Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

BaldSeagull said:
Aha! A dead, heroin addicted illegal immigrant from Cape Verde, an ex employee with a grudge, is now in the frame.

:boggled:

Madeleine McCann suspect who died in freak tractor accident ‘was a heroin addict who used to rob holiday apartments’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eroin-addict-used-rob-holiday-apartments.html

What's that sound? Oh, it's the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped.
Click to expand...

Why you would bother posting a story from the Daily mail is beyond me; it could only have less credibility if it was posted at cluesforum...
 
jargon buster said:
It sensationalises the story, "little Jamie Bulger", "Little Maddie McCann" it tugs at the heart strings.
Of course they were "little" they were children, its just the way people use words to make a point and create impact.
Its not simply to shorten headline banners.

Its like when women have a child and people say "she's had a little girl/boy", why use the word little at all, of course its 'little' its a baby FHS.
Click to expand...


And?

Rolfe.
 
I don't think anyone can say. Cases have been solved after many years of mystery, both murders and kidnappings, but I don't think you can really guess which ones these will be. Often it happens because something unexpected emerges almost coincidentally.

Rolfe.
 
jargon buster said:
"And" thats why they shorten names.
Click to expand...


That's why they shorten names. "They" are tabloid journalists who have no respect for anyone, never mind bereaved families.

WE should not be following their example. We're not on Twitter here, where every character counts. And we're not trying to sell some sleazy sensationalist rag. We're discussing a little girl who was abducted and who may have been murdered. The least we can do is to give her her real name.

Rolfe.
 
Do you really suggest that because you obliquely question the cause of Madeleine's disappearance, it's OK for you to disrespect her and her family by calling her by a name she was never known by?

Or is this just more evasion?

Rolfe.
 
slickbcfc said:
Does any one think we will ever know the full truth of this?
Click to expand...

I certainly dont think she will ever be found alive. What kidnapper in their right mind would keep such a high profile child alive in the initial time period,when her face was everywhere(including the eye pigment which surely would give her away now!).

Just as stupid as calmly walking in to an apartment and carefully lifting child from its bed then just as calmly walking away down the street.:D
 
Rolfe said:
Do you really suggest that because you obliquely question the cause of Madeleine's disappearance, it's OK for you to disrespect her and her family by calling her by a name she was never known by?

Or is this just more evasion?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I don't 'obliquely question' anything, Im pointing out, (obviously too subtly for you) the opinions you have formed of Maddies disappearance may not be true.

Im not evading anything, I have absolutely no idea what happened to Maddie and neither at the moment does anyone else, except the McCanns or the abductor.

And as for your 'opinion' its disrespectful, I couldn't care less what you think.
 
Azrael 5 said:
I certainly dont think she will ever be found alive. What kidnapper in their right mind would keep such a high profile child alive in the initial time period,when her face was everywhere(including the eye pigment which surely would give her away now!).

Just as stupid as calmly walking in to an apartment and carefully lifting child from its bed then just as calmly walking away down the street.:D
Click to expand...

The pigmented eye sealed her doom if indeed she was abducted.
 
Even if you hold the McCanns completely and exclusively responsible for their daughter's disappearance, I really don't see why you cannot call the daughter (who is the innocent in this no matter who is to blame) by her proper name. Nobody ever called her Maddie and she didn't answer to it. The child's name is/was Madeleine.
 
Agatha said:
Even if you hold the McCanns completely and exclusively responsible for their daughter's disappearance, I really don't see why you cannot call the daughter (who is the innocent in this no matter who is to blame) by her proper name. Nobody ever called her Maddie and she didn't answer to it. The child's name is/was Madeleine.
Click to expand...

Because to me it doesn't matter, its easier to type Maddie, its easier to say Maddie.
Some may think its disrespectful, I dont.
Some may look upon people trying to clear Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing as being disrespectful to the families who believe they have closure.

Its all down to opinions.
 
