What is a pro or an anti?

Jodel, proof off an abduction,please?

jodel wrote:

amber wrote:shocking with names but Jodels style of writing reminds me of a recent poster - just cant remember his/her name.

I haven't posted on this for a couple of years now. I was on the Mirror Forum, Sky Forum, Bar Arguido and the 3 Arguidos back in the day- never a prolific poster and always a fence sitter. I only drifted back a couple of weeks ago when the Leveson enquiry had the McCanns giving evidence.

I have always had problems from both pros and antis as I have no strong feelings about what really happened from homicide by the McCanns through to straight abduction, so I am anaethma to both sets of strong believers.

I am sure that my IP can be checked (will have been checked) by admin and it will show that I have not posted here before- I use Vodafone on the move (which has no regular IP) and Sky at home which has a fixed IP.

As a matter of routine, we check IP addresses of new posters. So, of course, I have checked yours!

kitti wrote:Jodel, proof off an abduction,please?

If you look above I see no proof of abduction and I see no proof of homicide. There is insufficient evidence in my view to make any decision with any sort of certainty- more or less what the Portuguese Prosecutor decided- insufficient evidence to bring charges against anyone, abductor or killer.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

amber wrote:shocking with names but Jodels style of writing reminds me of a recent poster - just cant remember his/her name.

I haven't posted on this for a couple of years now. I was on the Mirror Forum, Sky Forum, Bar Arguido and the 3 Arguidos back in the day- never a prolific poster and always a fence sitter. I only drifted back a couple of weeks ago when the Leveson enquiry had the McCanns giving evidence.

I have always had problems from both pros and antis as I have no strong feelings about what really happened from homicide by the McCanns through to straight abduction, so I am anaethma to both sets of strong believers.

I am sure that my IP can be checked (will have been checked) by admin and it will show that I have not posted here before- I use Vodafone on the move (which has no regular IP) and Sky at home which has a fixed IP.

As a matter of routine, we check IP addresses of new posters. So, of course, I have checked yours!

Perhaps then you can confirm that the Sky IP has not been used by any other poster (I suppose the Vodafone one may show up as a regular set of IPs (many hundreds of thousands) are assigned randomly with each connection.)

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:Jodel, proof off an abduction,please?

If you look above I see no proof of abduction and I see no proof of homicide. There is insufficient evidence in my view to make any decision with any sort of certainty- more or less what the Portuguese Prosecutor decided- insufficient evidence to bring charges against anyone, abductor or killer.

Just wondering, Jodel, if you see no proof of any cause of Madeleine's disappearance, does that mean you haven't read through the police files? Or does it mean that you have read through the files and haven't come to a conclusion? Are there indications for a range of causes or no indications for any cause?

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

amber wrote:shocking with names but Jodels style of writing reminds me of a recent poster - just cant remember his/her name.

I haven't posted on this for a couple of years now. I was on the Mirror Forum, Sky Forum, Bar Arguido and the 3 Arguidos back in the day- never a prolific poster and always a fence sitter. I only drifted back a couple of weeks ago when the Leveson enquiry had the McCanns giving evidence.

I have always had problems from both pros and antis as I have no strong feelings about what really happened from homicide by the McCanns through to straight abduction, so I am anaethma to both sets of strong believers.

I am sure that my IP can be checked (will have been checked) by admin and it will show that I have not posted here before- I use Vodafone on the move (which has no regular IP) and Sky at home which has a fixed IP.

As a matter of routine, we check IP addresses of new posters. So, of course, I have checked yours!

Perhaps then you can confirm that the Sky IP has not been used by any other poster (I suppose the Vodafone one may show up as a regular set of IPs (many hundreds of thousands) are assigned randomly with each connection.)

Without giving out anything that is confidential, if your IP address had been used by another poster, you wouldn't be here.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:Jodel, proof off an abduction,please?

If you look above I see no proof of abduction and I see no proof of homicide. There is insufficient evidence in my view to make any decision with any sort of certainty- more or less what the Portuguese Prosecutor decided- insufficient evidence to bring charges against anyone, abductor or killer.

Just wondering, Jodel, if you see no proof of any cause of Madeleine's disappearance, does that mean you haven't read through the police files? Or does it mean that you have read through the files and haven't come to a conclusion? Are there indications for a range of causes or no indications for any cause?

.

A couple of years ago I read all available files and decided that there was no clarity and no convincing evidence of any crime except child neglect. I also believe that many of the beliefs that people have about certain parts of the evidence are over-interpreted and misunderstood and have built up on both sides into forum myths for each group- questionable assumptions shared with other posters of like mind

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:Jodel, proof off an abduction,please?

If you look above I see no proof of abduction and I see no proof of homicide. There is insufficient evidence in my view to make any decision with any sort of certainty- more or less what the Portuguese Prosecutor decided- insufficient evidence to bring charges against anyone, abductor or killer.

Just wondering, Jodel, if you see no proof of any cause of Madeleine's disappearance, does that mean you haven't read through the police files? Or does it mean that you have read through the files and haven't come to a conclusion? Are there indications for a range of causes or no indications for any cause?

.

A couple of years ago I read all available files and decided that there was no clarity and no convincing evidence of any crime except child neglect. I also believe that many of the beliefs that people have about certain parts of the evidence are over-interpreted and misunderstood and have built up on both sides into forum myths for each group- questionable assumptions shared with other posters of like mind

So, which parts have been misunderstood?

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

amber wrote:shocking with names but Jodels style of writing reminds me of a recent poster - just cant remember his/her name.

I haven't posted on this for a couple of years now. I was on the Mirror Forum, Sky Forum, Bar Arguido and the 3 Arguidos back in the day- never a prolific poster and always a fence sitter. I only drifted back a couple of weeks ago when the Leveson enquiry had the McCanns giving evidence.

I have always had problems from both pros and antis as I have no strong feelings about what really happened from homicide by the McCanns through to straight abduction, so I am anaethma to both sets of strong believers.

I am sure that my IP can be checked (will have been checked) by admin and it will show that I have not posted here before- I use Vodafone on the move (which has no regular IP) and Sky at home which has a fixed IP.

As a matter of routine, we check IP addresses of new posters. So, of course, I have checked yours!

Perhaps then you can confirm that the Sky IP has not been used by any other poster (I suppose the Vodafone one may show up as a regular set of IPs (many hundreds of thousands) are assigned randomly with each connection.)

Without giving out anything that is confidential, if your IP address had been used by another poster, you wouldn't be here.

Thank you.

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

Hello Jodel,

I think that the main problem is that the dogs confirmed the presence of both a dead and a live body in 5a. When the villa and the rental car were checked and when DNA tests on the sites indicated by the dogs came up with a (for the UK) conclusive match to Maddie's DNA - added to circumstantial evidence and contradictions by the McCanns themselves, would have been enough admissible evidence for court.
But quite soon after that, Gordon Brown visited both Leicestershire Police H.Q. and the FSS, who then produced another totally inconclusive report.
Imo that's when the whole thing became a total farce. In addition to that, the PJ had requested a lot of routine information, which they were denied.

Apart from the disappearance of Maddie, there is the Fund, which is clearly fraudulent even if you only look at the amount of money spent on lawyers, which the public were assured would not happen. There isn't a whisper about this in the media, although all they need do is to publish the accounts with the analyses. It's public, so why not?

The help/rescue they've had from the top down, is unprecedented. There is a clear indication that it was planned, the most glaring evidence of that the poster photo of the girl with the coloboma.
You may not know that 30/40 copies of this photograph were ready and printed less than four hours after she disappeared. The photograph has been clearly photoshopped with a coloboma. In the Piers Morgan interview in 2011 both 'admitted' that she had the merest little fleck in her eye and 'they'd never made much of that feature' (not litt. quotes). The paper used was not available anywhere in PdL or OC and was A4 format. The PJ noted this the same night. Therefore it must have been printed prior to the 3rd, perhaps even before the holiday.

So what a lot of antis are unable to understand is how such obvious signs of planning have been allowed to fall by the wayside.
Why the McCanns are almost always asked pre-arranged questions. Never truly interviewed. Not even by Paxman.

On the basis of the witness statements and others, it looks very much as if the children were never unattended, very few believe they left their children alone at night with an open door. (Incidentally, they had been warned about burglaries in the OC - so 'feeling safe' was a pretty weak excuse).

Imo the mcCanns had a plan. Imo also, the people who have protected them from the start, did not know about this, but it must have been hugely in their interests to quash any 'non-believer'. It's not the McCanns that are being protected, it's something else that would be a highly inconvenient truth if the McCanns were to stand trial. Imo that will never happen. With any luck they Fund may close down.

The dogs are not a myth though some would wish it was and there is absolutely NO evidence off an abduction and the dogs have proved that there was a death on the apt.


You havent read the files at all or priorly if you have come to those conclusions.


Cadaver scent in the apt, in the car , on clothes etc etc.....all connected to the mccanns and not the other people they holidayed with....



Are you saying the dogs were wrong?

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:Jodel, proof off an abduction,please?

If you look above I see no proof of abduction and I see no proof of homicide. There is insufficient evidence in my view to make any decision with any sort of certainty- more or less what the Portuguese Prosecutor decided- insufficient evidence to bring charges against anyone, abductor or killer.

Just wondering, Jodel, if you see no proof of any cause of Madeleine's disappearance, does that mean you haven't read through the police files? Or does it mean that you have read through the files and haven't come to a conclusion? Are there indications for a range of causes or no indications for any cause?

.

A couple of years ago I read all available files and decided that there was no clarity and no convincing evidence of any crime except child neglect. I also believe that many of the beliefs that people have about certain parts of the evidence are over-interpreted and misunderstood and have built up on both sides into forum myths for each group- questionable assumptions shared with other posters of like mind

So, which parts have been misunderstood?

Both sides have misinterpreted the DNA findings- they neither provide evidence of wrong-doing nor evidence of innocence.

Similarly with the Dogs- they neither prove death nor lack of a death.

Both items cause questions to be asked, but neither is sufficient to prove anything.

Also widely misunderstood is the level of variation that occurs in any investigation when statements are compared. Human memory and perceptions are not as definite as we would all like to think.

tigger wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

Hello Jodel,

I think that the main problem is that the dogs confirmed the presence of both a dead and a live body in 5a. When the villa and the rental car were checked and when DNA tests on the sites indicated by the dogs came up with a (for the UK) conclusive match to Maddie's DNA - added to circumstantial evidence and contradictions by the McCanns themselves, would have been enough admissible evidence for court.
But quite soon after that, Gordon Brown visited both Leicestershire Police H.Q. and the FSS, who then produced another totally inconclusive report.
Imo that's when the whole thing became a total farce. In addition to that, the PJ had requested a lot of routine information, which they were denied.

Apart from the disappearance of Maddie, there is the Fund, which is clearly fraudulent even if you only look at the amount of money spent on lawyers, which the public were assured would not happen. There isn't a whisper about this in the media, although all they need do is to publish the accounts with the analyses. It's public, so why not?

The help/rescue they've had from the top down, is unprecedented. There is a clear indication that it was planned, the most glaring evidence of that the poster photo of the girl with the coloboma.
You may not know that 30/40 copies of this photograph were ready and printed less than four hours after she disappeared. The photograph has been clearly photoshopped with a coloboma. In the Piers Morgan interview in 2011 both 'admitted' that she had the merest little fleck in her eye and 'they'd never made much of that feature' (not litt. quotes). The paper used was not available anywhere in PdL or OC and was A4 format. The PJ noted this the same night. Therefore it must have been printed prior to the 3rd, perhaps even before the holiday.

So what a lot of antis are unable to understand is how such obvious signs of planning have been allowed to fall by the wayside.
Why the McCanns are almost always asked pre-arranged questions. Never truly interviewed. Not even by Paxman.

On the basis of the witness statements and others, it looks very much as if the children were never unattended, very few believe they left their children alone at night with an open door. (Incidentally, they had been warned about burglaries in the OC - so 'feeling safe' was a pretty weak excuse).

Imo the mcCanns had a plan. Imo also, the people who have protected them from the start, did not know about this, but it must have been hugely in their interests to quash any 'non-believer'. It's not the McCanns that are being protected, it's something else that would be a highly inconvenient truth if the McCanns were to stand trial. Imo that will never happen. With any luck they Fund may close down.

The dogs did not 'confirm' the presence of a dead or live body in the apartment. Their indications implied that there may have been blood and cadaver odour, but that is not evidence usable in court.

There was no 'conclusive' evidence of Madeleine's DNA in the car.

The important thing about your conclusion is the 'IMO'- it is your opinion but others may well disagree.

Again, the fund, though a little distasteful is not obviously fraudulent- given the width of its remit it is difficult to see how it could be seen as so and the British police have never questioned it.

Your suggestions of the 'photoshopping' of the Coloboma and the later comments are not in my recollection of events.

There is a lot of opinion in this case and very little agreed fact or evidence.

I look forward to the Scotland Yard Review which I suspect will be difficult reading for both Pros and Antis.

kitti wrote:The dogs are not a myth though some would wish it was and there is absolutely NO evidence off an abduction and the dogs have proved that there was a death on the apt.


You havent read the files at all or priorly if you have come to those conclusions.


Cadaver scent in the apt, in the car , on clothes etc etc.....all connected to the mccanns and not the other people they holidayed with....



Are you saying the dogs were wrong?

I am saying that the dogs' indications cannot be seen as evidence and can only indicate the possibility of there having been cadaver material there (I paraphrase Mr Grime here who repeated this sort of disclaimer everytime he was asked what the dogs indications meant.

The fact that the dogs did react raises difficult questions for pros but do not prove the anti's case.

Jodel, how do you feel about the way "unfortunate" photographs of Healy and McCann can be seen?

We had a discussion the other day where, playing Devil's Advocate to a degree, I pointed out that it isn't uncommon for people to fleetingly have a happy smiling countenance so drawing a hard and fast conclusion is not particularly fair as the photgrapher may have taken many shots to entrap (for that is what it could amount to) the "telling" one.

We got a wide range of replies (thus tending to disprove the polarised Pro and Anti thing) ranging from agreement, through partial agreement, qualified agreement, qualified disagreement, partial disagreement to total disagreement (In fact, I was accused of providing Healy and McCann with an "excuse" at one point).

The End Is Nigh wrote:Jodel, how do you feel about the way "unfortunate" photographs of Healy and McCann can be seen?

We had a discussion the other day where, playing Devil's Advocate to a degree, I pointed out that it isn't uncommon for people to fleetingly have a happy smiling countenance so drawing a hard and fast conclusion is not particularly fair as the photgrapher may have taken many shots to entrap (for that is what it could amount to) the "telling" one.

We got a wide range of replies (thus tending to disprove the polarised Pro and Anti thing) ranging from agreement, through partial agreement, qualified agreement, qualified disagreement, partial disagreement to total disagreement (In fact, I was accused of providing Healy and McCann with an "excuse" at one point).

Photographs can be used to imply anything. I do not deal in 'magical science' such as body language, voice tone, lie detectors, photographic appearance etc.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Jodel, how do you feel about the way "unfortunate" photographs of Healy and McCann can be seen?

We had a discussion the other day where, playing Devil's Advocate to a degree, I pointed out that it isn't uncommon for people to fleetingly have a happy smiling countenance so drawing a hard and fast conclusion is not particularly fair as the photgrapher may have taken many shots to entrap (for that is what it could amount to) the "telling" one.

We got a wide range of replies (thus tending to disprove the polarised Pro and Anti thing) ranging from agreement, through partial agreement, qualified agreement, qualified disagreement, partial disagreement to total disagreement (In fact, I was accused of providing Healy and McCann with an "excuse" at one point).

I would make two further points- did you do that experiment here- I was not aware that there were any self-identifying pros here- I have not noticed any.

The second point is to direct people to the pictures chosen by photo editors of newspapers for people or politicians thye dislike- there is always available a picture which abuses the dislike people. Ed Milliband does not look like a muppet except when shown in a Tory paper!

jodel wrote: I was not aware that there were any self-identifying pros here- I have not noticed any.

No point in asking me - I am one of those who don't like stark classification.

But there are many thoughtful members here with a wide range of views and opinions.

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Jodel, how do you feel about the way "unfortunate" photographs of Healy and McCann can be seen?

We had a discussion the other day where, playing Devil's Advocate to a degree, I pointed out that it isn't uncommon for people to fleetingly have a happy smiling countenance so drawing a hard and fast conclusion is not particularly fair as the photgrapher may have taken many shots to entrap (for that is what it could amount to) the "telling" one.

We got a wide range of replies (thus tending to disprove the polarised Pro and Anti thing) ranging from agreement, through partial agreement, qualified agreement, qualified disagreement, partial disagreement to total disagreement (In fact, I was accused of providing Healy and McCann with an "excuse" at one point).

Photographs can be used to imply anything. I do not deal in 'magical science' such as body language, voice tone, lie detectors, photographic appearance etc.

or CSI specialist trained blood and cadaver dogs it seems

It`s probably a good idea Jodel if you just explain your perspective on this case. I like to hear all arguments as its only healthy to balance any lynch-mob mentality, so could you explain how you view this case, i.e. are you coming from a purely objective legal standpoint; are you being a devil`s advocate; do you have an instinctive feel for the Mcs guilt or innocence; are you undecided and do you agree with anything any poster has commented on here?

So the dogs Indicating to cadaver does not prove there was a dead body there....pmsl jodel....you do make me laugh ...


So someone planted it there?


It was from a bottle ...eu de cadaver .....


Once again I ask you.......where is the proof off an abduction or are you more Interested in the dogs findings .

Oldartform wrote:It`s probably a good idea Jodel if you just explain your perspective on this case. I like to hear all arguments as its only healthy to balance any lynch-mob mentality, so could you explain how you view this case, i.e. are you coming from a purely objective legal standpoint; are you being a devil`s advocate; do you have an instinctive feel for the Mcs guilt or innocence; are you undecided and do you agree with anything any poster has commented on here?

I believe that life is complicated and we cannot expect it to meet all our desires. Sometimes things will happen that are confusing and upsetting because it conflicts with our basic desires. When that happens it is time to reflect on whether other people maybe have a better understanding of the situation than we as individuals do.

I will give you an example- I have believed since the first few weeks after Stephen Lawrence was killed that in all probability the group who stood accused were probably guilty of the killing. I did not feel that I needed to campaign for their trial even though it was not brought by the Prosecutor as I understood that the evidence was insufficient. In the fullness of time, evidence was found and two have been convicted.

Stephen Lawrence's parents insisted on launching a private prosecution which failed spectacularly and could have excused the accused permanently

I believe that mature and reflective adults should be capable of considering potential explanations and interpreting it as best they can. When this conflicts with actions taken by other people or organisations they should reflect on why that maybe, avoiding paranoia and cultish behaviour- this goes for Pros and Antis.

My view is that given all the information currently in the public domain, the Portuguese Prosecutor was probably right- not enough evidence to advance any criminal case.

kitti wrote:So the dogs Indicating to cadaver does not prove there was a dead body there....pmsl jodel....you do make me laugh ...


So someone planted it there?


It was from a bottle ...eu de cadaver .....


Once again I ask you.......where is the proof off an abduction or are you more Interested in the dogs findings .

I know of no proof of abduction, nor do I see a proof of homicide by the parents.

Mr Grime was quite clear that the dog's indications were only indicative of possible cadaver odour. If you go back and read his original statement and his rogatory interview, you will find that he never states that a reaction is proof of the existence of the substance. This uncertainty is why their reactions are not admissible as evidence in a court- uncertainty.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jodel wrote: I was not aware that there were any self-identifying pros here- I have not noticed any.

No point in asking me - I am one of those who don't like stark classification.

But there are many thoughtful members here with a wide range of views and opinions.

As an outsider and a fence sitter I see very few open minded people either here or on other Anti Forums or Pro Forums. All forums seem to have descended into mutual admiration societies where contrary views are consciously or unconsciously excluded.

jodel wrote:

Oldartform wrote:It`s probably a good idea Jodel if you just explain your perspective on this case. I like to hear all arguments as its only healthy to balance any lynch-mob mentality, so could you explain how you view this case, i.e. are you coming from a purely objective legal standpoint; are you being a devil`s advocate; do you have an instinctive feel for the Mcs guilt or innocence; are you undecided and do you agree with anything any poster has commented on here?

I believe that life is complicated and we cannot expect it to meet all our desires. Sometimes things will happen that are confusing and upsetting because it conflicts with our basic desires. When that happens it is time to reflect on whether other people maybe have a better understanding of the situation than we as individuals do.

I will give you an example- I have believed since the first few weeks after Stephen Lawrence was killed that in all probability the group who stood accused were probably guilty of the killing. I did not feel that I needed to campaign for their trial even though it was not brought by the Prosecutor as I understood that the evidence was insufficient. In the fullness of time, evidence was found and two have been convicted.

Stephen Lawrence's parents insisted on launching a private prosecution which failed spectacularly and could have excused the accused permanently

I believe that mature and reflective adults should be capable of considering potential explanations and interpreting it as best they can. When this conflicts with actions taken by other people or organisations they should reflect on why that maybe, avoiding paranoia and cultish behaviour- this goes for Pros and Antis.

My view is that given all the information currently in the public domain, the Portuguese Prosecutor was probably right- not enough evidence to advance any criminal case.

My paranoia thinks you have been here before under a different user name,certainly the days of 'fence sitters' is long over as you well allude to in your post.