Re: Washed up?Dr Roberts

Forensicist Sat 7 Jan - 23:37

AnnaEsse wrote:
Forensicist wrote:That took me a long time to put together, about an hour down the tubes.

It is a BRILLIANT article, written by a friend of mine, Vincent bridges. The similarities in the two cases are uncanny. Gerry has got some very peculiar holiday reading habits, and I would not be surprised if he and TM have not read this article. I made about 15 relevant points directly related to the MBM case.

Well, it's late, I'm off to bed.

Cheers!

F

It's gone to 'General Debate and Chatter' as we've had many a thread in the past, which you are not sure to know about, on the Ramsey case.

OK fine, i wasn't sure where to post it.

Goodnight!

F

**AnnaEsse** Sat 7 Jan - 23:38

Forensicist wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Forensicist wrote:That took me a long time to put together, about an hour down the tubes.

It is a BRILLIANT article, written by a friend of mine, Vincent bridges. The similarities in the two cases are uncanny. Gerry has got some very peculiar holiday reading habits, and I would not be surprised if he and TM have not read this article. I made about 15 relevant points directly related to the MBM case.

Well, it's late, I'm off to bed.

Cheers!

F

It's gone to 'General Debate and Chatter' as we've had many a thread in the past, which you are not sure to know about, on the Ramsey case.

OK fine, i wasn't sure where to post it.

Goodnight!

F

OK! It's all there!

NoStone Sun 8 Jan - 4:09

Forensicist wrote:Loop and gang. Is the good Doctor getting at a blood stain? I think he suspects KM is laying the alibi groundwork for WHY she washed Maddies jammies, Also, KM kept bringing up the self-implicating neglect morsel (just WHY would she drop herself in it like that?)

The Dr thinks misdirection. And I agree. The parents McCann are putting out a barrage of red herrings. One of them is MBM's alleged plea, paraphrased - "mummy, why did u let me and Sean cry all alone last night?"KM flagged this dropping herself in it mea culpa several times - not like *her* at all, is it?

Unless MBM died the day before the "opening night" amateur production...

Alibis are slotted in, after the fact, the crèche records are tampered with, so IMHO MBM dies much earlier than the 9 are trying to hoodwink us over...

constant crying on the Tuesday evening, and ever since, a premeditated stage show was hastily put together, with directions from London ... Hence all the texts to Gerry, with status updates on the hour, every hour

MBM HAD to be deceased WELL before the British establishment "fixers" kicked in circa 10pm onwards, Thursday night

No other explanation fits...

(Weeeell, I can think of ONE, but it is extremely 'out there' a la 9/11 and 7/7 - txtusa would get it, I'm sure, in view of her current change of direction (I.e. focussing on the VERY big picture, all things on the table, Tavistock Fabian common purpose eugenicist social engineering, ID cards, the chipping of children, illegal cloning experiments, the works!) think of a Tavistock Hollywood Production, several years in the planning... But that is for another time and place...

Cheers!

F

MADELEINE EXCLUSIVE: ALL THREE CHILDREN DRUGGED

Sunday October 11,2009 By James Murray

The kidnapper of Madeleine McCann drugged her and her twin brother and sister so they would all be quiet while she was snatched.

A duplicate key may also have been used to gain entrance to the holiday apartment where the children were sleeping, say investigators.

It means the monster is still a threat to children living or holidaying on Portugal’s Algarve and must be caught urgently as he is highly likely to reoffend.

Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley have spent months re-analysing every shred of evidence. They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children.

The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.

Had the twins been tested for drugs immediately, any medication used could have been established, making it easier to identify the kidnapper, but vital time was lost.

Chloroform can be made easily and other sedatives, such as the horse tranquilliser ketamine, are commonly in circulation in the criminal underworld.

Even now, however, experts say there may be forensic clues on clothing or bedding which could yield a breakthrough.

The Sunday Express can further reveal that the McCanns’ private detectives are working on a solid theory about exactly how Madeleine was abducted.

Just as television investigator Donal MacIntyre suggested in this paper three weeks ago, they believe there was a dry run prior to the kidnap that fateful night at apartment 5a of the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz.

While checking the layout of the apartment the night before, the kidnapper probably woke Sean, who in turn woke Madeleine. In the morning she had told Kate and Gerry she was frightened. The fact that the children woke up is thought to have persuaded the kidnapper to use knock-out drugs when he returned the next night to take Madeleine, three.

On the question of the duplicate key, holidaymakers often left front door keys under the doormats during the day.
A theory emerging is that the kidnapper had a duplicate key to apartment 5a, which could have been used on the night to enter by the front door.

Mr Edgar and Mr Cowley do not believe Madeleine was taken through an open window as it would have been awkward, time consuming and there were no forensic clues left behind.

It is far more likely, they say, that he simply walked out of the front door with her in his arms. It had been thought that the front door was double locked, making it impossible to open from the inside, but this doubt falls away if there was a duplicate key.

The theory suggests the kidnapper had been targeting the apartment for a long time and had a detailed knowledge of the lock system.

With the front door unlocked, it is easy to simply pull a latch across to open it from the inside.

Another possibility is that the front door was not double-locked when Kate and Gerry left through the unlocked patio doors to join their seven friends at the resort’s tapas bar some 30 metres from their apartment.

Meanwhile it emerged yesterday that the parents of a two-year-old girl who has gone missing in New Zealand are being supported by the McCanns.

Aisling Symes vanished from a relative’s house in an Auckland suburb on Monday.

Her mother Angela had been close by, standing beside a washing machine.

There have been reports that the girl was later seen with a woman of Asian appearance.

Detectives believe she was abducted. Despite repeated appeals for help their searches have so far drawn a blank.
Kate and Gerry McCann said their “thoughts and prayers” were with the family.

The little girl’s father, Allan Symes, who is originally from County Waterford in Ireland, made an emotional plea for her return, saying: “These recent days have proven to be the most harrowing of our lives; no sleep and we feel like we’re barely existing, just surviving every moment, not knowing where Aisling is.”

It has also emerged that police in Sweden are trying to find a girl said to bear a resemblance to Madeleine after a photograph was posted on a website.

However, she does not appear to have the distinctive mark Madeleine has in her right eye.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/133307/MADELEINE-EXCLUSIVE-All-three-children-drugged

Et voila!! Not only alibi's slotted in after the fact but answers to lots of other questions too - all supplied by the Mc's PI's!!!

NoStone Sun 8 Jan - 9:57

The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.

Now here's why the 'abductor' did not drug the children - but someone did! If you had returned to the apartment to find one of your children missing you would have immedite concern for the well being of the two remaining babies. Even if you did noot try and wakes them you would think that - with so many Doctor's around, someone might have concerns that Sean and Amelie were not waking up - even by being oved - and raise the alarm. Seems not. Seems that no one was concerned about them sleeping on except do I remember a ddescription of Kate repeatedly holding her finger under the noses of the twins to check that they were still breathing!!??

To go through all that cuffufle and not wake shows the babies WERE drugged but not by an abductor. Not to show concern and raise the alarm shows that the Mc'S KNEW they had been sedated with some concern shown afterwards by Kate that they had not over done it. So this is where the calpol enters the frame again.

All points of course that the McC's super slethes convieniently try and turn in away from the parents and in the direction of a ficticious 'abductor'. Washed up?Dr Roberts - Page 2 857143

Guest Sun 8 Jan - 10:30

It doesn't inspire much confidence in an article when even the most basic information is wrong. The twins were 27 months old at the time not 18 months. Then we get to the evidence found by Super Dave and his sidekick Arthur and it was hard to read anything else!

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 15:40

NoStone wrote:The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.

Now here's why the 'abductor' did not drug the children - but someone did! If you had returned to the apartment to find one of your children missing you would have immedite concern for the well being of the two remaining babies. Even if you did noot try and wakes them you would think that - with so many Doctor's around, someone might have concerns that Sean and Amelie were not waking up - even by being oved - and raise the alarm. Seems not. Seems that no one was concerned about them sleeping on except do I remember a ddescription of Kate repeatedly holding her finger under the noses of the twins to check that they were still breathing!!??

To go through all that cuffufle and not wake shows the babies WERE drugged but not by an abductor. Not to show concern and raise the alarm shows that the Mc'S KNEW they had been sedated with some concern shown afterwards by Kate that they had not over done it. So this is where the calpol enters the frame again.

All points of course that the McC's super slethes convieniently try and turn in away from the parents and in the direction of a ficticious 'abductor'.

I agree entirely. Also, the twins were possible elsewhere that evening (as I posted yesterday on another thread, see below,...)

LM is an aneasthetist (sp) and kept putting her fingers under the twins' noses to feel breathing - did she know they were sedated? Plenty of Doctors in the group...

MBM was also possible sedated, and was alone in that apartment all evening. It does appear she had trouble sleeping (the star chart at home etc), hence the sedation. Pennington got to the apt 5 mins after the alarm was raised, no twins. The twins were returned to the room some time before the GNR arrived. That is a FACT.

BUT there is a big BUT - Maddie must have lain dead behind the sofa for 90 mins (per the EVRD dog) minimum before being moved a few times, in a cupboard, dropped into the flower bed etc - moved in the blue tennis bag? Could a 30 pounds child fit in it? Probably yes.

I can't paste the link, but here it is...

gillyspot wrote:
Have been perusing the pj files for a rebuttal I am doing and just spotted this from Kate McCanns aguido statement.

"With respect to the objects she says they took with them: their mobile phones. Gerry might have taken a wallet with money. Not sure if they took a camera."

Did they not say somewhere they never took their phones to the tapas bar but if they did why did Kate not ring Gerry (mind she could have shouted from the balcony as it was like "dining in your garden").

mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

1. Per the Danny Wallace book, Vanished, he states that when KM checked circa 10pm, it WAS HER FIRST EVER CHECK the entire week! (This obviously means that the 'abduction' may have been faked, and was therefore premeditated, meaning all or most of the were 7 involved to varying degrees (maybe not Webster, who wasn't fully trusted...)

2. C Pennington states she was on the scene within 5 minutes, and there were NO TWINS in the room. I think she assumed one of the 7 had moved them.

What, when all hell is breaking loose? They were apparently heavily sedated, and not waking up, so why move them at all?

Later, the twins were put back in the room, before the GNR arrived. Then moved out again, in the wee hours...

But there is weirdness too about the cot bedding - there was none, apparently...

I believe Maddie was heavily sedated, and on her own all evening, the twins elsewhere. That is my theory. Herry is on aoth telling Levinson he has no problems with theories, and supports free speech strongly.

Reasons?

A. MO said, in passing, 'I'll check Maddie for you" - he should have said, "I'll check the kids..."

B. C Pennington said - "When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her. They've taken her!'

So KM HAD to be referring to JUST MADDIE (i.e. Maddie was alone in the room), because there should have been TWO HERS in the room, and ONE HIM...

So KM SHOULD have said, 'They've taken MADDIE!'

But the thing is, she didn't, and all the other 7 must have known (if this THEORY is correct) immediately (because of the nature of the exclamation) it was Maddie, as they ALL knew she was on her own, otherwise the 7 would have said, "Taken, WHO? Maddie or AMELIE?" - which, of course, never happened.

If Sean had been taken, sure, KM could have got away with saying THEY've taken HIM, but that sounds very off to me, more natural would be to exclaim, THEY'VE taken SEAN!

Finally, the use of THEY'VE implies she (KM) knew who 'took' Maddie, and KM is assuming the rest of the 7, plus Gerry, also knew who THEY were ... she didn't NEED to spell it out...

(Of course, I don't believe there WAS an abduction, so the use of THEY'VE is either a slip up, or a red herring - the McCanns have introduced IMHO 100s of red herrings in this case...)

However, if we take it at face value, THEY, therefore, must have had prior interaction with the McCann parents, members of the other 7, and if THEY were paedophiles, then poor old heavily sedated Maddie would have had prior interactions too, with THEM.

**AnnaEsse** Sun 8 Jan - 15:55

Forensicist wrote:
NoStone wrote:The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.

Now here's why the 'abductor' did not drug the children - but someone did! If you had returned to the apartment to find one of your children missing you would have immedite concern for the well being of the two remaining babies. Even if you did noot try and wakes them you would think that - with so many Doctor's around, someone might have concerns that Sean and Amelie were not waking up - even by being oved - and raise the alarm. Seems not. Seems that no one was concerned about them sleeping on except do I remember a ddescription of Kate repeatedly holding her finger under the noses of the twins to check that they were still breathing!!??

To go through all that cuffufle and not wake shows the babies WERE drugged but not by an abductor. Not to show concern and raise the alarm shows that the Mc'S KNEW they had been sedated with some concern shown afterwards by Kate that they had not over done it. So this is where the calpol enters the frame again.

All points of course that the McC's super slethes convieniently try and turn in away from the parents and in the direction of a ficticious 'abductor'.

I agree entirely. Also, the twins were elsewhere that evening (as I posted yesterday on another thread, see below,...)

LM is an aneasthetist (sp) and kept putting her fingers under the twins' noses to feel breathing - she knew damn well they were sedated as she or one of her Doc friends did it.

MBM was also sedated, and was alone in that apartment all evening. It does appear she had trouble sleeping (the star chart at home etc), hence the sedation. Pennington got to the apt 5 mins after the alarm was raised, no twins. The twins were returned to the room some time before the GNR arrived.

BUT there is a big BUT - Maddie must have lain dead behind the sofa for 90 mins minimum before being moved a few times, in a cupboard, dropped into the flower bed etc - moved in the blue tennis bag? Could a 30 pounds child fit in it? Probably yes.

I can't paste the link, but here it is...

gillyspot wrote:
Have been perusing the pj files for a rebuttal I am doing and just spotted this from Kate McCanns aguido statement.

"With respect to the objects she says they took with them: their mobile phones. Gerry might have taken a wallet with money. Not sure if they took a camera."

Did they not say somewhere they never took their phones to the tapas bar but if they did why did Kate not ring Gerry (mind she could have shouted from the balcony as it was like "dining in your garden").

mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

1. Per the Danny Wallace book, Vanished, he states that when KM checked circa 10pm, it WAS HER FIRST EVER CHECK the entire week! (This obviously means that the 'abduction' was faked, and was premeditated, with all or most of the 7 involved (maybe not Webster, who wasn't fully trusted...)

2. C Pennington states she was on the scene within 5 minutes, and there were NO TWINS in the room. I think she assumed one of the 7 had moved them.

What, when all hell is breaking loose? They were heavily sedated, and not waking up, so why move them at all?

Later, the twins were put back in the room, before the GNR arrived. Then moved out again, in the wee hours...

But there is weirdness too about the cot bedding - there was none, apparently...

I believe Maddie was heavily sedated, and on her own all evening, the twins elsewhere.

Reasons?

A. MO said, in passing, 'I'll check Maddie for you" - he should have said, "I'll check the kids..."

B. C Pennington said - "When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her. They've taken her!'

So KM HAD to be referring to JUST MADDIE (i.e. Maddie was alone in the room), because there should have been TWO HERS in the room, and ONE HIM...

So KM SHOULD have said, 'They've taken MADDIE!'

But the thing is, she didn't, and all the other 7 knew immediately it was Maddie, as they ALL knew she was on her own, otherwise the 7 would have said, "Taken, WHO? Maddie or AMELIE?" - which, of course, never happened.

If Sean had been taken, sure, KM could have got away with saying THEY've taken HIM, but that sounds very off to me, more natural would be to exclaim, THEY'VE taken SEAN!

Finally, the use of THEY'VE implies she (KM) knew who 'took' Maddie, and KM is assuming the rest of the 7, plus Gerry, also knew who THEY were ... she didn't NEED to spell it out...

(Of course, I don't believe there WAS an abduction, so the use of THEY'VE is either a slip up, or a red herring - the McCanns have introduced IMHO 100s of red herrings in this case...)

However, if we take it at face value, THEY, therefore, must have had prior interaction with the McCann parents, members of the other 7, and if THEY were paedophiles, then poor old heavily sedated Maddie would have had prior interactions too, with THEM.

Would you make sure that you are obviously expressing opinion. Some of us may think the children were sedated, but there is no actual proof of it. So, to avoid libel, you need to express the ideas as just that, ideas and opinions. There are other instances here that I don't have time to list. So, please edit.

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 15:56

NoStone wrote:
Forensicist wrote:Loop and gang. Is the good Doctor getting at a blood stain? I think he suspects KM is laying the alibi groundwork for WHY she washed Maddies jammies, Also, KM kept bringing up the self-implicating neglect morsel (just WHY would she drop herself in it like that?)

The Dr thinks misdirection. And I agree. The parents McCann are putting out a barrage of red herrings. One of them is MBM's alleged plea, paraphrased - "mummy, why did u let me and Sean cry all alone last night?"KM flagged this dropping herself in it mea culpa several times - not like *her* at all, is it?

Unless MBM died the day before the "opening night" amateur production...

Alibis are slotted in, after the fact, the crèche records are tampered with, so IMHO MBM dies much earlier than the 9 are trying to hoodwink us over...

constant crying on the Tuesday evening, and ever since, a premeditated stage show was hastily put together, with directions from London ... Hence all the texts to Gerry, with status updates on the hour, every hour

MBM HAD to be deceased WELL before the British establishment "fixers" kicked in circa 10pm onwards, Thursday night

No other explanation fits...

(Weeeell, I can think of ONE, but it is extremely 'out there' a la 9/11 and 7/7 - txtusa would get it, I'm sure, in view of her current change of direction (I.e. focussing on the VERY big picture, all things on the table, Tavistock Fabian common purpose eugenicist social engineering, ID cards, the chipping of children, illegal cloning experiments, the works!) think of a Tavistock Hollywood Production, several years in the planning... But that is for another time and place...

Cheers!

F

MADELEINE EXCLUSIVE: ALL THREE CHILDREN DRUGGED

Sunday October 11,2009 By James Murray

The kidnapper of Madeleine McCann drugged her and her twin brother and sister so they would all be quiet while she was snatched.

A duplicate key may also have been used to gain entrance to the holiday apartment where the children were sleeping, say investigators.

It means the monster is still a threat to children living or holidaying on Portugal’s Algarve and must be caught urgently as he is highly likely to reoffend.

Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley have spent months re-analysing every shred of evidence. They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children.

The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.

Had the twins been tested for drugs immediately, any medication used could have been established, making it easier to identify the kidnapper, but vital time was lost.

Chloroform can be made easily and other sedatives, such as the horse tranquilliser ketamine, are commonly in circulation in the criminal underworld.

Even now, however, experts say there may be forensic clues on clothing or bedding which could yield a breakthrough.

The Sunday Express can further reveal that the McCanns’ private detectives are working on a solid theory about exactly how Madeleine was abducted.

Just as television investigator Donal MacIntyre suggested in this paper three weeks ago, they believe there was a dry run prior to the kidnap that fateful night at apartment 5a of the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz.

While checking the layout of the apartment the night before, the kidnapper probably woke Sean, who in turn woke Madeleine. In the morning she had told Kate and Gerry she was frightened. The fact that the children woke up is thought to have persuaded the kidnapper to use knock-out drugs when he returned the next night to take Madeleine, three.

On the question of the duplicate key, holidaymakers often left front door keys under the doormats during the day.
A theory emerging is that the kidnapper had a duplicate key to apartment 5a, which could have been used on the night to enter by the front door.

Mr Edgar and Mr Cowley do not believe Madeleine was taken through an open window as it would have been awkward, time consuming and there were no forensic clues left behind.

It is far more likely, they say, that he simply walked out of the front door with her in his arms. It had been thought that the front door was double locked, making it impossible to open from the inside, but this doubt falls away if there was a duplicate key.

The theory suggests the kidnapper had been targeting the apartment for a long time and had a detailed knowledge of the lock system.

With the front door unlocked, it is easy to simply pull a latch across to open it from the inside.

Another possibility is that the front door was not double-locked when Kate and Gerry left through the unlocked patio doors to join their seven friends at the resort’s tapas bar some 30 metres from their apartment.

Meanwhile it emerged yesterday that the parents of a two-year-old girl who has gone missing in New Zealand are being supported by the McCanns.

Aisling Symes vanished from a relative’s house in an Auckland suburb on Monday.

Her mother Angela had been close by, standing beside a washing machine.

There have been reports that the girl was later seen with a woman of Asian appearance.

Detectives believe she was abducted. Despite repeated appeals for help their searches have so far drawn a blank.
Kate and Gerry McCann said their “thoughts and prayers” were with the family.

The little girl’s father, Allan Symes, who is originally from County Waterford in Ireland, made an emotional plea for her return, saying: “These recent days have proven to be the most harrowing of our lives; no sleep and we feel like we’re barely existing, just surviving every moment, not knowing where Aisling is.”

It has also emerged that police in Sweden are trying to find a girl said to bear a resemblance to Madeleine after a photograph was posted on a website.

However, she does not appear to have the distinctive mark Madeleine has in her right eye.

express.co.uk/posts/view/133307/MADELEINE-EXCLUSIVE-All-three-children-drugged

Et voila!! Not only alibi's slotted in after the fact but answers to lots of other questions too - all supplied by the Mc's PI's!!!

Many thanks NoStone for this theory invented by Laurel and Hardy! James Murray will soon be turning on the McCanns when 'Dirty' Des gives him the green light!

I don't buy a dummy run for one nanosecond.

"While checking the layout of the apartment the night before, the kidnapper probably woke Sean, who in turn woke Madeleine. In the morning she had told Kate and Gerry she was frightened."

3. Main reasons...

1. No NEED to check the layout, just walk around the building, it is a very small apt, and they are all pretty much the same at that complex, it is easy to tell the layout by an outside visual check...

2. If MBM was able to say (paraphrased again) "mummy, why didn't you come last night when me and sean were crying' - (I don't believe she ever said this, speech patterns too advanced) - a red herring), she would also be able to say "mummy, there was a strange man in our room last night..."

3. If the 'abductor' was in the room, maddy on the bed crying, he is already busted, just take here there and then, no need for chloroform, just a strong hand firmly clamped around her mouth, out the front door and into waiting transport, job done...

Dummy runs are for Dummies, Laurel and Hardy above, really grasping at straws...

Guest Sun 8 Jan - 15:58

That's unfair, Laurel and Hardy were actually funny.

**Claudia79** Sun 8 Jan - 16:02

Forensicist, I sense your stay here will be very short if you don't start using some 'alleged', 'I think', 'I believe', etc. Is that clear?

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:05

Would you make sure that you are obviously expressing opinion. Some of us may think the children were sedated, but there is no actual proof of it. So, to avoid libel, you need to express the ideas as just that, ideas and opinions. There are other instances here that I don't have time to list. So, please edit.

Done.

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:06

Iris wrote:That's unfair, Laurel and Hardy were actually funny.

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:07

Claudia79 wrote:Forensicist, I sense your stay here will be very short if you don't start using some 'alleged', 'I think', 'I believe', etc. Is that clear?

Anna, I have made nearly 89 posts now, why didn't you spell this out for me after the first mistake on my part?

**AnnaEsse** Sun 8 Jan - 16:09

Forensicist wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Forensicist, I sense your stay here will be very short if you don't start using some 'alleged', 'I think', 'I believe', etc. Is that clear?

Anna, I have made nearly 89 posts now, why didn't you spell this out for me after the first mistake on my part?

It's your responsibility to make sure you're not libeling anyone, not mine.

**Claudia79** Sun 8 Jan - 16:10

Forensicist wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Forensicist, I sense your stay here will be very short if you don't start using some 'alleged', 'I think', 'I believe', etc. Is that clear?

Anna, I have made nearly 89 posts now, why didn't you spell this out for me after the first mistake on my part?

I'm not Anna. I'm Cláudia. Did you really have to be told that you can't libel people? What about reading the rules of this forum before you start posting? Are we actually to believe you don't know you can't accuse people of doing something without proof?

matthew Sun 8 Jan - 16:12

I could go with a stakeout if an abduction occured(mind you, why pick the night when the 'friends' decide for the only night to check on each others children,except for the mccanns who only checked their own...rather selfish )... but a dummy run Washed up?Dr Roberts - Page 2 678246

Its a risk to be caught once...

With the mayhem of the checking on may 3rd...the abductor,unless stupid...which if true,clearly wasn't,then he/she/they would surely abandon the abduction...& ex policemen came up with this theory...can only say,its good that they are ex

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:15

Point taken.

Why did Gerry McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with theories on the internet?

Was he lying?

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:17

matthew wrote:I could go with a stakeout if an abduction occured(mind you, why pick the night when the 'friends' decide for the only night to check on each others children,except for the mccanns who only checked their own...rather selfish )... but a dummy run

Its a risk to be caught once...

With the mayhem of the checking on may 3rd...the abductor,unless stupid...which if true,clearly wasn't,then he/she/they would surely abandon the abduction...& ex policemen came up with this theory...can only say,its good that they are ex

I have to say there are some many holes in their fantasy, it resemble a sieve. Really, if they were detectives at one point, it boggles the mind...

Guest Sun 8 Jan - 16:18

Forensicist wrote:Point taken.

Why did Gerry McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with theories on the internet?

Was he lying?

What do you think?

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:19

Iris wrote:
Forensicist wrote:Point taken.

Why did Gerry McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with theories on the internet?

Was he lying?

What do you think?

What do YOU think, I asked the question first! Washed up?Dr Roberts - Page 2 294124

**Claudia79** Sun 8 Jan - 16:22

Forensicist wrote:Point taken.

Why did Gerry McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with theories on the internet?

Was he lying?

You'll have to ask Gerry McCann.

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:32

Claudia79 wrote:
Forensicist wrote:Point taken.

Why did Gerry McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with theories on the internet?

Was he lying?

You'll have to ask Gerry McCann.

I think Lord Justice Levinson already did. If GM tries to sue anyone for libel in future, the defence lawyer need only cross-examine him on his statements to Levinson. I hope Dr Amaral is reading this, his defence team...

But KM didn't say that. So she will sue on GM's behalf, naturally...

They are more slippery than a greased eel, and that is a FACT. Lies and more conflicting lies, all on record. Perjury to Levinson - KM "There were NO bodily fluids in the car..."

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:35

Claudia79 wrote:
Forensicist wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Forensicist, I sense your stay here will be very short if you don't start using some 'alleged', 'I think', 'I believe', etc. Is that clear?

Anna, I have made nearly 89 posts now, why didn't you spell this out for me after the first mistake on my part?

I'm not Anna. I'm Cláudia. Did you really have to be told that you can't libel people? What about reading the rules of this forum before you start posting? Are we actually to believe you don't know you can't accuse people of doing something without proof?

I will use a disclaimer in future.

Loopdaloop Sun 8 Jan - 16:39

AnnaEsse wrote:

Would you make sure that you are obviously expressing opinion. Some of us may think the children were sedated, but there is no actual proof of it. So, to avoid libel, you need to express the ideas as just that, ideas and opinions. There are other instances here that I don't have time to list. So, please edit.

The Mccans's are suggesting themselves that someone sedated the children in their own reconstruction/documentary so I don't think the Forensicist can be libeled on that one.

Forensicist Sun 8 Jan - 16:42

AnnaEsse wrote:
Forensicist wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Forensicist, I sense your stay here will be very short if you don't start using some 'alleged', 'I think', 'I believe', etc. Is that clear?

Anna, I have made nearly 89 posts now, why didn't you spell this out for me after the first mistake on my part?

It's your responsibility to make sure you're not libeling anyone, not mine.

Fair enough, I am putting up a disclaimer and will use the words you suggested.

Be interesting to see what a defence team says next time carter-ruck sues somebody. On a personal level I have not a penny in the world. They seem to go after the big fry, with plenty of money, that is the pattern so far...

Sponsored content