Garrison said:
Why you would bother posting a story from the Daily mail is beyond me; it could only have less credibility if it was posted at cluesforum...
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/national/roy...or-maddie-mccann/story-e6frfkp9-1111114540441

The story was first published in October 2007. An anonymous tip sent by email to Prince Charles website, of all places. Only this tip off says it was a WOMAN, not a man.

In another report, the woman is even named as "Toni". The latest red herring, sorry, suspect was named as "Toni" by a friend in yet another report.

Now, I am expecting you to dismiss this without even looking at it, and demand that I supply you with links and piles of evidence to the above paragraph, but I simply don't have time to do that. It's easy enough to find out, if you really want to.
 
BaldSeagull said:
Mind you, there are still many people - ridiculous as it seems - who think that Madeleine was abducted from the holiday apartment by a complete stranger.
Click to expand...

You mean like the investogators actually working on the case?

Imagine for a second that we are a hundred years in the future studying this as a historical curiousity. Whose opinion are we more inclined to find ridiculous, those on the front lines of the investigation priviliged to have access to all information in an ongoing investigation and actively seeking a resolution, or a random commentator on the internet who seems not to be posting any evidence to support their (apparent) counter claim that somebody known to the victims was responsible?
 
BaldSeagull said:
Now, I am expecting you to dismiss this without even looking at it, and demand that I supply you with links and piles of evidence to the above paragraph, but I simply don't have time to do that. It's easy enough to find out, if you really want to.
Click to expand...

So you are poisoning the well AND avoiding burden of proof?

Do nyou at least have time to tell us what you DO think happened, what you think is the least ridiculous narrative, and what evidence you think would support THAT claim?
 
Tomtomkent said:
You mean like the investogators actually working on the case?

Imagine for a second that we are a hundred years in the future studying this as a historical curiousity. Whose opinion are we more inclined to find ridiculous, those on the front lines of the investigation priviliged to have access to all information in an ongoing investigation and actively seeking a resolution, or a random commentator on the internet who seems not to be posting any evidence to support their (apparent) counter claim that somebody known to the victims was responsible?
Click to expand...


I think the bolded part is the key. Of course it's possible for the investigators to be wrong. However, to show that, you have to be able to show some evidence, and preferably have access to all the forensic findings the investigators have.

It's possible to make an argument that it's possible Madeleine wasn't abducted, but these arguments tend to be pretty tenuous and speculative. Making the case that she definitely wasn't abducted? I don't think it's possible.

Rolfe.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So you are poisoning the well AND avoiding burden of proof?

Do nyou at least have time to tell us what you DO think happened, what you think is the least ridiculous narrative, and what evidence you think would support THAT claim?
Click to expand...

Burden of proof is for a court of law. This is an internet forum. I 100% agree with Amaral, he got it right first time. It's the only conclusion that has any evidence to support it.

If you go with any other conclusion, you need your head examined.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You mean like the investogators actually working on the case?

Imagine for a second that we are a hundred years in the future studying this as a historical curiousity. Whose opinion are we more inclined to find ridiculous, those on the front lines of the investigation priviliged to have access to all information in an ongoing investigation and actively seeking a resolution, or a random commentator on the internet who seems not to be posting any evidence to support their (apparent) counter claim that somebody known to the victims was responsible?
Click to expand...

If I was to read this in a hundred years, I would say "Why did such an open and shut case drag on for so long?"
 
BaldSeagull said:
Burden of proof is for a court of law.
Click to expand...
Or for critical thinking.

BaldSeagull said:
This is an internet forum.
Click to expand...
Yeah. For critical thinkers. Take a look around. I think you will find Burden of Proof as something a lot of people here expect as par for the course.

BaldSeagull said:
I 100% agree with Amaral, he got it right first time. It's the only conclusion that has any evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Yet not only does it remain far from proven, you are outright refusing to support the claim with that, or any other evidence.

BaldSeagull said:
If you go with any other conclusion, you need your head examined.
Click to expand...

Because personal attacks will be oh so very convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom