Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Madeline Mccann

103 replies to this topic
uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#1

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:40 AM Edited by uzi 9mm, 21 October 2013 - 11:43 AM.

you know what i dont understand? even though theres a sh*t load of evidence proving that the parents of Madeline Mccann were responsible for her murder/disappearance, they're still off the hook?!

 

the main and obvios one is this.

 

The findings of the cadaver dog and the blood hound

 

Both dogs,highly trained, found the traces of blood and of death in the exact same places in the apartment, and also in the car they hired, plus on the Mothers clothing and on a cuddly toy of Maddie's. And their reasons to counter the findings are ridiculous, they say that the clothing which had the 'smell of death' came from the 6 dead bodies she encountered back in the UK as her job, also claiming that she brought the kids toy to work, when there's no way the smell of death would transfer to her clothing and that she was even wearing the same clothes she had during work.

 

Also, the Father claiming the smell of death in the car was of rotten meat he took to dump, when the smell of death the dog was trained to sniff was only of human corpses, and not of an animal. 

 

Then there's the traces of actual blood found in the car and apartment, the Mccanns say Maddy grazed her knee on the plane, and that she had nose bleeds, which are silly excuses, since the blood was found in the small gaps of the tiles by the window, the blood form the grazed knee would have cleared by the time they got from the airport to the apartment, and nose bleeds usually only leave a small amount of blood on flooring, usually because a tissue would be used to cover it up, so it's highly unlikely that Madeline would have sat still while copious amounts of blood poured from her nose onto the tiled floor, right by the living room wall

 

Case thrown out?

 

Let's not forget these dogs have never once been wrong in their findings.

 

And also consider that the parents first reaction was on the reliability of the dogs! Surely the supposed 'abductor' could well have left behind traces of blood in the apartment, the parents could have even questioned who had the rental car before them, since this would be key evidence on what happened to their daughter, instead they question the reliability of two unquestionably highly trained police dogs with a 100% result in their findings.

 

You can also consider the other obvious things, like how they refused to answer any of the 41 police questions which would have helped in finding out what happened, and also the body language both parents display in all of their interviews, manly the live interviews, there's a video of Mr Mccann laughing carelessly away a few days after the girl went missing, one thing no Father would do knowing his 3 year daughter has been abducted and could either be dead or being abused at that very moment. Then there's the fact that they agreed to a lie detector to clear them, but then later refused?

 

People may argue on why the Mccanns in particular, have had so much support when other cases of missing children get thrown out the window shortly, is it because she's a pretty white blonde girl from a middle class family with well paid jobs? Why didn't they get arrested anyway for neglect, which would be for leaving their children unattended in the first place? This is asked a frequently, but my biggest question would be the first one.

 

Why are they still off the hook despite the DNA findings of her blood in the apartment and hire vehicle, with the parents' reasons for the findings being not valid? 

 

Because DNA is 100% reliable and solid proof, so why these 2 people are still in the clear, and are still receiving support I don't know.

 

Am i the only one who things that the parents are the ones responsible, and they are hiding the fact that they did it?

  • UltraGizmo64 likes this

W2B
  • W2B

    Is Awesome!

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2013
  • South-Africa

#2

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:24 PM

I don't know much about the Madeline McCann case. The only things I know is what I saw on Sky News way back when she first "disappeared", so I don't know about any new findings or whatever, but I've said from the beginning that her parents must be involved somehow. There's just something about them that rubs me the wrong way.

I just wonder if the truth will ever come out. I don't know where I've read it, but a South African property developer/investigator that's been following the case scanned the backyard of some house very close to the hotel where they stayed, and he found something buried there, about the size of a child's body or something and what looked like bones. Last I heard was that British police were investigating this, but that was last year so I don't know what became of that.

I just don't like Madeline's parents. There's just something fishy about them. They might be completely innocent, but I dunno....

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#3

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:28 PM

Yup, I do also think parents are responsible and that media has blindly supported them, proably for the reasons you've mentioned. There are a lot more children disappearances and none speaks about it, at least at a such international level like with the Mccain one. Back in the day, when they couldn't stop speaking about it, seemed that the parents were even trying to make economic benefits (If I recall, there was a campaign fund as well as movie in progress)...


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#4

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:39 PM

I'm all for people expressing their opinions on the issue, but please don't confuse circumstantial evidence supporting vague hypotheses for actual proof. Remember, two police forces in two nations have deemed there no case to be answered by the McCanns despite being privy to a far greater wealth of information that any external observer has.

Trying to pretend that you know better than two police forces based on a small amount of public information is a recipe for ridicule.

John The Grudge
  • John The Grudge

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009

#5

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:34 PM Edited by John The Grudge, 21 October 2013 - 01:35 PM.

Yup, I do also think parents are responsible and that media has blindly supported them, proably for the reasons you've mentioned. There are a lot more children disappearances and none speaks about it, at least at a such international level like with the Mccain one. Back in the day, when they couldn't stop speaking about it, seemed that the parents were even trying to make economic benefits (If I recall, there was a campaign fund as well as movie in progress)...

The money was probably to pay the private detectives to work on the case.  Their fees and expenses (especially considering the crime took place abroad) must have added up to a pretty penny.


uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#6

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:42 PM

I'm all for people expressing their opinions on the issue, but please don't confuse circumstantial evidence supporting vague hypotheses for actual proof. Remember, two police forces in two nations have deemed there no case to be answered by the McCanns despite being privy to a far greater wealth of information that any external observer has.

Trying to pretend that you know better than two police forces based on a small amount of public information is a recipe for ridicule.

Are you talking about me when you say pretending to know more than the Police?

 

The whole point of the police bringing in the detector dogs in the first place, was to get a result, and they ended up getting a result, and those findings literally proved that the Mccanns were guilty, How they still walk free is the question that me and many others are still asking. Plus I believe the Portuguese Police force are the one's who are against the Mccanns and their innocence, they are already suing the lead detective of the Portuguese Police because of the book he wrote. 

 

Plus what the Police know, and what they say are two very different things, have you not heard about the recent plebgate scandal? Who's to say the Police are such a trustworthy force, when people are of a certain position in society, certain things can easily get swept under the rug and forgotten about. 

 

I'm sure if you search the web, you'll also see that that it's not just a small amount of public information, there's heaps of other facts and evidence that shows how the Mccanns are guilty, I' may have only given a small amount, but there's tons more, unfortunately since the Mccann family are who they are, i.e. their wealth status, they are being treated differently to that of a family of fewer means. Whether or not they killed their daughter and covered it up, the fact that they left their 3 children unattended at all is enough to have their children taken away from them by the social.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#7

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:16 PM

 

I'm all for people expressing their opinions on the issue, but please don't confuse circumstantial evidence supporting vague hypotheses for actual proof. Remember, two police forces in two nations have deemed there no case to be answered by the McCanns despite being privy to a far greater wealth of information that any external observer has.

Trying to pretend that you know better than two police forces based on a small amount of public information is a recipe for ridicule.

 

Are you talking about me when you say pretending to know more than the Police?

 

 

In a word, yes. 

 

You don't really endear me to your argument when you use terms like "literally prove" in relation to the actions of police dogs. They don't "literally prove" anything. They serve as an indicator and nothing more. They're aren't f*cking clairvoyants, they're dogs. 

 

The fact you've pretty happily conceded that you don't even begin to know the whole story, and yet still insist you're right based on pretty damn spurious evidence, says more about your argument than I really need to. As I said before, hypothesise whatever you want; if pretending you've got a better idea of what happened than the British and Portuguese police combined because of a few internet discussions strokes your ego, then by all means pretend. But don't expect to come on a public forum with an argument consisting of equal parts hyperbole, hearsay and spurious circumstantial evidence you like to pretend is actual "proof" and not be treated with derision.

 

If you've got something actually empirical; something properly ground-breaking that goes any way to proving, and by proving I actually mean something that would stand up in a court of law, that the McCann family are actually complicit in her disappearance, then I'm all ears. But if you had that I'd be getting in touch with the police first.

 

 

And sorry, but "wealth status" is utter bullsh*t. They're comfortably well off, not Roman Abramovich. 


uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#8

Posted 21 October 2013 - 10:37 PM Edited by uzi 9mm, 21 October 2013 - 10:39 PM.

 

 

I'm all for people expressing their opinions on the issue, but please don't confuse circumstantial evidence supporting vague hypotheses for actual proof. Remember, two police forces in two nations have deemed there no case to be answered by the McCanns despite being privy to a far greater wealth of information that any external observer has.

Trying to pretend that you know better than two police forces based on a small amount of public information is a recipe for ridicule.

 

Are you talking about me when you say pretending to know more than the Police?

 

 

In a word, yes. 

 

You don't really endear me to your argument when you use terms like "literally prove" in relation to the actions of police dogs. They don't "literally prove" anything. They serve as an indicator and nothing more. They're aren't f*cking clairvoyants, they're dogs. 

 

The fact you've pretty happily conceded that you don't even begin to know the whole story, and yet still insist you're right based on pretty damn spurious evidence, says more about your argument than I really need to. As I said before, hypothesise whatever you want; if pretending you've got a better idea of what happened than the British and Portuguese police combined because of a few internet discussions strokes your ego, then by all means pretend. But don't expect to come on a public forum with an argument consisting of equal parts hyperbole, hearsay and spurious circumstantial evidence you like to pretend is actual "proof" and not be treated with derision.

 

If you've got something actually empirical; something properly ground-breaking that goes any way to proving, and by proving I actually mean something that would stand up in a court of law, that the McCann family are actually complicit in her disappearance, then I'm all ears. But if you had that I'd be getting in touch with the police first.

 

 

And sorry, but "wealth status" is utter bullsh*t. They're comfortably well off, not Roman Abramovich. 

 

Lol. Look, I know you are a guy who likes getting into these long debates and you start breaking up people posts when it comes to it and I ain't planning to go there.

 

But you make me laugh when you say they are f*cking dogs. There's no need to swear. When a sniffer dog pin points a possible suspect in a public place, I seriously doubt the person they pin pointed would tell the Police that they refuse to be searched because it's a 'f*cking dog' as you say, and that the Police would just let the person go. A dogs nose is 10,000 times more sensitive to the human nose which in itself is a good enough indicator of smell, this is why the Police use them, to solve crimes, and to stop drugs being transported in airports.

 

But. The dogs in question, which where used in the Madeline Mccann case particularly, are one of a kind, from Yorkshire in England, they were flown over to Portugal in the hope that it would find the results which it did, videos were shown to the Mccanns of the dog  'going crazy' when it approached their hire car. This dog has even been sent to America on request of the FBI to help them.

 

So what use was there to even send the dogs there at all? Just for the fun of it? Because it seems that the whole point of it was to see if they would find either the 'scent of death' form the cadaver dog, and the other dog was to search for traces of actual blood, and both dogs found precisely what they were looking for, the blood was Madeline's.

 

Now, you say that until I have something empirical; properly ground breaking, you're all ears, this won't happen and you know this all too well, how would someone like me get this type of evidence? How can anyone actually? The answer is they can't, because of the nature of the case, it happened years ago, and all possible leads have been cleverly covered up, from the witnesses statements (which didn't even make sense), to any actual real evidence which would by now have been disposed of, so the only possible way to solve this would be by piecing together everything and using all the miss-leading statements that the witnesses to what the Mccann's story was and actually use the conflicting stories against them.

 

Wealth status can be used to state however rich or poor someone is, whether it'd billionaires like Roman Abramovich or a homeless person. It's completely true, if the Mccanns were are family on benefits, both unemployed, and they left their kids in that flat and this happened, you can be sure they'd have had their other two children taken from them. It's because of their wealth status that they haven't. 

 

Fair enough if you want to say that there's no solid evidence that can stand up in court to prove that they killed Madeline themselves, but proof that they left their children alone in the apartment on more than one occasion is already there, and that alone is enough to be arrested, their status as middle classed working parents is what saved them, nothing more. Child minders were available at the resort, and easily affordable. If they had been the responsible parents they should have been, they'd have never left their children alone in the first place, then this incident would never have happened. This alone is worthy to be put in jail.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#9

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:11 AM Edited by Tchuck, 22 October 2013 - 02:13 AM.

Lucky for us that courts don't usually base their decision on what is "worthy" to be put to jail. 

 

Honestly, this whole thing will go unsolved. It's been many years now, nothing new has surfaced, Madeleine has been "spotted" in different countries around the globe. There's nothing that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the McCann parents did it. And that is what the courts operate upon. Not something some random person without full knowledge of the case deems "worthy".

 

And f*ck, think of what you're saying. You're basing your entire argument on your conviction that they are guilty no matter what. That, even though there has been no conclusive evidence that they did it, they should have their kids taken from them and send them to prison for whatever retarded reason you have. You act as if they are completely, 100% guilty of it, even though so far they aren't. What if you're wrong? What if they didn't do it? Do you still want to take the children away from them? They already lost one child, should they be made to lose another two? I thought the thing with law was innocent until proven guilty.

 

f*cking hell.

  • F4L? likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#10

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:51 AM

Maybe we should sack both police forces, since apparently "uzi 9mm" and a slobbering canine can do their jobs better than they can.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#11

Posted 22 October 2013 - 07:12 AM

Lol. Look, I know you are a guy who likes getting into these long debates and you start breaking up people posts when it comes to it and I ain't planning to go there.

Well, I am.
 

But you make me laugh when you say they are f*cking dogs. There's no need to swear. When a sniffer dog pin points a possible suspect in a public place, I seriously doubt the person they pin pointed would tell the Police that they refuse to be searched because it's a 'f*cking dog' as you say, and that the Police would just let the person go. A dogs nose is 10,000 times more sensitive to the human nose which in itself is a good enough indicator of smell, this is why the Police use them, to solve crimes, and to stop drugs being transported in airports.

Be that as it may, you're missing the point I'm making. Which is, as I've already said, they're dogs. Their nose does not provide any actual evidence. It merely assists in locating or identifying lines of inquiry. Be that examining certain places or individuals, it's still nothing more than a suggestion. To claim that because a sniffer dog suggested something was there, it categorically must be, is incredibly naive.

 

So what use was there to even send the dogs there at all? Just for the fun of it? Because it seems that the whole point of it was to see if they would find either the 'scent of death' form the cadaver dog, and the other dog was to search for traces of actual blood, and both dogs found precisely what they were looking for, the blood was Madeline's.

Don't be idiotic. There's absolutely no point getting involved in this absurd straw man argument. I never once said that police dogs of all kinds weren't useful, which is what you're implying. What I said was that they didn't constitute evidence. And they don't. "The police dog suggested X" does not hold up in a court of law.
 

Now, you say that until I have something empirical; properly ground breaking, you're all ears, this won't happen and you know this all too well, how would someone like me get this type of evidence?

Exactly my point. Reading a few blogs on the internet and being convinced by someone else's vague, spurious argument doesn't give you the right to do anything more than hypothesise. You'll note that I'm staying entirely quiet about what I believe happened- that's because, unlike you, I acknowledge that I don't have enough information to make an educated judgement on the issue. Like I said before, hypothesise all you want. Just don't pretend your hypotheses are empirical fact.

How can anyone actually? The answer is they can't, because of the nature of the case, it happened years ago, and all possible leads have been cleverly covered up, from the witnesses statements (which didn't even make sense), to any actual real evidence which would by now have been disposed of, so the only possible way to solve this would be by piecing together everything and using all the miss-leading statements that the witnesses to what the Mccann's story was and actually use the conflicting stories against them.

This is largely drivel. There are cases far older and far more complex than this that have been solved. To imply that the age and complexity of the case, combined with deliberate obfuscation by the McCanns (which is entirely debatable, and yet again an example of you letting hyperbole get the better of you) is highly disingenuous unless you can actually prove it. Which you can't.
 

Wealth status can be used to state however rich or poor someone is, whether it'd billionaires like Roman Abramovich or a homeless person. It's completely true, if the Mccanns were are family on benefits, both unemployed, and they left their kids in that flat and this happened, you can be sure they'd have had their other two children taken from them. It's because of their wealth status that they haven't.

Which isn't the point you made. You claimed they got away with murdering her because they were wealthy. There are two entirely unproven tenets in that claim- that they murdered her and that they are wealthy. The former may or may not be true, I don't know and aren't willing to make an assessment, but the latter certainly isn't. They aren't wealthy. They weren't wealthy. They were "moderately well-off". No-one is disputing that they were irresponsible with their children. I'm disputing your claims that it is empirical fact that they murdered Madeline, which aren't based on any actual empirical evidence but merely your whims, and certainly aren't factual like you seem to claim.

uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#12

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:16 AM



Lucky for us that courts don't usually base their decision on what is "worthy" to be put to jail. 

 

Honestly, this whole thing will go unsolved. It's been many years now, nothing new has surfaced, Madeleine has been "spotted" in different countries around the globe. There's nothing that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the McCann parents did it. And that is what the courts operate upon. Not something some random person without full knowledge of the case deems "worthy".

 

And f*ck, think of what you're saying. You're basing your entire argument on your conviction that they are guilty no matter what. That, even though there has been no conclusive evidence that they did it, they should have their kids taken from them and send them to prison for whatever retarded reason you have. You act as if they are completely, 100% guilty of it, even though so far they aren't. What if you're wrong? What if they didn't do it? Do you still want to take the children away from them? They already lost one child, should they be made to lose another two? I thought the thing with law was innocent until proven guilty.

 

f*cking hell.

Actually the reason they should have had their kids taken away form them, is solely because they left them alone, not because I think they killed Madeline, that still hasn't been proved in the eyes of the law, but what I'm saying is, they did, and have also admitted to leaving their three children unattended, Madeline was 3 years old, the twins were even younger, and sivispacem this alone is why I mention their wealth status, I know they aren't rich as in Millionaire rich, I'm just comparing their wealth status to someone who is unemployed and on benefits, which is the situation for a lot of families in the UK, families which have had their children put into social care simply because the parents left them alone in the house while they went out to do shopping, work, or whatever.

 

So it is unfair that the Mccanns get let off.... because they were abroad, that to me, is an even bigger reason to not leave three children in an apartment on their own, what with being in a foreign country where you can't even speak the language or even know the whereabouts of the local area, now they have to live with the burden that their 3 year old daughter is gone, and all because they wanted to socialise with some friends and drink, whether they killed her or she was abducted by a stranger, they are at least guilty of this. 

 

This is actually as big as an issue as them being the ones who killed her, and it's the fact that they left the children alone. Especially seeing as Madeline is said to have woken up the day before and was crying saying 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?', which she told her parents the morning of the day she went missing.

 

What parents would be able to admit to this situation unfolding that morning and still perform a repeat of events the same night? It's pure selfishness if you ask me, and I don't even know why they even bothered mentioning this at all since it only makes them look worse. She says that it was the sign that they missed out on, since maybe the intruder came in the night before and was what woke them up, when in my eyes, forget the intruder, your children woke up in the middle of the night and were crying because you wasn't there, that alone is a reason to stay with them.

 

The woman who live above the Mccanns, Mrs Fenn, who has now died, even said she heard a child crying from the times 2230 to 2345, cries which she said sounded like a child who wasn't below the age of 2. The Mccanns gave different answers to this when they gave their statements, look at this which is proof of what had been said.

 

crying640-1.jpg

 

And let me remind you that these are actual accounts of the statement they gave. Why would they change it so many times? The Mccanns keep changing slight details of what happened, and all these little changes make them look even more suspicious. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#13

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:59 AM Edited by sivispacem, 22 October 2013 - 11:00 AM.

I can't take any source seriously when they insist on using random punctuation, capitals, colours, bold and variable text sizes at the same time to try and make a point that would be better served with a proper analysis of the comments. Y'know, like what happens in the real world.

Also, what's the irrational obsession with comparing them with unemployed people on benefits to judge their status? At least use a reasonable benchmark like the average salary for a two adults household with 2-4 children. Which isn't a great deal less than their income was. It makes absolutely no sense and contributes nothing to the argument other than implying that your views on the issue are formed of class and income prejudice.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#14

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:47 AM

I think they did it personally, but objectively I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove with certainty they did it, Tchuck said it perfectly.

 

 

 

There's nothing that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the McCann parents did it. And that is what the courts operate upon. Not something some random person without full knowledge of the case deems "worthy".

uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#15

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:14 PM Edited by uzi 9mm, 22 October 2013 - 02:26 PM.

I can't take any source seriously when they insist on using random punctuation, capitals, colours, bold and variable text sizes at the same time to try and make a point that would be better served with a proper analysis of the comments. Y'know, like what happens in the real world.

Also, what's the irrational obsession with comparing them with unemployed people on benefits to judge their status? At least use a reasonable benchmark like the average salary for a two adults household with 2-4 children. Which isn't a great deal less than their income was. It makes absolutely no sense and contributes nothing to the argument other than implying that your views on the issue are formed of class and income prejudice.

Well I still think that it's because of the jobs they had, and their 'middle class' status that the law was lenient on them, fair enough, no matter how wealthy you are, you can't get away with murder, but the law will always be more lenient to people of a 'higher class'. This is why I compare them to say, someone who isn't as well off and surviving on benefits, because in court, someone who is on benefits would definitely be seen as more of a liability than to a family with working parents.

 

You know what, I bet the Mccanns will end up f*cking themselves up, eventually, no matter how good of a liar you are, you'll always leave a few doors open, and eventually someone will solve this puzzle, there's still so many ways of looking in to this, and they've changed so many different parts of their story, I wonder what will change next, what with Mrs Mccann and her book she's written who knows what kind of sh*t she's conjured up, sooner or later their lies will be uncovered and they will crumble.

 

All you have to do is look at them both, no matter how stressed and pitiful they look, never judge a book by its cover, and while it may be easy to feel sorry for them, I can also look at them from another angle, Mr Mccann always seems to look nervous when being asked questions, and he also seems to me that he's organised a lot of the story, always quick to answer questions asked to his wife, and Mrs Mccann always looking terrible guilty, which can also be mistaken for sorrow for her daughter, she seems to have now toughened up and come to terms that they've gotten away with what they did, since if she really did feel despair and stress for her daughter, she'd still be displaying the same face she had during the first year of her daughters disappearance, she now bares nothing of the sort, judging by the way I saw them the other night on tv. Him looking as he's always done with that half smile of his creeping in at times, and her seeming to look more like she's gotten away with it, than that her daughter has still not been found, but oh, well, something in my eyes won't look as it does in someone else's I suppose.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#16

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:18 PM Edited by sivispacem, 22 October 2013 - 02:21 PM.

Sorry but that was totally incoherent. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, if anything.

Oh, and for the record, with your tendencies towards hyperbole and willingness to make assertions based on nothing more than a hunch, I hope you never have to perform jury service or any other civic role that requires a modicum of rationality.

uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#17

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:27 PM

Sorry but that was totally incoherent. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, if anything.

Oh, and for the record, with your tendencies towards hyperbole and willingness to make assertions based on nothing more than a hunch, I hope you never have to perform jury service or any other civic role that requires a modicum of rationality.

Yea ok, we'll leave it at that then.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#18

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:23 PM

Sorry to be blunt, but your (or whoever originally came up with them) musings on the psychology of grieving versus murderous parents are totally without merit unless they're revealed as a source and the merit of their views based on knowledge and experience critiqued. I don't trust a stranger on the internet to hypothesise about human behaviour any more than I would trust a carpenter to perform brain surgery.


Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#19

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:01 PM

^Hey, don't knock surgical carpentry. Remember Mister Geppetto? He turned a wooden puppet into an actual breathing little boy. Frankenstein ain't got sh*t on Geppetto.

  • F4L? likes this

uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#20

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:57 AM Edited by uzi 9mm, 23 October 2013 - 10:59 AM.

Sorry to be blunt, but your (or whoever originally came up with them) musings on the psychology of grieving versus murderous parents are totally without merit unless they're revealed as a source and the merit of their views based on knowledge and experience critiqued. I don't trust a stranger on the internet to hypothesise about human behaviour any more than I would trust a carpenter to perform brain surgery.

Well everyone sees things differently, I like to think I'm a good judge of character, and after seeing the Mccann interviews, I can tell they have something to hide, i don't need to put myself in their position to know how I'd react, these people don't care that their daughter went missing (or so they said), and these people don't show the kind of emotions a parent really would, they may try in their interviews or for a photo for the tabloids, but it's all for the cameras, and I'm not judging this on tidbits of random information I'm basing it on actual video evidence of them.

 

Look at this clip for instance: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=9VlS-gO5Ask

 

This was filmed a few days after her disappearance, and I can't imagine why any parent would be in a position to chuckle and act the way his body language is showing. One of their children had supposedly been abducted in a foreign country, I wouldn't even feel like sitting down, let alone laugh.

 

And their interviews seem so controlled, the way they let each other take turns and try their best not to talk at the same time, they carefully let each other finish before interrupting, this is because they don't want talk at the same time and risk saying two different things. The amount of times her husband tries to intervene and stops himself, naturally there would be no need for this, he would naturally say what he wanted not take a deep breath and stop himself, they are very unusual people. Just look at how they try to help each other out when they are asked questions in some of their videos.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=c1ROaCCbpsI

 

Look at the next video, this woman looks nothing like she's really preaching out to a loved one, otherwise she'd be staring directly at the camera, expressing her extreme desperation for her daughter, with genuine tears and the same goes for the husband instead of continuously blinking and looking indirectly at the camera, this is because she probably isn't talking to anyone, she must know her daughter is already dead. She keeps pausing and looking down, probably trying to remember what she wrote down to say. This whole cry-out for help doesn't look genuine at all. I'll be blunt, and say ff I'd have abducted Madeline and was watching that, the first thing that would come to mind is how emotionless she is and how terribly careless they both seem. See for yourself.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=c1ROaCCbpsI


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#21

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:33 AM

Forgive me for repeating myself, but simply claiming that you are a good judge of character doesn't make you one. You seem totally unable to grasp the idea that reactions to grief and trauma are very subjective things and that people don't necessarily react rationally. Remember that spate of false accusations of murder made against women whose children suffered from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, AKA cot death? Much of the case made against these women (Sally Clark being the most common example), aside from Roy Meadow's discredited medical opinion, was based on similar logic to yours. It resulted in some of the most grievous miscarriages of justice in British legal history.

It's bullsh*t psychobabble without even the faintest link to reality; effectively discredited and your assertions that your ability to judge character of people you not only clearly show preformed biases towards, but have absolutely no connection to to enable you to claim even the remotest familiarity or empathy towards their reactions, doesn't change that.

uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#22

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:57 AM

Well the videos are there for everyone to see, and everybody can take them however they want to, I am a good judge of character, I can see through people's true colours from a mile off, and that's from real life experiences, I can usually always tell when people are lying in my face, and I know when people are after something, I will always trust my senses.

 

But in the case of the Mccanns, you don't even need to be a good judge of character anyway, just looking at the way they act is enough to see they are guilty.

 

And the whole Sally Clark case is completely different, those children were found dead in her house and it was due to a disorder  that affected 1 in 73 million, this is a completely different situation altogether. You can't compare the two things.

 

In the end of the day, you believe what ever you want, since you don't seem to form any opinion until proof is displayed to you, I guess having any sort of faith of any religion is out the window for someone like you You must be an atheist I take it, since God has never scientifically been proved.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#23

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:18 PM

Nice job of totally ignoring absolutely everything I said only to repeat your already fundamentally flawed points. Insisting you are a good judge of character does not change the fact it is impossible to judge the largely incoherent and illogical reactions that people undergoing extreme emotional trauma undergo. But I'm guessing that went entirely over your head, so steadfast in your belief that you must be right about these people you don't actually know.

Of course I don't believe in God. Putting faith in ideas or theories that aren't supported by evidence is utterly insane in my view.

uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#24

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:28 PM

Nice job of totally ignoring absolutely everything I said only to repeat your already fundamentally flawed points. Insisting you are a good judge of character does not change the fact it is impossible to judge the largely incoherent and illogical reactions that people undergoing extreme emotional trauma undergo. But I'm guessing that went entirely over your head, so steadfast in your belief that you must be right about these people you don't actually know.

Of course I don't believe in God. Putting faith in ideas or theories that aren't supported by evidence is utterly insane in my view.

Well what you just said is a perfect example of why two people's views are completely different. 

 

In my eyes, 'utterly insane' or just 'insane' is somebody who's mentally ill and has no control over their own state of mind, not somebody (as you say), who puts faith in something that isn't supported by evidence.

 

Are you saying most of the planet's population are insane because they have faith in a religion or believe in God?

 

And I haven't ignored everything you said, I can understand how people's reactions to trauma and grief are different, what I was saying is that these people don't genuinely look like they've been put through this at all, and look more as if they are guilty. 

 

Anyway, you is you and me is me.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#25

Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:11 PM

If you understood the complex and varied reactions to severe trauma, you wouldn't keep claiming that you don't think they look like they're grieving. That's my entire point. If you understood how people react to trauma you wouldn't be making any estimations from their reactions at all. By doing so you are effectively saying that you don't understand, despite your insistence otherwise.

The only thing that separates religious beliefs from seeing fairies or talking to imaginary beings is societal acceptance. If you ignore the organised social aspects of religion and focus on the supernatural alone, you end up observing something not dissimilar to a variety of severe psychological disorders. Which isn't to say that they're one and the same, just that the symptoms of the latter are sometimes commonly exhibited by the former.

MrPeteyMax
  • MrPeteyMax

    DON'T TOUCH ME YOU FILTHY CASUAL

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013

#26

Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:55 PM

Take your conspiricy threories and f*ck off. Stop using a missing girl as an advantage to see cool.

 

She got kidnapped. It's all we know. Stop playing detective.


uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#27

Posted 24 October 2013 - 09:06 AM Edited by uzi 9mm, 24 October 2013 - 09:06 AM.

Take your conspiricy threories and f*ck off. Stop using a missing girl as an advantage to see cool.

 

She got kidnapped. It's all we know. Stop playing detective.

 

Don't make me laugh.

 

It's only your 4th week here and you're already talking to people like that? Take your abuse elsewhere.

 

When you can't find the correct words to use and have to resort to swearing, it only makes you look uneducated and ignorant.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#28

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:37 AM

He's got a point, thought. What prior qualification or access to additional information do you have which gives you the right to lecture us on how they're all murderous villains? Tell me, exactly what is the difference between your claims and, say, the 9/11 false flag tripe?

Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu

#29

Posted 24 October 2013 - 11:20 AM

@uzi: I believe you are unduly hung up by whole idea of sniffer dogs. They are not an infallible tool, they are living creatures which are, according to academic studies extremely prone to error. They are affected by the expectations and behaviour of their handlers.

 

http://www.scienceda...10131153526.htm - Further reading for you which should help to dispel your belief in the magic, time travelling nose of the dog.


uzi 9mm
  • uzi 9mm

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2004

#30

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:57 PM Edited by uzi 9mm, 24 October 2013 - 01:59 PM.



He's got a point, thought. What prior qualification or access to additional information do you have which gives you the right to lecture us on how they're all murderous villains? Tell me, exactly what is the difference between your claims and, say, the 9/11 false flag tripe?

I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm just saying what I believe, it's my opinion, if you think I'm lecturing you then why bother even reading so far ahead? I wouldn't read something if I thought I was being lectured. All I'm doing is putting in my opinion and backing it up with evidence that is real, not made up. And no, he doesn't have a point actually, what does having an 'advantage to see cool mean anyway?' At least have the decency to type properly.

 

The 9/11 false flag conspiracy is a completely different kettle of fish, you can't compare people thinking the government smashing passenger planes around to start a war, to a 3 year old girl going missing and being covered up.

 

And Max, that article you've dug up isn't even about the type of dog used in the Madeline Mccann case, it's about drug and explosive sniffer dogs, there's loads of them, I'm not 'unduly hung up' on anything, I'm aware sniffer dogs in general can be unreliable. The dogs used in the Mccann case are one of a kind, they have a 100% track rate (well I guess not anymore)... so find something else. Tell you what, here's something for you to read, and this is specifically about the dogs used in the crime case. Even the Yorkshire Police deleted it for some un-explainable reason, nevertheless, someone retained a copy.

 

http://gazetadigital...-eddie-and.html

 

Here are some facts, and I repeat, FACTS, not my beliefs or a f*cking conspiracy.

 

-The dogs used in the Madeline Mccann case have never been wrong.

 

-Eddie, the cadaver dog has never been reported to have given a false positive to the scent of a human corpse.

 

-His reactions to the 10 locations where the scent was found can therefore, in the eyes of the law, be trusted.

 

-Nobody is reported to have ever died in the holiday apartment the Mccanns stayed in.

 

These are actual facts, not make believe or conspiracy.

 

Judging by these facts, the probability that the scent of the corpse belongs to Madeline.is very high. Maybe the abductor killed them, and the reported sighting of a man carrying a child was true, but who would abduct a dead child? Hmm, a very low probability on that one.

 

Oh, and MrPeteyMax, when you realise that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to prove an abduction even took place, you and your conspiracy theories can go to the same place. Why don't you try to provide the evidence of Madeline being kidnapped, as you say, that's all we know, how on earth do you claim to know this? Think. Before you start using swear words, or wasn't you taught any manners during your upbringing? I blame the parents.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users