Re: chris spivey

by Guest 12.05.13 23:01

IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

by aiyoyo 13.05.13 3:13

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

Meaning, he, and by extension his clients, did not deny the existence of DNA. Just that there is an innocent explanation for them like nose bleed and rotten meat etc. I have never heard such tripes in my entire life on a case history of abducted child where the parents explained human DNA away as rotten meat, despite forensics lab concluding 13 out of 19 markers match.

When we look back at Mcspin historical pattern of retro-fitting every statement, the rotten meat statement was made when they were still suspects not knowing which way the investigation will conclude, and the 180 degree turnaround "there is no DNA" uttered in front of Leveson was post shelving. It's easy to see the mind game they play - always retro-fitting their statements to suit each stage.

Another example is their so-called active search using (allegedly) big crack PIs in the hey days then suddenly when their fund is exhausted by expensive legal fees, the search is stopped/suspended excused to the Review. Which makes absolutely no sense at all because if we were expected to believe their tale that Maddie is in the hands of paedo*** then what good is suspension for Maddie as her abuse at the hands of her captor is very unlikely to be parallelly suspended just because MET is looking for a paper abductor.

Her parents stupidly latched onto the Cleveland's horrific case of the three captive women serially raped by their captor for a decade as example that Maddie could be alive. Citing this case as example means implying she could be kept alive in the same situation hence their suspension of the search with that mindframe is total madness, cruel and inhumane to Maddie.

by tiny 13.05.13 11:15

Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.05.13 11:17

tiny wrote:Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

Excellent point. Anyone else who dares utter the possibility in public seems to get a letter delivers in a Limo by CR!!

by Guest 13.05.13 11:27

I don't think that the sane and sober citizen Stephen Birch has ever stated in so many words who he thinks is responsible for Madeleine's "death and burial" so he is safe from the long arm of Carter-Ruck.

Mind you, TB has never said that the McCanns were responsible either........

It's quite obvious that people like Stephen Birch can say what they like because nobody will take them seriously whereas there are others whose knowledge is a threat to those with a lot to hide.

by tiny 13.05.13 11:57

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think that the sane and sober citizen Stephen Birch has ever stated in so many words who he thinks is responsible for Madeleine's "death and burial" so he is safe from the long arm of Carter-Ruck.

Mind you, TB has never said that the McCanns were responsible either........

It's quite obvious that people like Stephen Birch can say what they like because nobody will take them seriously whereas there are others whose knowledge is a threat to those with a lot to hide.

could it be that he claimed the PJ did it and the mccanns are ok with that as long as he is not saying they(mmcanns) did it. but if people believe SB then surely he has hampered the search for Madeleine.

by aiyoyo 13.05.13 12:01

He made up a theory to fit around to his snooping activity; the Mccanns will be mad to bring attention to themselves to take him seriously.

His theory is not plausible even as fictional story.

by Beanie 13.05.13 22:36

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

Thank you Chatelaine for remembering the exact quote, Clarence certainly covers all possibilities doesn't he.

If Madeleine met her demise and the PJ planted her DNA to try to frame the McCanns and their friends, where exactly is Madeleine's body being kept and why on earth would any police force do such a thing. I just can't believe there would be such a cover up.

by Guest 13.05.13 22:54

Beanie wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

Thank you Chatelaine for remembering the exact quote, Clarence certainly covers all possibilities doesn't he.

If Madeleine met her demise and the PJ planted her DNA to try to frame the McCanns and their friends, where exactly is Madeleine's body being kept and why on earth would any police force do such a thing. I just can't believe there would be such a cover up.

***
Neither can I, Beanie.
And it's "funny" to recite Clarence from time to time. He has a way with words, hasn't he? I guess one has to have an academic degree to come up with negative evidence ... chris spivey - Page 3 3139096799

by aiyoyo 14.05.13 2:12

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tiny wrote:Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

Excellent point. Anyone else who dares utter the possibility in public seems to get a letter delivers in a Limo by CR!!

Not this chap apparently because the Mrs deemed him a total waste of time, not worth time of the day.
When asked during an interview about SB's claim, this is what the Mrs said “…I mean, who is this person at the end of the day, you know, so…”

by Smokeandmirrors 14.05.13 15:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tiny wrote:Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

Excellent point. Anyone else who dares utter the possibility in public seems to get a letter delivers in a Limo by CR!!

Not this chap apparently because the Mrs deemed him a total waste of time, not worth time of the day.
When asked during an interview about SB's claim, this is what the Mrs said “…I mean, who is this person at the end of the day, you know, so…”

Pffff…..and with her copious demands and criticism, this is a question she would do very well to level at herself!!!

by Guest 14.05.13 17:35

I think it's a safe bet that if Stephen Birch had come up with a bonkers scenario that Madeleine was alive in a certain area (whether or not being treated like a princess by paedos) the McCanns would have given him credence.

Any scenarios that she is dead won't be given the time of day.

by sami 14.05.13 18:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I think it's a safe bet that if Stephen Birch had come up with a bonkers scenario that Madeleine was alive in a certain area (whether or not being treated like a princess by paedos) the McCanns would have given him credence.

Any scenarios that she is dead won't be given the time of day.

Neither was he carter rucked because of his accusations though. Thus far mentioning the "d" word and Madeleine in the same sentance has been enough for Healy and McCanns to set the dogs on the offender. Why was Birch totally ignored. He made some fairly brutal accusations. Perhaps he was so far off the truth team McCann saw no reason to bother with him. That being the case, there must be something worrying in what T Bennett and Amaral has said at some point in time.

They have never bothered to visit the area of a sighting, why bother visiting an area allegedly a grave ? One would think most parents would want to rule out every possibility no matter how crazy, just to put ones mind at rest. Not Healy and McCann though. no doubt they said a prayer, then did a run, followed by a game of tennis. then all was well. Just my opinion of course.

by lj 14.05.13 18:52

He is too far away, physically I mean.
To squeeze some money out of him is complicated since he is South African. They rather have someone, with restricted means, who is within the reach of their claws.

by Guest 14.05.13 19:33

I agree. IMO One of the reasons he was singled out.
[Too] close to home ...

Latest topics