box. They are not dealing with low IQ random psychopath or low IQ domestic homicide perpetrators. They are dealing with a pair determined to get ahead of the police - just look at the police manual found in their possession! When did they get the time to read that if Maddie died during the short 1-1/2 hour they were at Tapas Bar?
If the officially recorded timeline is correct it would mean before they could even sort out their emotion over the shock of their first born demise they were already calling the press.

I believe the mccanns cold and calculated but not to that blood curding extent that they could leave their own flesh and blood toddler out in the wilderness and elements the moment she gasp her last breathe.
To me that quick dump scenario is the norm of stranger homicide, but domestic homicide, sorry I find it hard to stomach.
As usual all just my opinion of course.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 22.03.12 7:17

@Merrymo wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Stewie wrote:
@Lady-Heather wrote:If it helps, I have checked my Kindle version of Pat's book 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' and I can verify that the above is indeed quoted verbatim from 'Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing'.

I was just doing the same and indeed the quote is from that chapter. However, to use that quote out of context is quite selective as it is part of Pat building a theory chapter by chapter. She does believe that the emotions displayed by the Mccanns were real and showed they were in anguish... however she also states in that chapter , and I quote "the reasons for Kate and Gerry acting in such a fashion (kneeling on the floor praying and crying) can be debated (and I will discuss my views on this later in the profile).

So she is building a theory and at this point, chapter 3, she concludes the chapter by saying "Determinations thus far: 1. Madeleine went missing on 3 may 2007. 2. Madeleine went missing between 8.30 and 10pm that evening 3. the emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.


Subsequent chapters build up her theory.. so more useful to quote from her final profile determinations in chapter 10, where she has considered all elements and developed her final profile..

She repeats points 1 and 2 above.. but for point 3. she adds that the emotions were real, but they were the emotions of a scared person - two devastated parents who knew their child was not coming home. WE also saw emotions of defeat and odd kneeling and prostrating behaviour which are more signs of guild and seeking of forgiveness than any kind of hopeful outreach.
4. late person to claim to see MAdeleine alive between 8.30 and 10pm is gerry Mccann and it is likely that Gerry was the one that found and moved Madeleine's body to the beach
5. It is highly likely the group of friends (or most of them) knew that Madeleine had died in the apartment and helped Garry and Kate cover the crime by creating a timeline giving Gerry an alibi...etc

So her conclusions, after she has built up her profile, are very different picture from concluding that she believe they could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance..

Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

Rainbow may I just remind you that I made one small comment which I attributed to Pat Brown - i.e. 'Even Pat Brown didn't believe that'. You picked me up on that one comment and said you had read all her blogs but hadn't seen it and asked for a link. IOW you asked for proof.

I'm not able to do links so copied and pasted the relevent information for you to see, IOW I responded to your request.

I do not have the book in question and cannot therefore knowingly take anything 'out of context' or 'cherrypick' from it.

As far as I am concerned you asked for proof and I gave it to you. You did not ask for the whole book - just proof regarding the one claim which I had (quite correctly) attributed to Pat Brown and that is what I did.

I have no idea why you should feel the need to be so rude about me for simply doing that.
I would love you to explain how it is 'so rude of me' to (rightly) point out the fact (as a couple of other posters have also) that you selectively chose one paragraph out of a whole e-book to back up your assertions that the McCanns couldn't possibly had anything to do with what happened to Madeleine. As Stewie pointed out, paragraph by paragraph, that this was a 'thinking out loud' way of building her FINAL THEORY. Presumably so even the dimmest reader can follow her train of thought. You knew full well it wasn't her conclusion. That is selective. That is, indeed, 'cherry-picking'.
Look at this pair of sentences.
'I find it just about impossible to believe that my son killed his dog'. 'However, sadly, the evidence proves I was wrong'
If you take off the bolded sentence, the meaning becomes very different.
Two things puzzle me Merrymo.
1)You said you couldn't do a link for me, but that you copy and pasted me the 'proof I requested (no, link). You say you don't have the book so can't take sentences out of context, so WHERE did you C+P it from? Why not give me the link (or name of site/blog) where you got it from? Simple, no?
2)Why, despite the fact I've even bold-texted it for you several times now, you can't (or won't) get my name right? I am NOT 'Rainbow' - there was a poster here with that name many moons ago - but not me. I personally find it rude when people can't be bothered to use each others names properly. I've always addressed you as 'Merrymo' (though I've been tempted by other names a few times). Is it too much to expect you to afford the same courtesy?
I haven't been rude to you Merrymo. I've been very patient with you thus far...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Guest on 22.03.12 9:33

Well said Rainbow-Fairy and others. This does illustrate clearly how misunderstandings arise when remarks are taken out of context. I was wondering why the McCanns and their supporters have objected to Pat Brown's book if she came to the conclusion that they were not involved!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Merrymo on 22.03.12 10:15

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Merrymo wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Stewie wrote:
@Lady-Heather wrote:If it helps, I have checked my Kindle version of Pat's book 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' and I can verify that the above is indeed quoted verbatim from 'Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing'.

I was just doing the same and indeed the quote is from that chapter. However, to use that quote out of context is quite selective as it is part of Pat building a theory chapter by chapter. She does believe that the emotions displayed by the Mccanns were real and showed they were in anguish... however she also states in that chapter , and I quote "the reasons for Kate and Gerry acting in such a fashion (kneeling on the floor praying and crying) can be debated (and I will discuss my views on this later in the profile).

So she is building a theory and at this point, chapter 3, she concludes the chapter by saying "Determinations thus far: 1. Madeleine went missing on 3 may 2007. 2. Madeleine went missing between 8.30 and 10pm that evening 3. the emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.


Subsequent chapters build up her theory.. so more useful to quote from her final profile determinations in chapter 10, where she has considered all elements and developed her final profile..

She repeats points 1 and 2 above.. but for point 3. she adds that the emotions were real, but they were the emotions of a scared person - two devastated parents who knew their child was not coming home. WE also saw emotions of defeat and odd kneeling and prostrating behaviour which are more signs of guild and seeking of forgiveness than any kind of hopeful outreach.
4. late person to claim to see MAdeleine alive between 8.30 and 10pm is gerry Mccann and it is likely that Gerry was the one that found and moved Madeleine's body to the beach
5. It is highly likely the group of friends (or most of them) knew that Madeleine had died in the apartment and helped Garry and Kate cover the crime by creating a timeline giving Gerry an alibi...etc

So her conclusions, after she has built up her profile, are very different picture from concluding that she believe they could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance..

Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

Rainbow may I just remind you that I made one small comment which I attributed to Pat Brown - i.e. 'Even Pat Brown didn't believe that'. You picked me up on that one comment and said you had read all her blogs but hadn't seen it and asked for a link. IOW you asked for proof.

I'm not able to do links so copied and pasted the relevent information for you to see, IOW I responded to your request.

I do not have the book in question and cannot therefore knowingly take anything 'out of context' or 'cherrypick' from it.

As far as I am concerned you asked for proof and I gave it to you. You did not ask for the whole book - just proof regarding the one claim which I had (quite correctly) attributed to Pat Brown and that is what I did.

I have no idea why you should feel the need to be so rude about me for simply doing that.
I would love you to explain how it is 'so rude of me' to (rightly) point out the fact (as a couple of other posters have also) that you selectively chose one paragraph out of a whole e-book to back up your assertions that the McCanns couldn't possibly had anything to do with what happened to Madeleine. As Stewie pointed out, paragraph by paragraph, that this was a 'thinking out loud' way of building her FINAL THEORY. Presumably so even the dimmest reader can follow her train of thought. You knew full well it wasn't her conclusion. That is selective. That is, indeed, 'cherry-picking'.
Look at this pair of sentences.
'I find it just about impossible to believe that my son killed his dog'. 'However, sadly, the evidence proves I was wrong'
If you take off the bolded sentence, the meaning becomes very different.
Two things puzzle me Merrymo.
1)You said you couldn't do a link for me, but that you copy and pasted me the 'proof I requested (no, link). You say you don't have the book so can't take sentences out of context, so WHERE did you C+P it from? Why not give me the link (or name of site/blog) where you got it from? Simple, no?
2)Why, despite the fact I've even bold-texted it for you several times now, you can't (or won't) get my name right? I am NOT 'Rainbow' - there was a poster here with that name many moons ago - but not me. I personally find it rude when people can't be bothered to use each others names properly. I've always addressed you as 'Merrymo' (though I've been tempted by other names a few times). Is it too much to expect you to afford the same courtesy?
I haven't been rude to you Merrymo. I've been very patient with you thus far...

Rainbow-fairy - (sorry missed your bold text clues re your name) However, to repeat once again - I posted the specific information which answered your specific query. Full stop. I was not aware anything further was required from me at that time.

How can I cherry pick from a book I have never read, do not own and therefore have no idea which parts I have not selected? I would have to have the book in my possession to do that. The evidence I gave you came from here:

ANALYSIS AND REBUTTAL OF PAT BROWN'S E BOOK.

If you c&p that it should lead you to the webpage - and you can access it from there. What I originally C&pd was meant to make it easier for you to find without having to go through a whole lot of other unrelated stuff.

The only way I can save links is to click on the Red Heart. It then gives me several options of where to place the 'link' i.e. on my toolbar, in an email, in an IM, or in My Favourites. However what it doesn't do is tell me how to transfer it onto a post! I'm not technical in any way shape or form - and what may come easy to younger folk with computer related stuff - doesn't come easy to me. Five year olds know more. However thus far I have been able to find ways round it - mainly via C&P - with no complaints.

What I didn't realise is that some people are soooo 'suspicious' that C&p is not acceptable to them. But I'm learning fast and will keep that in mind in future.

I can assure you Rainbow-fairy that my only interest is in the facts of this case, I have no desire to lie or deceive - as that would mean I was only kidding myself. Neither do I feel any animosity towards people who don't share my opinions - diverse opinion is the nature of debate.

I'm not aware that I have made any personal disparaging remarks about you or your posts at any time. Therefore as regards 'rudeness' I can only presume you and I have different opinions on what constitutes good manners. Fair enough.

Shall we start again and get back to discussing the case?

I believe I said that I didn't believe that in the awful knowledge of what they had done -the McCanns could act quite normally immediately afterwards - especially in the knowledge of what was about to come in a couple of hours time. Surely they would be in fear and dread of that. And surely they would be in shock too - especially if their beloved child had died accidentally, because they would have had no time to 'get used to the idea'. Although TBH I don't believe 'getting used to the idea' is a credible possibility either.

Although I haven't read PBs book (only parts) - I stlll think she has a similar opinion. If I change my mind when I have read it I shall be happy to say so.

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Guest on 22.03.12 10:25

Merrymo, if you can copy and paste text, then you can copy and paste the link. That is the way I do it for everything I post up.

Also I would be grateful if you wouldn't colour your answers in blue, what is the reason for that? Highlighting certain things is ok, but a whole stand alone post should be in normal text colour. thanks
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 22.03.12 11:50

Merrymo. One last time. Slowly:
I. Asked. For. A. Link. Nothing more, nothing less. If you could not provide a link, you could've just given the name of the blog. I wanted to read it in the context it was written. You knew that, don't try to pretend you didn't. I guess you knew that there was no way of reading it in context seeing as it was a 'Rebuttal' (Jayelles work, by any chance?!?)
I'm afraid you've rather given yourself away. If you were only interested in the facts, why read first a rebuttal of Pat's work? Why not read Pat's book first, then the rebuttal - logical I'dve thought?

I'm not sure if someone else writes your posts sometimes or whether you have a short-term memory issue. It was YOU accusing ME of being rude, for merely pointing out you'd taken Pat's quote quite out of context (once again, I wasn't the only one to do that). I did then pick you up on use of names. However, as I said, there was a member here called 'Rainbow' who's views were extremely different to mine. Its just best to keep names as they should be on forum. Its different on pm talking with friends for example.

As far as getting back to the debate, what's to debate? I don't believe 'Why didn't you come last night' happened. I don't believe Maddie was abducted. You do (odd, given you state you're only interested in facts - 99 out of 100 children reported 'abducted from home' are killed by family member - FACT). I would love to believe Maddie is alive somewhere being treated like a princess. Convince me! Try anyway... Because, tbh, in 42 posts Merrymo you haven't stated anything that 100 Pro's before you haven't done already. Nothing new. Just the same tired old nonsense about dogs finding coconuts (ha!) etc.
Put your money where your mouth is, bring something new to the table. Then the debate can begin. Maybe you'll even convince me I've made a horrendous error of judgement to think Maddie was not abducted.
The offer is there. If you think you're up to it, go for it (but you're going to have to do better than those daft rebuttals I'm afraid).

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by lj on 22.03.12 12:46

Merrymo, you lied. In the case of falsely reporting on a Supreme Court decision you deliberately posted false information. I would like to see an explanation and apology to the readers. Or do you not only cherrypick what you write, but also what you read?

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3322
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Lady-Heather on 22.03.12 12:53

As invited I did a search on the 'rebuttal' title as provided however I decided not to enter any of the resultant 'pro' sites that were offered up by Google. Just personal choice. As rainbow-fairy suggests it may be a good idea to read the original copy by Pat Brown before reading the 're-buttal'. That way, readers can get a better idea of what Pat actually concludes at the end of the profile, and not a snapshot quote which can be taken out of context. I invite you to google the term 'fallacy of quoting out of context' to see what I mean here.
avatar
Lady-Heather

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Me on 22.03.12 13:35

@Merrymo wrote:

I believe it is also Pat Browns contention that the reason the McCann's friends would agree to lie - was because they were afraid of getting into trouble for leaving their children.

As they made no attempt to hide that fact right from the start, then that theory does not seem to hold much water IMO.

What do you mean made no attempt to hide it? They lied then and have lied all along about the checking routines they had in place. That surely is proof enough they were trying to hide something from the start.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by PeterMac on 22.03.12 13:49

Me.
If I were you I wouldn't bother !

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Ribisl on 22.03.12 13:59

There is no question the Mccanns can act and have no scruples about lying, and they will probably carry their lies to the grave unless they are convicted. But it must be a living hell at least for some members of the T7 and they will crack under vigorous cross examination, or at least found to be unreliable witnesses for their inconsistent and often inaccurate statements. That might just jolt the sand castle enough for it to start crumbling. Let's hope the SY will do their job and pull them all in for proper questioning. pray2

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Me on 22.03.12 14:07

@Merrymo wrote:
following my own comment that I did not believe the McCanns could have killed their daughter and then gone out and behaved normally

What basis and evidence do you have that they are not the kind of people who could have killed their daughter, other than seeing them on TV and reading the "book"?

Do you know them? Have you met them? If the answer is no how can you be so certain of their personality, mental state and know what they are capable of?

Also who says anything about killing their daughter? Covering up an accidental death is far more likely in my mind and would require less psycopathic tendencies on their part than actually commiting a murder.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by nuttystrumpet on 22.03.12 14:13

@Me wrote:Also who says anything about killing their daughter? Covering up an accidental death is far more likely in my mind and would require less psycopathic tendencies on their part than actually commiting a murder.

But why cover up an accidental death?

____________________

avatar
nuttystrumpet

Posts : 3
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Me on 22.03.12 14:15

@nuttystrumpet wrote:
@Me wrote:Also who says anything about killing their daughter? Covering up an accidental death is far more likely in my mind and would require less psycopathic tendencies on their part than actually commiting a murder.

But why cover up an accidental death?

To hide the fact they werent looking after their kids properly and risked losing their remaining children and careers?

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Merrymo on 22.03.12 14:21

@lj wrote:Merrymo, you lied. In the case of falsely reporting on a Supreme Court decision you deliberately posted false information. I would like to see an explanation and apology to the readers. Or do you not only cherrypick what you write, but also what you read?



Lj. I truly have no idea what you are talking about. Can you elucidate please?

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by nuttystrumpet on 22.03.12 14:22

@Me wrote:
@nuttystrumpet wrote:
@Me wrote:Also who says anything about killing their daughter? Covering up an accidental death is far more likely in my mind and would require less psycopathic tendencies on their part than actually commiting a murder.

But why cover up an accidental death?

To hide the fact they werent looking after their kids properly and risked losing their remaining children and careers?

Do you believe their story that they left the children alone?

____________________

avatar
nuttystrumpet

Posts : 3
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 25 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum