My point is there are extreme views on both side of the fence. I'm not sure their existence adds anything to the discussion on here, even if we are in Chatter (which is why others FMs dismissed them previously). But if others want to, then ok I suppose. <shrugs shoulders> Just doesn't do anything for me!
Actually, it wasn't intended to be a discussion about other forums. I was using those examples to illustrate how this process of demonising those with an opposing point of view has become commonplace, extending not just to the police officers involved in the investigation but also to witnesses. These witnesses are in the unusual situation of having their statements open to public scrutiny. I think some of the comments have been reprehensible. Anyway, as I say, it wasn't intended to be a review of other sites. We'd be here all day
So by the reckoning of Kate and Gerry fans, if I send a letter anonymously to the police stating that I suspect criminal activity is taking place in my street, I am writing a poison pen letter, when in fact I am doing something the police actively encourage people to do - for example. contact Crimestoppers - anonymously.
Poison pen letters are nasty anonymous letters
That is their definition.
An anonymous letter to the police is not a poison pen letter. If anything in the letter to the police was in any way nasty and/or defamatory rather than information (whether accurate or not) that the writer feels the police should have, then they are duty bound to take action.
Now, IF the letter had been sent to Kate or Gerry, you might be able to make a case for it being a "Poison Pen" letter - and I am certain that they would have reported it and then sued for defamation as soon as they had found out who wrote it.
I have given my reasons for concern about this matter earlier on the thread.
You havent yet answered my questions re your take on particular parts of this case thats in the public eye.
Thats not an accusation incidentally, for one thing you don't HAVE to give your opinions if you don't want to, but I wondered if perhaps you had missed the question through skimming.
From that, I am bound to conclude that your priority is in defending the reputations of the McCanns and their friends, rather than in discovering what happened to their missing child.
If Madeleine is the priority, then the evidence presented by Yvonne Martin and Dr Gaspar must be of concern ... regardless of how it reflects on the adults involved.
I can find no evidence of that. What little evidence there is to suggest that Madeleine is the priority, I find "unreliable."
Neither were able to contribute anything other than their own suspicions, based on very little, none of which was material to the events.
Re Yvonne Martin and the Gaspars statements.
But Cath01, most people don't have friends who make salacious remarks to the Father of a little girl.
Nor do most people have friends who are worried about their children being around a certain man at bathtime.
Surely you can see , how this would be classed as a concern.
Especially as neither party was aware of the others comments.
People went to the Police with concerns ... how can that be a bad thing? Or should people who are concerned now not consider going to the Police because it might cause upset?
I thought if the Police were of the opinion that information or statements had been given maliciously they could take action against that?
Outside the courtroom, Kate McCann again mentioned 'motives' ... "Amaral and his followers have their own motives" she opined.
This seems to be the latest approach ... anyone who questions or disagrees with the McCanns must have a 'motive' for doing so.
Hence, Yvonne Martin is described as having 'malicious intent'
It is a dangerous path to follow, in my opinion though, because at some point, even the most casual observer will begin to question why so many unconnected people would be 'out to get the McCanns'
It just doesn't make sense that they would, does it ?
For us it has always been abduction - that’s what we believe because we know what we did."
Sorry to snip your post Loz; but look at Gerry's words here: "we know what we did".
How are we to interpret this? They know what they did - i.e. left three small children in an unlocked apartment. We all know this, so Madeleine was abducted, because she was left in an unlocked apartment? Is that their explanation? Why and how can they dismiss woke and wandered? What do they know (and Kate said she knew more too, because she was there) that definitely points to abduction and not woke and wandered?
Let's consider the facts: Madeleine was a little girl who was prone to waking up at night. A star chart confirmed this. Madeleine had woken up previously. All confirmed.
Then - there's the abductor - that the McCanns KNOW, without explanation, took Madeleine: the abductor who was a contortionist; the abductor who left not a shred of evidence behind; the abductor who was hiding in the wardrobe/behind the door, ducking and diving between Gerry's loo visit and everything else. The abductor, who according to Gerry, may well have drugged the children. So according to Gerry, the abductor had all the time in the world, although Kate disagrees - a window of opportunity, and whoosh clunk, there she was, gone
Outside the courtroom, Kate McCann again mentioned 'motives' ... "Amaral and his followers have their own motives" she opined.
This seems to be the latest approach ... anyone who questions or disagrees with the McCanns must have a 'motive' for doing so.
Hence, Yvonne Martin is described as having 'malicious intent'
It is a dangerous path to follow, in my opinion though, because at some point, even the most casual observer will begin to question why so many unconnected people would be 'out to get the McCanns'
It just doesn't make sense that they would, does it ?
Yes, I'm with you on this one.
Its the old "cry wolf" story isnt it?
If you scream and shout every time someone is "mean" to you, no matter what the context, at some point you will be able to scream and shout as much as you like - no-one will be listening.
Sorry to snip your post Loz; but look at Gerry's words here: "we know what we did".
How are we to interpret this? They know what they did - i.e. left three small children in an unlocked apartment. We all know this, so Madeleine was abducted, because she was left in an unlocked apartment? Is that their explanation? Why and how can they dismiss woke and wandered? What do they know (and Kate said she knew more too, because she was there) that definitely points to abduction and not woke and wandered?
Let's consider the facts: Madeleine was a little girl who was prone to waking up at night. A star chart confirmed this. Madeleine had woken up previously. All confirmed.
Then - there's the abductor - that the McCanns KNOW, without explanation, took Madeleine: the abductor who was a contortionist; the abductor who left not a shred of evidence behind; the abductor who was hiding in the wardrobe/behind the door, ducking and diving between Gerry's loo visit and everything else. The abductor, who according to Gerry, may well have drugged the children. So according to Gerry, the abductor had all the time in the world, although Kate disagrees - a window of opportunity, and whoosh clunk, there she was, gone
Oh please .... this is descending into farce....
Am I remembering correctly, that at some point early on when Kate was interviewed she said she knew it was an abduction because of something in the room, because she was there, but she was unable to discuss it due to the police investigation?
Then when all the files were released she still didnt explain herself, and still hasnt to this day that I can see.
She can't be referring to the window as we know that was all nonsense now, so what, I wonder, was she referring to at that time?
It may be in some of the unreleased material I suppose.
Am I remembering correctly, that at some point early on when Kate was interviewed she said she knew it was an abduction because of something in the room, because she was there, but she was unable to discuss it due to the police investigation?
Then when all the files were released she still didnt explain herself, and still hasnt to this day that I can see.
She can't be referring to the window as we know that was all nonsense now, so what, I wonder, was she referring to at that time?
It may be in some of the unreleased material I suppose.
Kate always made out that she "knew" and would love to tell everyone, but firstly it would "hinder the invesigation" then " I can't tell because I'm an arguido". She's still not telling;)
Am I remembering correctly, that at some point early on when Kate was interviewed she said she knew it was an abduction because of something in the room, because she was there, but she was unable to discuss it due to the police investigation?
Then when all the files were released she still didnt explain herself, and still hasnt to this day that I can see.
She can't be referring to the window as we know that was all nonsense now, so what, I wonder, was she referring to at that time?
It may be in some of the unreleased material I suppose.
The McCanns are free to say anything they want about what happened that night ( no 'secrecy' laws to stop them )
The phrase that Kate used repeatedly when she insisted that she knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted was that there was something "about the way the room was left"
She hinted that she knew more than she was allowed to say, and that if only she was able to tell us about 'how the room was left' then we, like her, would be utterly convinced that Madeleine had been abducted.
Then we got the files, and read her statements ... where nothing at all about the way the room was left was ever mentioned, bar for the open window.
That was it ... the open window was what she was talking about all the time ( knowing full well, that the public had known about it all along )
Remarkably, when she stood outside the court this week and was asked what evidence there was to prove abduction, she seemed to slip back in time. She reverted to the old mysterious "I know what I found" routine ... except this time it was absurd ... because now there is nothing stopping her from just saying outright what she 'knows' .
Sometimes I wonder if the McCanns don't long for the days of Arguidoship ... when any question they didn't fancy could be deflected with a "I can't tell you ... I'm not allowed to"
Outside the courtroom, Kate McCann again mentioned 'motives' ... "Amaral and his followers have their own motives" she opined.
This seems to be the latest approach ... anyone who questions or disagrees with the McCanns must have a 'motive' for doing so.
Hence, Yvonne Martin is described as having 'malicious intent'
It is a dangerous path to follow, in my opinion though, because at some point, even the most casual observer will begin to question why so many unconnected people would be 'out to get the McCanns'
It just doesn't make sense that they would, does it ?
I could not agree with you more HDS.
I find it incredibly offensive that they are insinuating these people have motives - what damn motive ??
The insinuation seems to be that they don't want Madeleine found.
I think if I were Portuguese, and these litigious, neglectful parents were standing on the steps of my court, flashing their posters at the cameras whilst asking me to search for the child they couldn't be bothered to look after properly, and they suggested that the very officers who worked hard to try to find that child had a motive for not wanting her found - I would be tempted to reply with a short, unhelpful expression.
Consisting of two words, the shorter of which is 'off'.
I might also be tempted to folow up with another unhelpful suggestion, along the lines of ''the day you get off your bony backside and actually look for her yourself, do the reconstruction you were asked to do and answer the questions you were asked, THEN and only then can you ask this nation to help you more than they have already. What we do, we do for your daughter, who deserved a better fate that the one you caused her. We don't do it for you''
I find it incredibly offensive that they are insinuating these people have motives - what damn motive ??
The insinuation seems to be that they don't want Madeleine found.
I think if I were Portuguese, and these litigious, neglectful parents were standing on the steps of my court, flashing their posters at the cameras whilst asking me to search for the child they couldn't be bothered to look after properly, and they suggested that the very officers who worked hard to try to find that child had a motive for not wanting her found - I would be tempted to reply with a short, unhelpful expression.
Consisting of two words, the shorter of which is 'off'.
I might also be tempted to folow up with another unhelpful suggestion, along the lines of ''the day you get off your bony backside and actually look for her yourself, do the reconstruction you were asked to do and answer the questions you were asked, THEN and only then can you ask this nation to help you more than they have already. What we do, we do for your daughter, who deserved a better fate that the one you caused her. We don't do it for you''
For us it has always been abduction - that’s what we believe because we know what we did."
Sorry to snip your post Loz; but look at Gerry's words here: "we know what we did".
How are we to interpret this? They know what they did - i.e. left three small children in an unlocked apartment. We all know this, so Madeleine was abducted, because she was left in an unlocked apartment? Is that their explanation? Why and how can they dismiss woke and wandered? What do they know (and Kate said she knew more too, because she was there) that definitely points to abduction and not woke and wandered?
Let's consider the facts: Madeleine was a little girl who was prone to waking up at night. A star chart confirmed this. Madeleine had woken up previously. All confirmed.
Then - there's the abductor - that the McCanns KNOW, without explanation, took Madeleine: the abductor who was a contortionist; the abductor who left not a shred of evidence behind; the abductor who was hiding in the wardrobe/behind the door, ducking and diving between Gerry's loo visit and everything else. The abductor, who according to Gerry, may well have drugged the children. So according to Gerry, the abductor had all the time in the world, although Kate disagrees - a window of opportunity, and whoosh clunk, there she was, gone
Oh please .... this is descending into farce....
I actually read a comment from someone - can't remember where - which said
''Sometimes people do just vanish into thin air, you know''
It seemed almost cruel to share with them that actually no, they don't.
Great, isn't it? Reminds me of a line from a novel. 'He's always overcomplicating and trying to sound clever but he just ends up sounding brain damaged.'
Actually, it wasn't intended to be a discussion about other forums. I was using those examples to illustrate how this process of demonising those with an opposing point of view has become commonplace, extending not just to the police officers involved in the investigation but also to witnesses. These witnesses are in the unusual situation of having their statements open to public scrutiny. I think some of the comments have been reprehensible. Anyway, as I say, it wasn't intended to be a review of other sites. We'd be here all day
There's demonising on both sides of the fence on other forums.
Just as a matter of interest, how do you define certain things, if you don't mind me asking? In your own opinion...
How do you read the dog "evidence". They certainly indicated, did they not? One indicated cuddlecat twice, even after it was shut away in a cupboard that had not been previously indicated. What do you think its possible that they WERE indicating, if not a dead body. (not necessarily Madeleines by the way)
Same with the car and Kate's clothing (which even I admit is an odd one, why Kate's and no-one elses)
What do you make of the Gaspars statements?
What do you make of the two main sightings discussed a lot here - Jane Tanners and The Smiths?
What do you make of the "checks" made by various people over the evening, and the possible discrpancies therein?
What do you make of the Profilers report that came out yesterday where it seems as if they suggested looking at the statements, not in a generic way as they are now saying but because of "Inconsistencies in Gerry's (specifically Gerry's) statements?
When during the evening do you actually think the abductor entered the apartement?
Thats all I can think of at the moment. I am interested in your (and anyone's) views on these things because its how a proper debate can start - and you indicate that you have no reason to suspect the family, so I really would be interested to hear what you make of all the above.
Thank you to all who answer me, in advance!
I am shooting off for half hour, will catch up in a bit.
Hi Cath01. I'd also be interested in your take on the above points which Lizzy asked a while ago. I've taken the liberty of reposting them in case you missed them the first time round. (Hope you don't mind Lizzy ) I'd like to add one of my own:
What do you make of the mobile phone records for Kate & Gerry's 'phones showing that numerous calls and texts were made and sent in the hours before and after Madeleine's disappearance was reported and then deleted?
Instead of appealing to the "Portuguese people", why don't the McCanns appeal to THEIR FRIENDS to come forward with information? The fact Maddie disappeared in Portugal doesn't automatically mean that the locals know anything after all.
Instead of appealing to the "Portuguese people", why don't the McCanns appeal to THEIR FRIENDS to come forward with information? The fact Maddie disappeared in Portugal doesn't automatically mean that the locals know anything after all.
Gerry seems willing to do a reconstruction, now Endy anyway. Or he did until he realised what exactly had come out of his mouth.
And then went on a headache inducing tortuous word journey of backtracking.
There's demonising on both sides of the fence on other forums.
I've never read or heard it wished that the parents be dead. However, some lunatic, on hearing that Murat had had a beach wedding, wondered why he hadn't drowned at the beach. This was a lunatic purporting to support the parents. One side seems to be much more extreme than the other. Having said that, any extremity is reprehensible.
Kate always made out that she "knew" and would love to tell everyone, but firstly it would "hinder the invesigation" then " I can't tell because I'm an arguido". She's still not telling;)
Were'nt we told that it was something about the way the bedcovers were left? Didn't Kate say that they looked as if Madeleine had been lifted out of the bed without disturbing the bedclothes and that Madeleine couldn't have got out of the bed leaving the covers that way?
Does anybody remember that?
But anyway, that can't be true because in Gerry's statement he says that when he went to check on the sleeping children he decided not to cover Madeleine up because it was warm, so she must have been lying on the bed with no covers on her. More confusion - but according to Gerry confusion is good.
Maybe this was one of the inconsistencies Lee Rainbow was talking about.
Kate always made out that she "knew" and would love to tell everyone, but firstly it would "hinder the invesigation" then " I can't tell because I'm an arguido". She's still not telling;)
Nope. Why not I wonder? Surely its just common sense, that if there were a single piece of information that showed that it was DEFINITELY an abduction not anything else, that she would be sharing it with the world right about now.
Then Amaral would have to shut up because the case would be proved the other way.
The McCanns are free to say anything they want about what happened that night ( no 'secrecy' laws to stop them )
The phrase that Kate used repeatedly when she insisted that she knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted was that there was something "about the way the room was left"
She hinted that she knew more than she was allowed to say, and that if only she was able to tell us about 'how the room was left' then we, like her, would be utterly convinced that Madeleine had been abducted.
Then we got the files, and read her statements ... where nothing at all about the way the room was left was ever mentioned, bar for the open window.
That was it ... the open window was what she was talking about all the time ( knowing full well, that the public had known about it all along )
Remarkably, when she stood outside the court this week and was asked what evidence there was to prove abduction, she seemed to slip back in time. She reverted to the old mysterious "I know what I found" routine ... except this time it was absurd ... because now there is nothing stopping her from just saying outright what she 'knows' .
Sometimes I wonder if the McCanns don't long for the days of Arguidoship ... when any question they didn't fancy could be deflected with a "I can't tell you ... I'm not allowed to"
Yes indeed. "I know what I found". Ok then Kate, what exactly DID you find?
I find it incredibly offensive that they are insinuating these people have motives - what damn motive ??
The insinuation seems to be that they don't want Madeleine found.
I think if I were Portuguese, and these litigious, neglectful parents were standing on the steps of my court, flashing their posters at the cameras whilst asking me to search for the child they couldn't be bothered to look after properly, and they suggested that the very officers who worked hard to try to find that child had a motive for not wanting her found - I would be tempted to reply with a short, unhelpful expression.
Consisting of two words, the shorter of which is 'off'.
I might also be tempted to folow up with another unhelpful suggestion, along the lines of ''the day you get off your bony backside and actually look for her yourself, do the reconstruction you were asked to do and answer the questions you were asked, THEN and only then can you ask this nation to help you more than they have already. What we do, we do for your daughter, who deserved a better fate that the one you caused her. We don't do it for you''
Indeed. All they have done is pee off the very people they need the most to find their daughter. I'm not over concerned about "publicity" its just the type of publicity they are giving.
Hi Cath01. I'd also be interested in your take on the above points which Lizzy asked a while ago. I've taken the liberty of reposting them in case you missed them the first time round. (Hope you don't mind Lizzy ) I'd like to add one of my own:
What do you make of the mobile phone records for Kate & Gerry's 'phones showing that numerous calls and texts were made and sent in the hours before and after Madeleine's disappearance was reported and then deleted?
No problem with the re-post, and I am interested in anyones take, not just Cath's.
The mobile phone records are a good one.
If anyone would like to take the side of the angels and devils? Sometimes looking at it that way can give a reason for both guilt and innocence.
Gerry seems willing to do a reconstruction, now Endy anyway. Or he did until he realised what exactly had come out of his mouth.
And then went on a headache inducing tortuous word journey of backtracking.
I've said this before. A reconstruction wouldn't be necessary if they give a true account of events surrounding Maddie's disappearance. The PP has already said they made false claims in statements. Why don't they just tell the truth for the sake of their child who Edgar thinks is being held in the lawless wilds around 10 kilomenters from PdL? Do they really think she's being treated like a princess by her child sex offender captor(s)? It's insane :mad:
Comments
Max Boyce catchphrase as well, I remember.
<Takes the shame>
Actually, it wasn't intended to be a discussion about other forums. I was using those examples to illustrate how this process of demonising those with an opposing point of view has become commonplace, extending not just to the police officers involved in the investigation but also to witnesses. These witnesses are in the unusual situation of having their statements open to public scrutiny. I think some of the comments have been reprehensible. Anyway, as I say, it wasn't intended to be a review of other sites. We'd be here all day
Poison pen letters are nasty anonymous letters
That is their definition.
An anonymous letter to the police is not a poison pen letter. If anything in the letter to the police was in any way nasty and/or defamatory rather than information (whether accurate or not) that the writer feels the police should have, then they are duty bound to take action.
Now, IF the letter had been sent to Kate or Gerry, you might be able to make a case for it being a "Poison Pen" letter - and I am certain that they would have reported it and then sued for defamation as soon as they had found out who wrote it.
You havent yet answered my questions re your take on particular parts of this case thats in the public eye.
Thats not an accusation incidentally, for one thing you don't HAVE to give your opinions if you don't want to, but I wondered if perhaps you had missed the question through skimming.
I can find no evidence of that. What little evidence there is to suggest that Madeleine is the priority, I find "unreliable."
Re Yvonne Martin and the Gaspars statements.
But Cath01, most people don't have friends who make salacious remarks to the Father of a little girl.
Nor do most people have friends who are worried about their children being around a certain man at bathtime.
Surely you can see , how this would be classed as a concern.
Especially as neither party was aware of the others comments.
Outside the courtroom, Kate McCann again mentioned 'motives' ... "Amaral and his followers have their own motives" she opined.
This seems to be the latest approach ... anyone who questions or disagrees with the McCanns must have a 'motive' for doing so.
Hence, Yvonne Martin is described as having 'malicious intent'
It is a dangerous path to follow, in my opinion though, because at some point, even the most casual observer will begin to question why so many unconnected people would be 'out to get the McCanns'
It just doesn't make sense that they would, does it ?
Yes, I'm with you on this one.
Its the old "cry wolf" story isnt it?
If you scream and shout every time someone is "mean" to you, no matter what the context, at some point you will be able to scream and shout as much as you like - no-one will be listening.
Am I remembering correctly, that at some point early on when Kate was interviewed she said she knew it was an abduction because of something in the room, because she was there, but she was unable to discuss it due to the police investigation?
Then when all the files were released she still didnt explain herself, and still hasnt to this day that I can see.
She can't be referring to the window as we know that was all nonsense now, so what, I wonder, was she referring to at that time?
It may be in some of the unreleased material I suppose.
Kate always made out that she "knew" and would love to tell everyone, but firstly it would "hinder the invesigation" then " I can't tell because I'm an arguido". She's still not telling;)
The McCanns are free to say anything they want about what happened that night ( no 'secrecy' laws to stop them )
The phrase that Kate used repeatedly when she insisted that she knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted was that there was something "about the way the room was left"
She hinted that she knew more than she was allowed to say, and that if only she was able to tell us about 'how the room was left' then we, like her, would be utterly convinced that Madeleine had been abducted.
Then we got the files, and read her statements ... where nothing at all about the way the room was left was ever mentioned, bar for the open window.
That was it ... the open window was what she was talking about all the time ( knowing full well, that the public had known about it all along )
Remarkably, when she stood outside the court this week and was asked what evidence there was to prove abduction, she seemed to slip back in time. She reverted to the old mysterious "I know what I found" routine ... except this time it was absurd ... because now there is nothing stopping her from just saying outright what she 'knows' .
Sometimes I wonder if the McCanns don't long for the days of Arguidoship ... when any question they didn't fancy could be deflected with a "I can't tell you ... I'm not allowed to"
I could not agree with you more HDS.
I find it incredibly offensive that they are insinuating these people have motives - what damn motive ??
The insinuation seems to be that they don't want Madeleine found.
I think if I were Portuguese, and these litigious, neglectful parents were standing on the steps of my court, flashing their posters at the cameras whilst asking me to search for the child they couldn't be bothered to look after properly, and they suggested that the very officers who worked hard to try to find that child had a motive for not wanting her found - I would be tempted to reply with a short, unhelpful expression.
Consisting of two words, the shorter of which is 'off'.
I might also be tempted to folow up with another unhelpful suggestion, along the lines of ''the day you get off your bony backside and actually look for her yourself, do the reconstruction you were asked to do and answer the questions you were asked, THEN and only then can you ask this nation to help you more than they have already. What we do, we do for your daughter, who deserved a better fate that the one you caused her. We don't do it for you''
Excellent..
Great, isn't it? Reminds me of a line from a novel. 'He's always overcomplicating and trying to sound clever but he just ends up sounding brain damaged.'
Hi Cath01. I'd also be interested in your take on the above points which Lizzy asked a while ago. I've taken the liberty of reposting them in case you missed them the first time round. (Hope you don't mind Lizzy
What do you make of the mobile phone records for Kate & Gerry's 'phones showing that numerous calls and texts were made and sent in the hours before and after Madeleine's disappearance was reported and then deleted?
Which is equally as reprehensible
And nothing to do with here :cool:
Gerry seems willing to do a reconstruction, now Endy anyway. Or he did until he realised what exactly had come out of his mouth.
And then went on a headache inducing tortuous word journey of backtracking.
I've never read or heard it wished that the parents be dead. However, some lunatic, on hearing that Murat had had a beach wedding, wondered why he hadn't drowned at the beach. This was a lunatic purporting to support the parents. One side seems to be much more extreme than the other. Having said that, any extremity is reprehensible.
Were'nt we told that it was something about the way the bedcovers were left? Didn't Kate say that they looked as if Madeleine had been lifted out of the bed without disturbing the bedclothes and that Madeleine couldn't have got out of the bed leaving the covers that way?
Does anybody remember that?
But anyway, that can't be true because in Gerry's statement he says that when he went to check on the sleeping children he decided not to cover Madeleine up because it was warm, so she must have been lying on the bed with no covers on her. More confusion - but according to Gerry confusion is good.
Maybe this was one of the inconsistencies Lee Rainbow was talking about.
Nope. Why not I wonder? Surely its just common sense, that if there were a single piece of information that showed that it was DEFINITELY an abduction not anything else, that she would be sharing it with the world right about now.
Then Amaral would have to shut up because the case would be proved the other way.
So, there is nothing.
Never has been.
Yes indeed. "I know what I found". Ok then Kate, what exactly DID you find?
Indeed. All they have done is pee off the very people they need the most to find their daughter. I'm not over concerned about "publicity" its just the type of publicity they are giving.
Yes, there is. There is such a thing as "too far" and those are the people I take no notice of.
No problem with the re-post, and I am interested in anyones take, not just Cath's.
The mobile phone records are a good one.
If anyone would like to take the side of the angels and devils? Sometimes looking at it that way can give a reason for both guilt and innocence.
I've said this before. A reconstruction wouldn't be necessary if they give a true account of events surrounding Maddie's disappearance. The PP has already said they made false claims in statements. Why don't they just tell the truth for the sake of their child who Edgar thinks is being held in the lawless wilds around 10 kilomenters from PdL? Do they really think she's being treated like a princess by her child sex offender captor(s)? It's insane :mad: