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

nomendelta wrote:Kololi nobody is making an open and shut case on whether Maddie had some kind of illness or that the way Gerry and Kate nod their head indicates they are guilty - but we ARE looking for indicators. Quite simply, whether you care to admit it or not, the McCanns have not behaved in ANY way similar to other parents of missing children. Their own behaviour, the many, many contradictions in the tapas 9 statements, the fact that there are indications that somebody died in the apartment, the help they have received from the Government - assignment of Clarence Mitchell himself is enough to raise a red flag that something is going on here, and the pathetic "search" paid for by the fund which SY have apparently dismissed (and there's an indicator that we are on the right lines as many here suspected that M3 and the other detectives used were not actually looking for Maddie but actually creating "sightings" and press stories)...it doesn't add up to a pretty picture. Should we leave all this to the professionals? No, not really. The Portuguese police clearly had their hands tied, the UK Police seemed to be under the McCanns influence...and there are many informed intelligent people with varied experience on the forum. Yeah there are a few haters, but there are a few pros so it kind of balances out. Most are reasonable and open-minded.

nomendelta wrote:I think we all have something to learn from the "pros" posting on here regardless of their motivation.

Firstly when I see someone so adamantly following the party line on here it does make me think twice before I post and I tend to keep my language open and flexible -perhaps wise given the potential legal scrutiny this forum could be under. Secondly it makes me appreciate the posters here much more who are generally more open-minded in terms of what really happened to Maddie.

What the pros need to understand quite fully is that there is a distinct lack of evidence - other than Maddie being missing - for an abduction. Beyond their statements there is nothing to back up an abduction so NATURALLY everything they say and do needs to be scrutinized and treated with a smidgeon of suspicion. It's partly to redress the balance - thanks to their support the McCanns have had carte blanche with the UK media to repeat and embellish their stories (and given the massive inconsistencies - the colomboma being one - stories is the most appropriate word) it's only fair that there's a forum for people to discuss other possibilities.

Whilst some do hate the McCanns - a dangerous pursuit given that they are by no means cleared of any crime but nor have they been found guilty - I think the vast majority of posters here want the same thing. Justice for that neglected little girl who disappeared and whose parents seem to have done nothing but obstruct, confuse and complicate the search to find out what really happened that night.

tigger wrote:Kololi wrote:
And while we are proving qualifications, could we see all those posters' certificates that allows them to diagnose a child and any potential illnesses or special needs that she might have simply from a photograph. Health care is on a new road - think of the savings to the NHS.

Oh oh and not forgeting - perhaps the detectives amongst us who can solve a case from purely body language and linguistics would like to flash their little badges showing which Police force they belong to.
unquote

I don't think anyone has diagnosed Maddie with a definite illness. However, if the mother herself writes that the child cried non-stop, we find that on their own evidence (coloboma) many photographs of the child have been altered and in quite a few photographs she does not look well - one is trying to find a common cause for these observations.
(by the way - I do have qualifications for photoshopping - both from the Hereford college of art and design and the Free Academy in The Hague).
To qualify for observing signs of illness in a child one simply needs to be an average parent.

Nobody has ever solved a case purely on the basis of body language. Body language would tell you if a person is lying, it is as valid as any psychological test ever devised, such as the Rorschach test for instance.
Once you have good indications that a person is lying, it will help the solution of the case. People may lie for different reasons, e.g. the Tapas may be lying without knowing in the least what really happened - but it is useful to know that they are lying so that their evidence cannot be used in solving the case.

Re the dogs:. I would think there are few people qualified to assess their capabilities. But results are a different matter, as the dogs have proved to be right in 100% of the cases - with consequent proof and/or convictions - the statistics are heavily in their favour.

This is principally for Merrymo and Kololi - blessed are the hard of understanding.

nomendelta wrote:Kololi nobody is making an open and shut case on whether Maddie had some kind of illness or that the way Gerry and Kate nod their head indicates they are guilty - but we ARE looking for indicators. Quite simply, whether you care to admit it or not, the McCanns have not behaved in ANY way similar to other parents of missing children. Their own behaviour, the many, many contradictions in the tapas 9 statements, the fact that there are indications that somebody died in the apartment, the help they have received from the Government - assignment of Clarence Mitchell himself is enough to raise a red flag that something is going on here, and the pathetic "search" paid for by the fund which SY have apparently dismissed (and there's an indicator that we are on the right lines as many here suspected that M3 and the other detectives used were not actually looking for Maddie but actually creating "sightings" and press stories)...it doesn't add up to a pretty picture. Should we leave all this to the professionals? No, not really. The Portuguese police clearly had their hands tied, the UK Police seemed to be under the McCanns influence...and there are many informed intelligent people with varied experience on the forum. Yeah there are a few haters, but there are a few pros so it kind of balances out. Most are reasonable and open-minded.

anil39200 wrote:I am not really into this 'pro, anti, hater' stuff. Labels annoy me. What concerns me is the injustice to a small child , wrapped up in spin.

anil39200 wrote:I am not really into this 'pro, anti, hater' stuff. Labels annoy me. What concerns me is the injustice to a small child , wrapped up in spin.

Kololi wrote:

nomendelta wrote:Kololi nobody is making an open and shut case on whether Maddie had some kind of illness or that the way Gerry and Kate nod their head indicates they are guilty - but we ARE looking for indicators. Quite simply, whether you care to admit it or not, the McCanns have not behaved in ANY way similar to other parents of missing children. Their own behaviour, the many, many contradictions in the tapas 9 statements, the fact that there are indications that somebody died in the apartment, the help they have received from the Government - assignment of Clarence Mitchell himself is enough to raise a red flag that something is going on here, and the pathetic "search" paid for by the fund which SY have apparently dismissed (and there's an indicator that we are on the right lines as many here suspected that M3 and the other detectives used were not actually looking for Maddie but actually creating "sightings" and press stories)...it doesn't add up to a pretty picture. Should we leave all this to the professionals? No, not really. The Portuguese police clearly had their hands tied, the UK Police seemed to be under the McCanns influence...and there are many informed intelligent people with varied experience on the forum. Yeah there are a few haters, but there are a few pros so it kind of balances out. Most are reasonable and open-minded.

I admit this with a small alteration - "the McCanns have not behaved in ANY way similar to how I personally would have expected a parent to behave under the circumstances. Their own behaviour, the many, many contradictions in the tapas 9 statements",
and this - "the help they have received from the Government - assignment of Clarence Mitchell"
and this aswell with an addittion - "M3 and the other detectives used may not have been actually looking for Maddie but actually creating "sightings" and press stories)"
and even this if we alter it slighty - "the fact that there are indications that somebody may have died in the apartment
and definitely this - "Yeah there are a few haters, but there are a few pros so it kind of balances out. Most are reasonable and open-minded"

Maybe I am not so far removed from some of you with my thoughts and maybe I am just a little less inclined to believe gossip that has not been proven beyond doubt and very determined to remember that without the full facts I should be at least a little kind when sticking my opinion on paper.

And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

aiyoyo wrote:I know pros call us haters. That is a strong word.
To hate a person is to be personal. So since we dont know the mccanns personally, what is there to be personal about?

Just because people questioned their version and want justice for Maddie doesn't make people haters.
The label haters originates from the pros side......why do they think people who want justice for Maddie are haters is beyond me.

Just because we know they lied, and in fact displayed bizzare almost sociopath behaviour doest mean they are evil to the bone?
Say even if they are for argument sake, what has that got anything to do with us?

We are just truth seekers, and hate gets in the way of the objective truth.

What about people who object to say Hilter or Pol Pot? Are people haters? Else it would mean the world is full of haters who object to cruelty or liar or people who spin for self interest etc etc.

I think the pros are just shortsighted and cannot be objective. Just because we are not blind sheeples doesnt make us haters.

I dont hate them. I just have no respect for them and their deplorable behaviour disgusts me.
Its true people are innocent until proven guilty but there is no excuse for their lies and spins and refusal to cooperate with Police and refusal to get off their arse to search when there is a missing child in the middle of all this.

They are not normal.

And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

Ribisl wrote:Kololi wrote

And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

Don't think so, really. An opinion based on expert knowledge, personal experience or deductive reasoning, expressed without prejudice, is worth much more than absurdly illogical and incoherent gibberish written by those whose critical faculty seems to have gone on sabbatical.

juliet wrote:I'm sure everyone wanted to believe the McCanns, as Merrymo did. It is truly terrible to think that a couple of British doctors could be involved in the disappearance/death of their tiny daughter. But from the beginning, they were caught out in lies. Can Merrymo explain why they said the shutters had been jemmied, when they hadn't? Why they only after two days suddenly said they'd left the patio doors unlocked (when G McC originally said he came in through the front door with a key? Why Kate's fingerprints were on the window, and no-one else's? Why G Mccann said he fiddled with the shutters, but left no fingerprints?

aiyoyo wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

anil39200 wrote:Merrymo,
If you answered the posts a short time after they were posted, then there would not be a problem. The point is you just do not want to answer direct questions But instead you keep ramming your mantra of dont blame the parents down our throats and constantly make excuses, posting points without substantial backup.So, dont bother answering now, its too late and your reluctance to answer proves a big point. IMHO, end of! (to quote that silly phrase you are fond of). I have no wish to bandy words with you, since you are clearly of one mind about this and I am not going to attempt to preach to the converted.
I do not feel it is helping to find any truth in this sad affair by ignoring a multitude of inconsistencies just to push your own agenda. If face value is your only way of determining aspects of this poor child's DISAPPEARANCE, then that is your business, but your discourtesy in not attempting to answer my questions says everything.

In a nutshell anil39200. You know, I'm on a blackberry, I have no landline therefore no broadband, phone signal is utter pants and it can take me up to ten minutes to load up a page. I somehow manage to reply to all posts...
Merrymo is so brainwashed by the McCann-Media version she can't see the woods for the trees (or, indeed, remember what she has written - but I can) and on that note:
Merrymo:
From your post to aiyoyo - aiyoyo DID NOT PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. You DID INDEED say that cadaver scent could drift (ie WAFT) and even posted an irrelevant study to 'back you up' - quite how open air cadaver retrieval can be likened to 5A, God knows. You also said cadaver odour could be RUBBED OFF, you even said 'if I put perfume on my hanky and rub it on my shoes the scent will be on them' or some such gibberish.
You are doing a better job of making the McCanns look guilty, and their version UTTER NONSENSE than any of us ever could.
Was that your intention, MM?

Merrymo
It's obvious for some reasons you are selective to whom and to what you want to answer. If you can shift thru posts looking for certain people’s ones to answer to, why cant you afford anil39200 the same courtesy?

I didnt put words in your mouth! You are caught out LYING.
Contaminated by you heroine perhaps?

Oh yes you did - my posts are still there - and at no time did I say what you implied I said.

I said that transference from object to obect was possible - that was in reply to one post.

I also said that the death scent can drift - that was in reply to another post.

It is not a case of only one or the other being possible - both are possible according to the experts.

Not necessarily Tigger as there is evidence that the death scent can drift. I have read a paper (which I've been looking for but haven't found yet) where a specimen was buried in the woods and the dog detected the scent not only at the spot it was buried but also on nearby trees.

Did you not write this? Dead scent drift?
So how did the dead scent drift only onto selective areas – only the sills and boot?
If it is so driftable, how come not the whole car is contaminated. It should be according to your expertise!

I have no expertise, I am quoting what the experts in this field say. You are shooting the messenger.


Or if it is so easily driftable how come not the entire 5A apt is contaminated? Remember kate must have been all over the apartment in her infamous pants!

I didn't say it was easily driftable I said according to the studies the death scent can drift. That is a fact claimed by the experts, and not my opinion.


OK, to be fair, you did say if some thing is deposited then the scent can drift - so in that case the police posited either Maddie’s body or something in contact with the her body had been in the car, hence the marking of the boot and body fluids found there, so how come not the entire car is contaminated if the scent is driftable?
You know very well the dog marked only selected areas in the car!

You said Maddie sticker was on the car? May I ask you - do dogs read?

No but handlers can. Surely you know that.

You said Martin cue by kept calling it back to the car - may I ask you - can he force the dog to bark or to react? More importantly did you SEE him made the dog bark? Did you see him cue the dog where and when to bark?

I see you haven't bothered to read up on the link I gave regarding cueing by handlers. If you had - you would not have to ask those questions.

Ribisl wrote:Kololi wrote

And it is wonderful to see that some people are acknowledging that some of what has been typed is actually opinion, of which, of course, we are all entitled. Meerymo's opinion is worth as much as the next person's then and shouldn't be ridiculed.

Don't think so, really. An opinion based on expert knowledge, personal experience or deductive reasoning, expressed without prejudice, is worth much more than absurdly illogical and incoherent gibberish written by those whose critical faculty seems to have gone on sabbatical.