Re: What is a pro or an anti?

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 18:46

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:

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.

Well, it's really neither possible for us, nor up to us to interpret DNA findings. Only genetic scientists can do that. We can discuss what those findings were and discuss the messages sent by FSS to the PJ, but not interpret the findings themselves.

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 18:47

Lioned wrote:
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.

I have not been here before but did post on Mirror, Sky, Bar Arguido and 3Arguidos in earlier times.

Guest Wed 18 Jan - 18:49

jodel wrote:
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.

I'm not the one who keeps mentioning Pro and Anti - in terms either of the general flavour of Forums or in respect of individuals. But it seems to mean a lot to you, which I find odd. I don't appreciate people trying to "classify" me (On principle, in the main - but even when someone persists they are usually wrong and merely trying to confirm their own prejudices), and I'm surprised that as a declared fence-sitter you don't just ignore such generalised pigeon-holing. It's not easy, I know, but we can but try.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 18:50

jodel wrote:
Lioned wrote:
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.

I have not been here before but did post on Mirror, Sky, Bar Arguido and 3Arguidos in earlier times.

So, who were you on 3Arguidos?

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 18:50

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

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.

Well, it's really neither possible for us, nor up to us to interpret DNA findings. Only genetic scientists can do that. We can discuss what those findings were and discuss the messages sent by FSS to the PJ, but not interpret the findings themselves.

To understand what was said in the reports, it is necessary to understand what model is used and what is meant by '15 out of 19', '35 in total' and the sample being made up of markers from several different people. Both sides misinterpret these findings to suit their own myth.

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 18:51

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
Lioned wrote:
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.

I have not been here before but did post on Mirror, Sky, Bar Arguido and 3Arguidos in earlier times.

So, who were you on 3Arguidos?

I posted as aldente.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 18:53

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:.

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.

Well, it's really neither possible for us, nor up to us to interpret DNA findings. Only genetic scientists can do that. We can discuss what those findings were and discuss the messages sent by FSS to the PJ, but not interpret the findings themselves.

To understand what was said in the reports, it is necessary to understand what model is used and what is meant by '15 out of 19', '35 in total' and the sample being made up of markers from several different people. Both sides misinterpret these findings to suit their own myth.

I have seen lack of understanding but not misinterpretation. I asked a geneticist of my acquaintance what the problem might have been and he said that with samples coming from three people, when the samples were very small, it wouldn't be clear whether you were comparing type 1 to type 2, hence the difficulty in coming to any firm conclusion.

**malena stool** Wed 18 Jan - 18:55

Fence sitting???
How quaint......

Oldartform Wed 18 Jan - 18:58

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.

Thank you for your reply but you haven`t really expressed your feelings on this case. It is as if you don`t have any. That`s why I asked about your gut feelings. I believe many of us here are `mature and reflective adults` who do consider explanations for suspicious behaviours; I certainly do. The human condition is to reflect and to discriminate or else we wouldn`t survive. And it is because we are able to discriminate that we are able to determine that certain things in this case just `aint right. Your answers to all comments have been in `legal speke` which is fair enough but surely even a legal minded person has gut feelings about innocence or guilt and I`m asking if you do?

As regards the comparison with the Stephen Lawrence case, I think I can see the point you`re making, i.e. that passionate actions desirous of justice can sometimes hinder the outcome. I would agree that in certain circumstances a `do nothing` approach brings eventual justice; call it Karma if you like.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 19:01

jodel wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
Lioned wrote:
jodel wrote:

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.

I have not been here before but did post on Mirror, Sky, Bar Arguido and 3Arguidos in earlier times.

So, who were you on 3Arguidos?

I posted as aldente.

Thank you. I don't recall that name.

tigger Wed 18 Jan - 19:16

Jodel wrote:
quote

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.
The dogs' indications were confirmed by actual blood found in the apartment. The cadaver dog has not been wrong in over 200 cases so I'm not inclined to doubt that cadaver odour was present.

There was no 'conclusive' evidence of Madeleine's DNA in the car.
The alleles present were I think 14 out of 19, which is sufficient to convict in the US and I believe also in the UK, but not in Portugal where a full match is required. The statistical probability of it being another individual, is very low indeed. (and I DO know what alleles are)

The important thing about your conclusion is the 'IMO'- it is your opinion but others may well disagree.
If the only important thing about my conclusion (right or wrong in your opinion) is that I state it is my opinion there is no point entering in discussion. Clearly others may disagree - that is for discussion, to avoid being accused of slander or libel it is desirable to state whose opinion you are giving.

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. The Fund is not transparent, has been extensively used to pay lawyers and a very small proportion of the donations have been used to search for Maddie, I would call that fraudulent but you may have a more relaxed view of the law.

Your suggestions of the 'photoshopping' of the Coloboma and the later comments are not in my recollection of events.
Surely these can hardly be in your recollection of events, implying that you were present to recollect them. Even so, it is quite easy to go through the original police reports as posted on McCannfiles.

There is a lot of opinion in this case and very little agreed fact or evidence.
I find this a rather strange statement, you may mean that you don't like the opinions and the lack of agreement over evidence? There is quite a lot of evidence, both circumstantial and direct if you take the trouble to go through the PJ files. Here is a quote for you:
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

I look forward to the Scotland Yard Review which I suspect will be difficult reading for both Pros and Antis.
I too, will read the report with interest as unlike you, I expect SY will have read the files and considered the evidence.
unquote.

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 19:23

Oldartform wrote:
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.

Thank you for your reply but you haven`t really expressed your feelings on this case. It is as if you don`t have any. That`s why I asked about your gut feelings. I believe many of us here are `mature and reflective adults` who do consider explanations for suspicious behaviours; I certainly do. The human condition is to reflect and to discriminate or else we wouldn`t survive. And it is because we are able to discriminate that we are able to determine that certain things in this case just `aint right. Your answers to all comments have been in `legal speke` which is fair enough but surely even a legal minded person has gut feelings about innocence or guilt and I`m asking if you do?

As regards the comparison with the Stephen Lawrence case, I think I can see the point you`re making, i.e. that passionate actions desirous of justice can sometimes hinder the outcome. I would agree that in certain circumstances a `do nothing` approach brings eventual justice; call it Karma if you like.

I have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.

Guest Wed 18 Jan - 19:27

Why are you here then? TBH I think you have a bloody cheek to come in here and label us all. I am pro-MADELEINE and that's it.

Guest Wed 18 Jan - 19:28

@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?

qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 19:30

jodel wrote:
Oldartform wrote:
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.

Thank you for your reply but you haven`t really expressed your feelings on this case. It is as if you don`t have any. That`s why I asked about your gut feelings. I believe many of us here are `mature and reflective adults` who do consider explanations for suspicious behaviours; I certainly do. The human condition is to reflect and to discriminate or else we wouldn`t survive. And it is because we are able to discriminate that we are able to determine that certain things in this case just `aint right. Your answers to all comments have been in `legal speke` which is fair enough but surely even a legal minded person has gut feelings about innocence or guilt and I`m asking if you do?

As regards the comparison with the Stephen Lawrence case, I think I can see the point you`re making, i.e. that passionate actions desirous of justice can sometimes hinder the outcome. I would agree that in certain circumstances a `do nothing` approach brings eventual justice; call it Karma if you like.

I have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.

You are being somewhat dogged here, yourself, considering that you only registered today. So, if you think all this posting so long after the event is sad, why are you here and why have you racked up so many posts since you joined today? What's your purpose in being here?

Oldartform Wed 18 Jan - 19:35

[quote="jodelI have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.[/quote]

So, nothings changed, so can we safely presume that you have lost interest again. So, there`s really no point in you commenting is there?

We had another poster here last week who wrote in a similar manner to you Jodel and all he/she managed to do was identify herself as a a person with malicious intent. So do try and be a bit less antagonistic if you want to stay around.

tigger Wed 18 Jan - 19:43

This is my last post to Jodel (which actually means Yodelling in my language), I understand you are a social worker.

The tone and content of your posts remind me awfully of 'Clare in the community' on radio four. You'd be a natural.

Guest Wed 18 Jan - 19:43

Yes, and they all work in Social Services or forensic labs, or the Police, or as computer networking engineers who can trace IP numbers. Funny, that.

Oldartform Wed 18 Jan - 19:48

tigger wrote:This is my last post to Jodel (which actually means Yodelling in my language), I understand you are a social worker.

The tone and content of your posts remind me awfully of 'Clare in the community' on radio four. You'd be a natural.

That`s one of my favourite progs What is a pro or an anti? - Page 3 294124

It really takes the rise out of social workers (and its not far from the truth either).

Guest Wed 18 Jan - 19:52

One might think that Social Workers would have strong feelings about the rights or wrongs of the way in which Healy and McCann tell us they cared for their offspring whilst on holiday. I say "tell us" advisedly.

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 19:53

The End Is Nigh wrote:@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?

qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

Hint: look at the thread title.

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 19:55

Oldartform wrote:[quote="jodel]I have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.

So, nothings changed, so can we safely presume that you have lost interest again. So, there`s really no point in you commenting is there?

We had another poster here last week who wrote in a similar manner to you Jodel and all he/she managed to do was identify herself as a a person with malicious intent. So do try and be a bit less antagonistic if you want to stay around.

[/quote]

It is that sort of hidden threat "do try and be a bit less antagonistic if you want to stay around." that leads to only a narrow field of view surviving here.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 19:57

jodel wrote:
The End Is Nigh wrote:@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?

qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

Hint: look at the thread title.

26 posts and only registered today. This is a discussion board, Jodel, where people express opinions on the information available and often attempt to throw new light/new thinking on something that has been discussed before. In 26 posts, you have told us that you don't have opinions based on the information available and you think we shouldn't be discussing it. So, do you think you might have stumbled into the wrong place?

jodel Wed 18 Jan - 19:59

AnnaEsse wrote:
jodel wrote:
Oldartform wrote:
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.

Thank you for your reply but you haven`t really expressed your feelings on this case. It is as if you don`t have any. That`s why I asked about your gut feelings. I believe many of us here are `mature and reflective adults` who do consider explanations for suspicious behaviours; I certainly do. The human condition is to reflect and to discriminate or else we wouldn`t survive. And it is because we are able to discriminate that we are able to determine that certain things in this case just `aint right. Your answers to all comments have been in `legal speke` which is fair enough but surely even a legal minded person has gut feelings about innocence or guilt and I`m asking if you do?

As regards the comparison with the Stephen Lawrence case, I think I can see the point you`re making, i.e. that passionate actions desirous of justice can sometimes hinder the outcome. I would agree that in certain circumstances a `do nothing` approach brings eventual justice; call it Karma if you like.

I have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.

You are being somewhat dogged here, yourself, considering that you only registered today. So, if you think all this posting so long after the event is sad, why are you here and why have you racked up so many posts since you joined today? What's your purpose in being here?

I was interested in the possibility of discussing the case openly without rancour. I have been entirely polite, unemotional and scientific and have only made true statements. It seems that this causes some posters here some problems.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 18 Jan - 20:00

jodel wrote:
Oldartform wrote:[quote="jodel]I have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.

So, nothings changed, so can we safely presume that you have lost interest again. So, there`s really no point in you commenting is there?

We had another poster here last week who wrote in a similar manner to you Jodel and all he/she managed to do was identify herself as a a person with malicious intent. So do try and be a bit less antagonistic if you want to stay around.

It is that sort of hidden threat "do try and be a bit less antagonistic if you want to stay around." that leads to only a narrow field of view surviving here.[/quote]

But you don't have a 'field of view,' whatever that is, on any of the matters under discussion, apart from you have no opinion on them. So, folks are going to wonder why you came just to tell us that and to say you wonder why it's all being discussed after so long.

Sponsored content