The Met Police and Madeline Mccann

[pap]

Pap

 

Your rather confusing you say Verbal is aintforever and vice versa or could it be they are two separate people

 

we the people demand to know the truth

 

I don't think I've said anything of the sort.

 

In brief, here's how I see things.

 

Verbal made it instantly about murder.

 

Gemmel, aintforever and JackFrost immediately started proceeding down such polarised lines of enquiry, hence a bit of light mockery.

 

Verbal weighed in with his usual seems-intelligent-but-not-really-about-the-topic w4nk, leaving me to deconstruct his "contribution" line by line, laying bare what a vacant "debating style" he really has.

 

I think that gets us up to date.

[ottery st mary]

Don't get too sucked into this stuff. This is David Icke territory (what else would you expect?). And don't be fooled by the source. Tony Bennett did not work for the McCanns, despite the misleading title of his "foundation". The McCanns' legal proceedings against him have been because of libel. He has also been given a suspended prison sentence over this affair, and when he was described as a "sicko" and a "stalker" by British papers the Press Complaints Commission rejected his complaint that this was unfair.

 

In other words, this thread is being dragged back into the sicko and stalker world inhabited by our little "enthusiast" for claiming that the family of Lee Rigby, like the McCanns, are part of a criminal conspiracy. Of course, there's nothing that our enthusiast is adding to any of this guff - just regurgitating it with all the usual lack of intelligence, curiosity and common sense. This time, however, he's feeding off a rather sad desire by many on here and elsewhere to pump themselves up as wonderful parents compared to the McCanns - a point which was made ad nauseum over six years ago and really is getting a bit old now.

 

 

Verbal

 

People with opinions on what they have read/watched on tv.etc

 

Goodness me dear heart:D

 

You should just let us get on with it:p...we are but amateur sleuths.

 

Your work here is finished Mr verbal......leave us to our own theories....much more to come:)

 

But please ...no snarling and swirling of the old handbag;)

 

 

Do you think either parent will go out to the civil case and allow themselves to be tested/cross examined...?

 

 

By the way ...you never explained your crass accusation..that I was anti-semitic:mcinnes:

 

Me Paranoid?..

 

verbal where are you?

Edited 18 October, 2013 by ottery st mary

[aintforever]

I don't think I've said anything of the sort.

 

In brief, here's how I see things.

 

Verbal made it instantly about murder.

 

Gemmel, aintforever and JackFrost immediately started proceeding down such polarised lines of enquiry, hence a bit of light mockery.

 

Verbal weighed in with his usual seems-intelligent-but-not-really-about-the-topic w4nk, leaving me to deconstruct his "contribution" line by line, laying bare what a vacant "debating style" he really has.

 

I think that gets us up to date.

 

I have never said I thought it was murder you nutjob, there is clearly two plausible scenarios and that is abduction or accidental killing by the parents.

 

To say there is no evidence for abduction is clearly just bonkers. A child missing from an unlocked apartment and witnesses seeing someone carry a child is evidence of abduction, I'm not sure what other evidence you would expect to see.

 

The problem is people see the McCanns and think they look odd, they must have done it without thinking of the practicalities of how someone could make a body vanish in about half an hour in a foreign country. Or how someone could kill their own child and cover it up so effectively and act normal eating Tapas in a situation like that.

 

Add to that the fact that they are actively encouraging the world's media and detectives to investigate what happened. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who had committed such a crime, after the initial acting you would want the whole episode to go away - you would NOT want a team of detectives digging through the evidence.

[pap]

I have never said I thought it was murder you nutjob, there is clearly two plausible scenarios and that is abduction or accidental killing by the parents.

 

 

You can't blame the McCanns for trying to get the publicity though. The idea that they killed her is just for the nut jobs though, there is no way in a million years you would want all this publicity if you had murdered your own kid.

 

Ahem.

[aintforever]

Ahem.

 

Oh come on, they wouldn't want the publicity if they had accidentally killed her and dumped her body somewhere either. I was just making that point. Murder is even more fanciful than them drugging them to death.

[pap]

Oh come on, they wouldn't want the publicity if they had accidentally killed her and dumped her body somewhere either. I was just making that point. Murder is even more fanciful than them drugging them to death.

 

I expect that at the time, you were so pleased with yourself at seeding your favourite word, nutjob, into proceedings that you perhaps didn't realise you were arguing on extremes. You turned the debate into a straight up choice between abduction and murder, which to be fair, is the exact same trick that has been employed by the McCanns themselves.

 

Whether you actually believe that is irrelevant. You pinned your argument on those two extremes, saying that anyone that believe the McCanns killed their own daughter is a (drum roll...) nutjob.

 

As the discussion has shown, it's a bit more nuanced than that. No-one has argued for the extreme case you presented. I think it most likely that it was an accident of some description. There is plenty of evidence to back this up, not least the blood and cadaver dogs, but also the DNA evidence. As I said before, information from Wikileaks suggests that the British police were involved in building the case against the McCanns in the very early days. Stuart Prior, the initial lead on the DNA evidence, was reportedly furious when the results were made less conclusive, apparently saying that he could have arrested someone on this evidence in this country.

 

I'd advise anyone to have a look at the link I posted earlier, written by the sicko/stalker that Verbal was keen to comment on. It is a chilling read, if only because it forms a record of a very hectic and distressing time, one that has almost been lost since the McCanns successfully sued the newspapers.

 

I think we'll all see a conclusion on this. As Guided Missile says, sometimes you know a crime has been committed but do not have enough evidence to bring the case to court. I think that evidence is still out there; it's just not being heard because it falls outside the abduction narrative. As soon as a UK government gives the green light that it's okay to pursue the original lines of inquiry, I think you can expect the sued publications to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[aintforever]

I expect that at the time, you were so pleased with yourself at seeding your favourite word, nutjob, into proceedings that you perhaps didn't realise you were arguing on extremes. You turned the debate into a straight up choice between abduction and murder, which to be fair, is the exact same trick that has been employed by the McCanns themselves.

 

Whether you actually believe that is irrelevant. You pinned your argument on those two extremes, saying that anyone that believe the McCanns killed their own daughter is a (drum roll...) nutjob.

 

As the discussion has shown, it's a bit more nuanced than that. No-one has argued for the extreme case you presented. I think it most likely that it was an accident of some description. There is plenty of evidence to back this up, not least the blood and cadaver dogs, but also the DNA evidence. As I said before, information from Wikileaks suggests that the British police were involved in building the case against the McCanns in the very early days. Stuart Prior, the initial lead on the DNA evidence, was reportedly furious when the results were made less conclusive, apparently saying that he could have arrested someone on this evidence in this country.

 

I'd advise anyone to have a look at the link I posted earlier, written by the sicko/stalker that Verbal was keen to comment on. It is a chilling read, if only because it forms a record of a very hectic and distressing time, one that has almost been lost since the McCanns successfully sued the newspapers.

 

I think we'll all see a conclusion on this. As Guided Missile says, sometimes you know a crime has been committed but do not have enough evidence to bring the case to court. I think that evidence is still out there; it's just not being heard because it falls outside the abduction narrative. As soon as a UK government gives the green light that it's okay to pursue the original lines of inquiry, I think you can expect the sued publications to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

 

I called you a nutjob because to you EVERYTHING is a big conspiracy, regardless of the evidence. The Boston bombings were a false flag because of some deal between the US and Russia over Syria (that worked out well!), the 9/11 planes were flown by robots or something and Lee Rigby was hacked to death by British secret agents, or is still alive or something.

 

I accept that there is a chance the McCanns were responsible but find the idea very very unlikely. There were Cadaver alerts in the Shannon Matthews case and she was not even dead. If the forensic evidence in anyway prove Madeline was killed in the apartment or her corpse was in the hire car the MET will already know if they were responsible. You need to be an expert in the science to draw any conclusions from it.

 

If someone can come up with a believable theory as to how the McCanns made her body vanish in half an hour, in area they didn't know well, without (as far as we know) the use of a vehicle, and without acting suspiciously, I would be happy to see it.

 

Feel free to post your version of events of how and by whom she was killed, what drug, what time she died, when they found out and how they disposed of and concealed the body...

[JackFrost]

I don't think I've said anything of the sort.

 

In brief, here's how I see things.

 

Verbal made it instantly about murder.

 

Gemmel, aintforever and JackFrost immediately started proceeding down such polarised lines of enquiry, hence a bit of light mockery.

 

Verbal weighed in with his usual seems-intelligent-but-not-really-about-the-topic w4nk, leaving me to deconstruct his "contribution" line by line, laying bare what a vacant "debating style" he really has.

 

I think that gets us up to date.

 

says the man who polarises virtually every world news story into a conspiracy theory

[Viking Warrior]

Pap

 

Re my earlier post of you potentially implied that Verbal was aintforever and vice versa

 

It was because of the following post from you, its easy to see how evidence can be misconstrued

 

"Originally Posted by aintforever

It's just the hypocrisy of it all. If it had happened to a single mother from Shirley Towers who had left her 3 kids alone while she went to score some crack she would be hung drawn and quartered by the press and middle class ass-holes like the McCanns.

 

You can't blame the McCanns for trying to get the publicity though. The idea that they killed her is just for the nut jobs though, there is no way in a million years you would want all this publicity if you had murdered your own kid.

 

Well done, Verbal.

 

Another idiot taking the argument on the extreme terms you set.

[Smirking_Saint]

says the man who polarises virtually every world news story into a conspiracy theory

 

Nail meet head

[Viking Warrior]

Pap and aintforever

 

re your comments on cadaver dogs.

 

You mention shannon mathews , were the dogs that were used actual cadaver dogs or some search and rescue type dog.

In the case of maddie. were the dogs being used just picking up the scent of her in order to carry out a search . hence the reason

the dog went daft in the flat and the car.

 

I would also question the use of the supposed cadaver dog so early as her body would not have decomposed so quickly although its possible with heat, How successful are these cadaver dogs as they search for the scent of human remains, detecting the smell of human decomposition gasses.

 

Could the dogs have smelt something in the car which could well have been chicken for the bbq ?

 

I still think the mccans have to take a portion of blame for maddie going missing. only time will tell how large a portion of blame that will be.

[CB Fry]

says the man who polarises virtually every world news story into a conspiracy theory

 

I liked his little lecture on nuance.

[Fowllyd]

I liked his little lecture on nuance.

 

Is that like when you say "It's getting a bit old now, but it was nuance..."?

[CB Fry]

Is that like when you say "It's getting a bit old now, but it was nuance..."?

 

Took me four read throughs to get it but I got it....

[pap]

I called you a nutjob because to you EVERYTHING is a big conspiracy, regardless of the evidence. The Boston bombings were a false flag because of some deal between the US and Russia over Syria (that worked out well!), the 9/11 planes were flown by robots or something and Lee Rigby was hacked to death by British secret agents, or is still alive or something.

 

I accept that there is a chance the McCanns were responsible but find the idea very very unlikely. There were Cadaver alerts in the Shannon Matthews case and she was not even dead. If the forensic evidence in anyway prove Madeline was killed in the apartment or her corpse was in the hire car the MET will already know if they were responsible. You need to be an expert in the science to draw any conclusions from it.

 

If someone can come up with a believable theory as to how the McCanns made her body vanish in half an hour, in area they didn't know well, without (as far as we know) the use of a vehicle, and without acting suspiciously, I would be happy to see it.

 

Feel free to post your version of events of how and by whom she was killed, what drug, what time she died, when they found out and how they disposed of and concealed the body...

 

The odd thing is, the only people who keep bringing up these other events are people like yourself and Verbal. That essentially says to me, and hopefully anyone else with a semi-functioning brain, that you've nowt to say on the matter at hand, so have to make your case based on something completely unrelated. At that point, you're no longer in the discussion - you're just slinging mud in the hope that it'll stick. You had your chance to debate some of the other matters, and conducted yourselves in a vile manner there too.

 

Now, returning to topic, the McCanns would have been charged with the DNA evidence collected had the case been under UK jurisdiction. The UK OB and the PJ were doing very well at constructing a timeline of events until political pressure put an end to the investigation. Who knows, given enough political support, one or both of the McCanns could have been charged with criminal offences by now. As it was, the scope of the investigation was changed to be an abduction, despite no solid evidence for the focus to change. The only thing supporting the abduction theory are the accounts of the McCanns and the Tapas Seven, the accounts of the Smiths (Irish family who believed they saw someone carrying a child) and the McCanns' own proclamations that it was the case.

 

The accident theory does at least have some physical evidence to back it up, even though it wasn't enough to bring a case by PJ's standards. Now I have no idea as to what actually happened there, but I do have a fair idea of the differing accounts, the rush to characterise events as an abduction straightaway - enough to make me question the timeline entirely. I can't say exactly how it went down, and a big part of that is that the McCanns can't either. First the shutters were jemmied open. When no physical evidence supported that, they changed their story. And so it went on. Two parents, who should have finding their lost daughter front and centre, scrambling madly to protect their own reputations. This has gone on for six years now, and with each passing year, it seems more people forget the events at the time.

 

I find it all very odd. Please continue with your name-calling though. As you can see, it's devastatingly effective

[saint si]

the McCanns would have been charged with the DNA evidence collected had the case been under UK jurisdiction.

 

Got any evidence for that?

[aintforever]

The odd thing is, the only people who keep bringing up these other events are people like yourself and Verbal. That essentially says to me, and hopefully anyone else with a semi-functioning brain, that you've nowt to say on the matter at hand, so have to make your case based on something completely unrelated. At that point, you're no longer in the discussion - you're just slinging mud in the hope that it'll stick. You had your chance to debate some of the other matters, and conducted yourselves in a vile manner there too.

 

Now, returning to topic, the McCanns would have been charged with the DNA evidence collected had the case been under UK jurisdiction. The UK OB and the PJ were doing very well at constructing a timeline of events until political pressure put an end to the investigation. Who knows, given enough political support, one or both of the McCanns could have been charged with criminal offences by now. As it was, the scope of the investigation was changed to be an abduction, despite no solid evidence for the focus to change. The only thing supporting the abduction theory are the accounts of the McCanns and the Tapas Seven, the accounts of the Smiths (Irish family who believed they saw someone carrying a child) and the McCanns' own proclamations that it was the case.

 

The accident theory does at least have some physical evidence to back it up, even though it wasn't enough to bring a case by PJ's standards. Now I have no idea as to what actually happened there, but I do have a fair idea of the differing accounts, the rush to characterise events as an abduction straightaway - enough to make me question the timeline entirely. I can't say exactly how it went down, and a big part of that is that the McCanns can't either. First the shutters were jemmied open. When no physical evidence supported that, they changed their story. And so it went on. Two parents, who should have finding their lost daughter front and centre, scrambling madly to protect their own reputations. This has gone on for six years now, and with each passing year, it seems more people forget the events at the time.

 

I find it all very odd. Please continue with your name-calling though. As you can see, it's devastatingly effective

 

Like I said.

 

Feel free to post your version of events of how and by whom she was killed, what drug, what time she died, when they found out and how they disposed of and concealed the body...

[Verbal]

Got any evidence for that?

 

He has none, of course.

 

One concern I have about all this is that one day, he will bring this site down with his so-called theories. A defamation suit will wipe Saintsweb out, and our little “enthusiast” is playing Russian roulette with the objects of his pathetic accusations.

 

So far (and I’m no doubt missing a few), he has claimed that Lee Rigby’s family are involved in a criminal conspiracy to conceal that he’s still alive. This is defamatory. He has alternatively alleged that Lee Rigby was killed by British officialdom of some unspecified sort. This would be defamatory, except that he never even made it to first base with a credible “theory”. He has also claimed that the injured and dead men, women and children of the Boston bombing are “crisis actors”. This is defamatory of the living.

 

And we know his claims about the McCanns are defamatory because of the huge amounts of money two newspapers have already had to pay out for claiming a weaker version of what’s he’s been suggesting on here. One other individual – the “sicko stalker” on whom our little enthusiast clearly bases all his “thinking” – is under a suspended prison sentence for his part in all this.

 

We only need another Lord McAlpine to decide to collect on idiotic claims made on social media for this site to be gone. That it would be taken down because the ludicrous second-hand claims of such a risible individual would be very sad.

 

I really would advise mods – and more especially the owners of this site – to watch this carefully.

[ottery st mary]

He has none, of course.

 

One concern I have about all this is that one day, he will bring this site down with his so-called theories. A defamation suit will wipe Saintsweb out, and our little “enthusiast” is playing Russian roulette with the objects of his pathetic accusations.

 

So far (and I’m no doubt missing a few), he has claimed that Lee Rigby’s family are involved in a criminal conspiracy to conceal that he’s still alive. This is defamatory. He has alternatively alleged that Lee Rigby was killed by British officialdom of some unspecified sort. This would be defamatory, except that he never even made it to first base with a credible “theory”. He has also claimed that the injured and dead men, women and children of the Boston bombing are “crisis actors”. This is defamatory of the living.

 

And we know his claims about the McCanns are defamatory because of the huge amounts of money two newspapers have already had to pay out for claiming a weaker version of what’s he’s been suggesting on here. One other individual – the “sicko stalker” on whom our little enthusiast clearly bases all his “thinking” – is under a suspended prison sentence for his part in all this.

 

We only need another Lord McAlpine to decide to collect on idiotic claims made on social media for this site to be gone. That it would be taken down because the ludicrous second-hand claims of such a risible individual would be very sad.

 

I really would advise mods – and more especially the owners of this site – to watch this carefully.

 

 

Verbal

 

Now now then......Who are you mate?

 

Who are you working for?

 

Very strange posting by you:rolleyes:

 

Verbal...

 

YOU STILL REFUSE TO EXPLAIN YOUR CRASS STATEMENT AGAINST ME....

 

You called me....ANTI-SEMITIC.....

 

please explain yourself:p

Edited 19 October, 2013 by ottery st mary

[pap]

Verbal

 

Now now then......Who are you mate?

 

Who are you working for?

 

Very strange posting by you:rolleyes:

 

Verbal...

 

YOU STILL REFUSE TO EXPLAIN YOUR CRASS STATEMENT AGAINST ME....

 

You called me....ANTI-SEMITIC.....

 

please explain yourself:p

 

There isn't a great deal to explain. The Verbal username identity is all about creating extremes, then presenting those extremes as the views of the person it is arguing with. There's really no art or mystery to it.

 

You were probably called anti-semitic because you were saying something that needed to be thoroughly pushed aside. The Verbal username identity has also asked the same question of me, notably after it had brought anti-semitic sentiment, neo-Nazis and extreme right wingers into the argument.

 

My advice? Don't deal with it as a person. It's not here to debate the topic at hand, it's not even here to make any kind of positive point. It just exists to smear, sneer and obfuscate. Shame really, as I remember a time when the Verbal username identity used to be something else, the sort of character that would send PMs and humbly apologise for its awful behaviour to Turkish ( who really did manage to get under the Verbal username identity's "skin" ). That's all gone now. It's more meme than man, twisted and hostile, masquerading itself as something with morality.

[aintforever]

Pap, you still havn't posed your timeline of events surrounding the death of Madeline McCann and disposal or her body. You seem so certain her parents did it you must have a bulletproof scenario that ties in with the evidence.

 

We need details, how and by whom she was killed, what drug, what time she died, when they found out and how they disposed of and concealed the body...

[pap]

Pap, you still havn't posed your timeline of events surrounding the death of Madeline McCann and disposal or her body. You seem so certain her parents did it you must have a bulletproof scenario that ties in with the evidence.

 

We need details, how and by whom she was killed, what drug, what time she died, when they found out and how they disposed of and concealed the body...

 

Flawed logic from the start, aintforever. I have been clear on what I find inconsistent with the abduction account (for which there is no physical evidence).

 

If you need details, I'd suggest you go look. McCann files is a very good place to start.

[aintforever]

Flawed logic from the start, aintforever. I have been clear on what I find inconsistent with the abduction account (for which there is no physical evidence).

 

If you need details, I'd suggest you go look. McCann files is a very good place to start.

 

I've looked at details at some of the evidence and think that abduction is by far the most likely. Gives us a plausible scenario where the McCanns killed her.

 

I'm guessing you can't, like all conspiracy theorist nutjobs you pick up on the slightest element of doubt and make grandiose claims that can't be backed up with an alternative theory.

 

Go one, just one possible timeline of events, in detail...

[pap]

I've looked at details at some of the evidence and think that abduction is by far the most likely. Gives us a plausible scenario where the McCanns killed her.

 

I'm guessing you can't, like all conspiracy theorist nutjobs you pick up on the slightest element of doubt and make grandiose claims that can't be backed up with an alternative theory.

 

Go one, just one possible timeline of events, in detail...

 

Aint - I'm aware than in its advancing years, the Verbal username entity is down to three deposits a day and isn't quite producing quite the volume of ejaculation for you to eagerly swallow. I have some sympathy with your position, but I'm not going to be the prism of jism that your hero once was.

 

It's just as well, really. My thing has never been about telling people what they should think or how they should feel. If anything, it's the complete opposite. People should think for themselves, and if it's your assertion that there is enough evidence to prove abduction ( there isn't, but hey ho ), I'm not going to waste my time telling you any different.

 

There are numerous reports out there on the 'net from a variety of sources, ranging from official reports to speculative. Go seek.

[aintforever]

Aint - I'm aware than in its advancing years, the Verbal username entity is down to three deposits a day and isn't quite producing quite the volume of ejaculation for you to eagerly swallow. I have some sympathy with your position, but I'm not going to be the prism of jism that your hero once was.

 

It's just as well, really. My thing has never been about telling people what they should think or how they should feel. If anything, it's the complete opposite. People should think for themselves, and if it's your assertion that there is enough evidence to prove abduction ( there isn't, but hey ho ), I'm not going to waste my time telling you any different.

 

There are numerous reports out there on the 'net from a variety of sources, ranging from official reports to speculative. Go seek.

 

LOL just as I thought, couldn't give one plausible scenario. I'm not asking you to tell me what I should think, just tell how YOU think the McCanns pulled it off. If you are that certain they did it you must have some sort of idea?

 

Like all conspiracy theory nutjobs, when backed into a corner you resort to insults and changing the subject. You were the same with the 9/11, Boston bombings and Rigby theories, make big "the government did it" statements then when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how it could have been carried out you fall flat on your face and get shown up to be the fantasist you know you are.

[pap]

LOL just as I thought, couldn't give one plausible scenario. I'm not asking you to tell me what I should think, just tell how YOU think the McCanns pulled it off. If you are that certain they did it you must have some sort of idea?

 

Like all conspiracy theory nutjobs, when backed into a corner you resort to insults and changing the subject. You were the same with the 9/11, Boston bombings and Rigby theories, make big "the government did it" statements then when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how it could have been carried out you fall flat on your face and get shown up to be the fantasist you know you are.

 

Nah mush. We've done this dance before. It's a good job traditional criminal investigations don't follow your insane line of thinking.

 

"sir, I have doubts about their claims."

"Do you? Explain everything at once, in detail, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut up".

[CB Fry]

Nah mush. We've done this dance before. It's a good job traditional criminal investigations don't follow your insane line of thinking.

 

"sir, I have doubts about their claims."

"Do you? Explain everything at once, in detail, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut up".

 

Why don't you explain it, a little bit, with no detail. Just the jist of it. Your thoughts.

 

And it all happened over six years ago, so not exactly "at once" is it?

 

Just give us a glimpse into your absolutely-not-insane line of thinking.

 

Otherwise, shut up.

Edited 20 October, 2013 by CB Fry

[pap]

Why don't you explain it, a little bit, with no detail. Just the jist of it. Your thoughts.

 

And it all happened over six years ago, so not exactly "at once" is it?

 

Just give us a glimpse into your absolutely-not-insane line of thinking.

 

Otherwise, shut up.

 

My thoughts have already been provided. Others have also chipped in. Why don't you give some of them the third degree about a full explanation? Does your forum hardman act only extend to self-proclaimed easy targets?

[Batman]

I suspect that this whole episode is one big set up by the 'establishment' in an attempt to create divisions within Europe and help the UK leave the EU.

 

Maddie is really a 'crisis actor' who is set to appear on hollyoaks in summer 2014

[JackFrost]

Nah mush. We've done this dance before. It's a good job traditional criminal investigations don't follow your insane line of thinking.

 

"sir, I have doubts about their claims."

"Do you? Explain everything at once, in detail, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut up".

 

It's a good job traditional criminal investigations don't follow your insane line of thinking.

 

"sir, I have doubts about their claims."

"Do you? Explain everything at once, in detail, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut up".

 

:facepalm

 

When following a line of enquiry, if an officer has reason to doubt what someone is saying (e.g. picks up on 2 things where both can't possibly be true) they have to report it and if they think it has significance, develop a credible hypothesis using already established facts. What you've quoted is pretty much the exact conversation (albeit harsher) that they had with myself and the team.

 

What Aint is referring to here is the "put up or shut up" scenario. He's just said when you're backed in a corner you resort to insults and changing the subject, and you've responded by calling him "mush" and changing the subject. I'm not going to spend any further time responding to you as I think you're just trolling in a strange type of way by plummeting to new depths with each post. Either answer aintforever's question or give it up, please.

[ottery st mary]

CB Fry

aintforever

JackFrost

 

even...Verbal and his chums.

 

 

Everyone throwing their insults around....steady on boyz and girlz.

 

I would be more than willing to meet up with you peeps and debate lots of these events discussed on here.

 

Give you my observations/opinions/experience etc.

 

May not convince you one way or the other but may stop all this nastiness.

 

You may even disprove some of my theories.

 

Then again....you may even see the light:D

 

I insist you buy the beer before we head off to see the mighty Saints.

 

I am not a nutter and definite of sound mind.

 

I would truly enjoy meeting up with you all

 

Please don't keep asking pap to explain what he has clearly shown many times.........his opinion.

 

See you all soon:scared:

[ottery st mary]

I read this statement elsewhere.....Thought it was apt:rolleyes:

 

 

 

As contributors we should NOT directly oppose one anothers understanding.

 

BUT

 

Simply present our own understanding and allow readers to determine their own conclusions.

 

 

For readers to make up their own minds.

 

Not for contributors to make bold challenges or allegations against other contributors.

 

ottery:mcinnes:

[CB Fry]

My thoughts have already been provided. Others have also chipped in. Why don't you give some of them the third degree about a full explanation? Does your forum hardman act only extend to self-proclaimed easy targets?

 

You are an easy target, yes.

[aintforever]

Nah mush. We've done this dance before. It's a good job traditional criminal investigations don't follow your insane line of thinking.

 

"sir, I have doubts about their claims."

"Do you? Explain everything at once, in detail, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut up".

 

Insane line of thinking?! I just want you to give the version of events you think is most likely. You seem certain the McCanns did it yet have not explained how. it's like..

 

"Sir, I am sure the MCanns did it"

 

How? "Don't have a clue, I'm just sure they did"

 

I genuinely want to know how you think they did it. I am happy to believe that they could accidentally drug her and cause her death (although is there a drug out there that two doctors would take on holiday that could sedate a child but also kill them if given slightly too much?). I just don't think they had the time or means to make the body vanish like it did. You obviously think they could have....

Edited 20 October, 2013 by aintforever

[Gemmel]

Insane line of thinking?! I just want you to give the version of events you think is most likely. You seem certain the McCanns did it yet have not explained how. it's like..

 

"Sir, I am sure the MCanns did it"

 

How? "Don't have a clue, I'm just sure they did"

 

This is pap we are talking about. This is the guy, that just after the Lee Rigby disaster assured us that he would "Prove as fact" that the images and footage we had seen were fake..... he got my attention.

 

He subsequently went onto to post a video that, had it been submitted by a ten year old in a multi media class, would have been ridiculed by their peers and a huge great "fail" stamped across their work by the teacher.

 

Is he a troll, is he just a weirdo or is he someone who has taken too many drugs, that he lives his life if a paranoid state, or is he just an ordinary bloke who actually believes these things? - I have no idea, but I wish him no ill and hope he is ok, but as for taking his posts seriously, I think most of us have worked out the appropriate course of action.

[pap]

Insane line of thinking?! I just want you to give the version of events you think is most likely. You seem certain the McCanns did it yet have not explained how. it's like..

 

"Sir, I am sure the MCanns did it"

 

How? "Don't have a clue, I'm just sure they did"

 

I genuinely want to know how you think they did it. I am happy to believe that they could accidentally drug her and cause her death (although is there a drug out there that two doctors would take on holiday that could sedate a child but also kill them if given slightly too much?). I just don't think they had the time or means to make the body vanish like it did. You obviously think they could have....

 

I've pointed out my concerns on this thread already. Quite why you think it reasonable that I make a load of sh!t up is a question for you to answer.

[hypochondriac]

I've pointed out my concerns on this thread already. Quite why you think it reasonable that I make a load of sh!t up is a question for you to answer.

 

I think what he is saying is that you may have put your concerns about what the police are saying probably happened but you aren't really giving an alternative or better theory.

[pap]

This is pap we are talking about. This is the guy, that just after the Lee Rigby disaster assured us that he would "Prove as fact" that the images and footage we had seen were fake..... he got my attention.

 

He subsequently went onto to post a video that, had it been submitted by a ten year old in a multi media class, would have been ridiculed by their peers and a huge great "fail" stamped across their work by the teacher.

 

Is he a troll, is he just a weirdo or is he someone who has taken too many drugs, that he lives his life if a paranoid state, or is he just an ordinary bloke who actually believes these things? - I have no idea, but I wish him no ill and hope he is ok, but as for taking his posts seriously, I think most of us have worked out the appropriate course of action.

 

I'm often accused of turning everything into a conspiracy. I've certainly floated the possibility in a number of threads, but the only people who continue to bring those threads back into mention are on this thread, doing the same thing when bereft of comment on the specifics of this one.

 

I can see you've extended the olive branch, so allow me to do the same. I don't require anything more than your last statement. If you want to file my opinions into a special little bin, that's fair enough. Far better that than what we regularly see here; people literally unable to deal with another's opinion without turning into a hysterical insult factory. Further, the amount of posters that slavishly support "everything the government has ever done" in any area of dispute is a little disturbing, more so if it's genuine.

 

I posted some opinions about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on here, along with some links. Every other conspiracy theory that has wound up on this thread has come from others, the four or five posters who pop up with them time and time again. Incidentally, these same four or five posters abandoned one of these threads on supposed grounds of decency, yet continue to bring the events up. Caring bunch, aren't they?

[CB Fry]

I'm often accused of turning everything into a conspiracy. I've certainly floated the possibility in a number of threads, but the only people who continue to bring those threads back into mention are on this thread, doing the same thing when bereft of comment on the specifics of this one.

 

I can see you've extended the olive branch, so allow me to do the same. I don't require anything more than your last statement. If you want to file my opinions into a special little bin, that's fair enough. Far better that than what we regularly see here; people literally unable to deal with another's opinion without turning into a hysterical insult factory. Further, the amount of posters that slavishly support "everything the government has ever done" in any area of dispute is a little disturbing, more so if it's genuine.

 

I posted some opinions about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on here, along with some links. Every other conspiracy theory that has wound up on this thread has come from others, the four or five posters who pop up with them time and time again. Incidentally, these same four or five posters abandoned one of these threads on supposed grounds of decency, yet continue to bring the events up. Caring bunch, aren't they?

 

I'd say accusing the poor cow who came to the aid of murdered Lee Rigby of being an actor paid by the UK secret service to deceive the nation rather a "hysterical insult", wouldn't you? That view really puts you the "caring bunch" doesn't it?

 

And, I would suggest that there is no one, at all, on this forum who "slavishly supports everything the government has ever done". It's precisely the kind of thing someone who is "literally unable to deal with another's opinion" would say....so, you don't think that Rigby was faked? Then you slavishly support everything the government has ever done. Black, meet White. The Pap masterclass.

 

All in all in you're a fun troll and a fun target.

 

Do that stuff about Verbal (might have been another poster) being a government agent again. That was brilliant.

[buctootim]

Do that stuff about Verbal (might have been another poster) being a government agent again. That was brilliant.

 

Shill, shill shill! Possibly the finest moment on Saintsweb . Also got him moved him from the misguided to the dysfunctional folder (so Verbal told me to say)

[so22saint]

I actually find conspiracy theories quite uplifting in a way, as they make some wild assumptions about the capacity for intelligence by the human race whereas in my experience of government officials at all levels (ok, I've not met the PM, but I've met senior advisers to the Republican and Democrat parties in the US of A - where I am at the moment, as well as in the UK) there isn't a level of competence high enough to run a massive conspiracy without it being leaked and blown to smithereens within a couple of years. I'm inclined not to believe in conspiracy theories basically because I don't think people are clever enough to support them.

 

Unless it's not humans of course....

[pap]

Shill, shill shill! Possibly the finest moment on Saintsweb . Also got him moved him from the misguided to the dysfunctional folder (so Verbal told me to say)

 

You've actually behaved yourself on this one, Timothy. Don't spoil yourself, sir.

[pap]

I'd say accusing the poor cow who came to the aid of murdered Lee Rigby of being an actor paid by the UK secret service to deceive the nation rather a "hysterical insult", wouldn't you? That view really puts you the "caring bunch" doesn't it?

 

And, I would suggest that there is no one, at all, on this forum who "slavishly supports everything the government has ever done". It's precisely the kind of thing someone who is "literally unable to deal with another's opinion" would say....so, you don't think that Rigby was faked? Then you slavishly support everything the government has ever done. Black, meet White. The Pap masterclass.

 

All in all in you're a fun troll and a fun target.

 

Do that stuff about Verbal (might have been another poster) being a government agent again. That was brilliant.

 

Yeah, I'd just repeat that your collective cry of "we're outta here, we're far too decent for this sort of discussion" is continually undermined by your later behaviour, y'know - like when you're trying to score cheap points from events you screamed blue murder over before.

 

Still, that's just my perception.

[CB Fry]

Yeah, I'd just repeat that your collective cry of "we're outta here, we're far too decent for this sort of discussion" is continually undermined by your later behaviour, y'know - like when you're trying to score cheap points from events you screamed blue murder over before.

 

Still, that's just my perception.

 

What? "Your perception" is people maimed in a bomb attack were actors faking it. I think that's you "screaming blue murder", not me.

 

And calling good people helping a dead man actors paid by the government...there's yer "cheap points". Really doesn't get cheaper. Well done.

 

By the way, I'm not "discussing" these things, as you rightly say, I am too decent. Just reminding you and the casual forum user what your warped little brain thinks.

 

 

 

Anyway.

 

What do you think McCann's did? What's "your perception" this time?

 

Just a line or two. Just one coherent thought.

 

If it starts you off, if I was as mental as you I think I'd plump for the old acid bath. Why not, eh?

 

They discover their dead daughter, and within minutes she's quietly and quickly vanishing from sight in a hastily run acid bath. (You know, they're like Doctors and stuff) Back to the restaurant to raise the alarm and start a decade of the highest profile child hunt in human history.

 

Either that or, like, they are all actors paid by the Canary Islands tourist board to stop people going to the Algarve.

 

There you go. A theory or two.

 

What's yours?

Edited 21 October, 2013 by CB Fry

[dubai_phil]

Is this the let's all argue again thread or the "So is there some link with Roma's to Child Abduction thread?"

 

Just asking like

[pap]

Is this the let's all argue again thread or the "So is there some link with Roma's to Child Abduction thread?"

 

Just asking like

 

Nah, it's the fifty-something-bullying club meetup again

[hypochondriac]

Nah, it's the fifty-something-bullying club meetup again

 

I notice your quite adept at avoiding questions you don't like to answer.

[pap]

I notice your quite adept at avoiding questions you don't like to answer.

 

It's not that hypo. I've already written everything I'm going to. I'm not going to regurgitate stuff I've already written for the benefit of a few people who don't give a f**k anyway.

[aintforever]

It's not that hypo. I've already written everything I'm going to. I'm not going to regurgitate stuff I've already written for the benefit of a few people who don't give a f**k anyway.

 

Regurgitate what? You have come up with one plausible timeline of events to support your theory yet.

 

Just one possible way they could have made her body vanish inbetween finding her dead, scoffing down a few plates of tapas and raising the alarm.

[hypochondriac]

It's not that hypo. I've already written everything I'm going to. I'm not going to regurgitate stuff I've already written for the benefit of a few people who don't give a f**k anyway.

 

Where have you written your theory of events? All you have done is pick holes in what the current investigation thinks without suggesting a more credible scenario. It certainly appears that the reason you do not do this is because either you don't have a credible alternative theory or you know that any theory you come up with would have a number of holes and would be easy to dismiss.