tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post8978725069690845540..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: PANORAMA: MADELEINE MCCANN 10 Years On - DISSECTEDRosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger344125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-31847250623040948332019-03-23T11:20:47.742+00:002019-03-23T11:20:47.742+00:00Mark, so it may not be polished and slick like the...Mark, so it may not be polished and slick like the Mccans media campaign costing millions, but it is an honest reflection. The general public can overlook the odd spelling error and will not think it casts doubt on the intelligence of the author or the credibility of the facts presented here. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-88323805500404005252017-09-10T10:19:46.708+01:002017-09-10T10:19:46.708+01:00To Anonymous 11 May 2017 You believe Eddie was a...To Anonymous 11 May 2017 You believe Eddie was at fault. Until Martin Grime or a police dog expert explains why Eddie was wrong in this case I'll continue to believe he indicated the past-presence of a corpse in the McCann apartment and hire car.ruth bashfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04948982017286104696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-87997246690910695692017-05-23T22:59:49.783+01:002017-05-23T22:59:49.783+01:00Anonymous23 May 2017 at 13:06
'T'
'&#...Anonymous23 May 2017 at 13:06<br />'T'<br /><br />''I would presume that there was more than just “quoting from him”. I would also presume you intended to draw attention to what the quote was about.''<br /><br />It was about a mind thinking independently rather than seek something to regurgitate from the herd's collective mind.It's about understanding rather than 'knowing.Anyone can memorise then repeat.<br />''Sure. And “It’s OK to cite the source” when you are asked to substantiate something you said (“Please substantiate your “…Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffereys…not only explained why the EVIDENCE OF THE DOGS wasn't reliable but were /are prepared to testify to IT”<br /><br />I thought I'd batted that one back to you earlier. But here's a snippet..<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm<br /><br />''I do no such thing. I observe a certain similarity in your approach, that’s all.''<br /><br />'T' : ''Oh dear, another branch of the same tree.''<br /><br />Maybe i took branch from the same tree wrong ?<br /><br />''The man was a “bullshitter” indeed. Why quote him?''<br /><br />The phrase in question was apt generally, not specifically. CH is a fine academic and great speaker. That doesn't add up to honest or good.Just clever.<br /><br />''It so happens I’m interested in a contradiction arising from the fact that the 14/05/48 creation of the state of Israel was, and its existence is, at odds with one of the main tenets of Judaism: the Jews are forbidden to have their own state until the coming of the Messiah.''<br /><br />Possibly one of the most complex questions in history.I won't go into any anti zionism as the last time i tried, a few sanctimonious clowns tried to sound enlightened by accusing me of being an anti Semite. I've looked at the area ( from the Balfour declaration onward) and I've looked at the rise and spread of the Rothschilds. True Jews don't like Zionism even though they're all Jews. It would be useful to know if Judaism is an ideology,religion or way of life-'all three' is the lazy answer'.But i lay the blame of the global mess firmly at the steps of Zionism. As for Hitchens towing the party line about 9 /11, he should know better than to go on about Bin Laden running the operation from a glorified cave . Or even that he ran it at all.We're back to ' cui bono' again though in this area aren't we ? we could ask Tony Billionaire Blair I suppose.<br /><br />take a peep when you have time :<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rtRL0vvUBQ<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj5eypBex-U<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-54862600361763796742017-05-23T13:06:54.226+01:002017-05-23T13:06:54.226+01:00ZiggySawdust 22 May 2017 at 19:41
“'T'
I...ZiggySawdust 22 May 2017 at 19:41<br /><br />“'T'<br /><br />I was quoting from him. Nothing more. It's OK to cite the source.Do not equate that to me being an admirer of the man or try to imply that I endorse his ideology or that of any other Zionist, friend of Israel bullshitter.”<br /><br /><br />“I was quoting from him.”<br /><br />Accepted. Goes without saying.<br /><br />“Nothing more.”<br /><br />I would presume that there was more than just “quoting from him”. I would also presume you intended to draw attention to what the quote was about.<br /><br />“It's OK to cite the source.”<br /><br />Sure. And “It’s OK to cite the source” when you are asked to substantiate something you said (“Please substantiate your “…<b>Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffereys</b>…<b>not only explained why the EVIDENCE OF THE DOGS wasn't reliable but were /are prepared to testify to IT”</b>” for instance.) “Science versus Rumours” said you. Dare I remind you that anything you assert without evidence can be dismissed as “Rumours”. Or that you're never right merely because people agree with you, but because your <b>facts</b> and reasoning are right? <br /><br />“Do not equate that to me being an admirer of the man…”<br /><br />I do no such thing. I observe a certain similarity in your approach, that’s all.<br /><br />“…or try to imply that I endorse his ideology…”<br /><br />I do not try to imply anything of the kind.<br /><br />“…or that of any other Zionist, friend of Israel bullshitter.”<br /><br />I gave a link to CH’s <b>article on 911</b>. The man was a “bullshitter” indeed. Why quote him?<br /><br />“…Zionist, friend of Israel…”<br /><br />Ostensibly.<br /><br />It so happens I’m interested in a contradiction arising from the fact that the 14/05/48 creation of the state of Israel (and Harry in a hurry recognised it on the same day) was, and its existence is, at odds with one of the main tenets of Judaism: the Jews are forbidden to have their own state until the coming of the Messiah.<br /><br /><br />“"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks."<br />― Christopher Hitchens”<br /><br />What was ‘your independent mind thinking’ (sounds good, doesn’t it?) quoting CH?<br /><br />I know not what my mind thinks or if indeed it does ‘think’, but I think the following quote is rather pertinent:<br /><br />“Three things tell a man: his eyes, his friends and his favourite quotes.”<br />(Attributed to) Immanuel Kant<br /><br />“Everybody's green<br />'Cause I'm the one who won your love,<br />But if they'd seen<br />You're talking that way, they'd laugh in my face.<br /><br />You can’t do that, brother Ziggmund.<br /><br />Namaste.<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-7091517472677014402017-05-22T21:46:20.402+01:002017-05-22T21:46:20.402+01:0015:53
"the lack of evidence of a death equal...15:53<br /><br />"the lack of evidence of a death equals an abduction"<br /><br />The converse is, of course, an equally valid proposition.<br /><br />"If the UK Government were prepared to talk millions so early they were not expecting a result any time soon. They backed that expectation with the cash. That was the biggest red flag of the case."<br /><br />You might be encouraged to learn there is at least one other (red flag), currently lying furled at the foot of the mast.<br /><br />"I retain my suspicions that they know more than has been allowed to leak out."<br /><br />I should.<br /><br />"Either that, or they suspect high level machinations themselves."<br /><br />Said machinations represent more than mere suspicions to the McCanns in my view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-91637480654776937082017-05-22T19:41:05.972+01:002017-05-22T19:41:05.972+01:00Anonymous22 May 2017 at 18:03
'T'
I was ...Anonymous22 May 2017 at 18:03<br /><br />'T'<br /><br />I was quoting from him. Nothing more. It's OK to cite the source.Do not equate that to me being an admirer of the man or try to imply that I endorse his ideology or that of any other Zionist, friend of Israel bullshitter.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-66752032677711598102017-05-22T18:03:15.714+01:002017-05-22T18:03:15.714+01:00Oh dear, another branch of the same tree. Here co...Oh dear, another branch of the same tree. Here comes I’m-always-right Christopher…<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/09/simply_evil.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-51288515452416015842017-05-22T15:53:55.352+01:002017-05-22T15:53:55.352+01:00Anonymous22 May 2017 at 09:39
''Gerry McC...Anonymous22 May 2017 at 09:39<br /><br />''Gerry McCann: "She's out there or she's not, and there's nothing to say that she's not out there alive. So it's simple. She's out there until proven otherwise."<br /><br />That looks like the statement of somebody of a mind that no evidence one way or another proves nothing, therefore, the lack of evidence of a death equals an abduction, and the hope that a daughter is still alive.<br /><br />''The harsh reality, which you appear demonstrably reluctant to accept, is that the only 'because' capable of being substantiated is 'the child is missing'.''<br /><br />That's none to shabby an argument for an abduction wouldn't you say ?<br /><br />As I've stated, I wan't justice to be seen to be done in this case. I don't say that to massage my conscience as I don't hate.When i say it, I mean it.If there has to be a witch hunt, I'd need convincing proof of who the real witches are. I haven't seen, heard, or read nearly enough to convince me the parents did this. I've seen, heard, and read plenty that convinces me that too many Government officials paid too much time, money and close attention to how this case was handled( or mishandled).If the UK Government were prepared to talk millions so early they were not expecting a result any time soon.They backed that expectation with the cash. That was the biggest red flag of the case. The media circus knows it's audience well. It feeds them sensation and salacious gossip to stir their pot. It plants the seeds and looks after the garden.They don't own the farm though, they only work in it.<br /><br />While defending the McCanns against the nonsense talked regarding their 'personalities' and 'attitude' ( and let's face it, it's mostly yielded from wannabe youtube stars and amateur detectives who have a book and chat show circuit fantasy), I retain my suspicions that they know more than has been allowed to leak out.Either that, or they suspect high level machinations themselves. Once you get into the inner workings of the machine that runs the world it gets very cloak and dagger.Real cloaks and real daggers. People somewhere have been compromised and there's a pact of silence far greater than that sworn by the members of the Tapas group.<br /><br />I respect your discussing the finer points of the case and debating them with me intelligently. It's refreshing on here. it's a welcome change from those who treat critical thinking and the challenging of unfounded theorising like Dracula treats a crucifix. I've never known so large a group to show such fear towards a bubble being burst. Surely if the truth is at the end of it, the pop is worth it. We do wan't the truth-don't we ?<br /><br />For those who call me(or what I say) self-righteous, i ask you to show some evidence.The ad hominem attacks win my arguments for me. But those small minded enough to engage in them wouldn't get that.Ignorant people rely on insults instead of facts. Dare I remind them that anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without any ? Or that you're never right merely because people agree with you, but because your facts and reasoning are right?<br /><br />Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people - capeesh ?<br /><br />''"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks."<br />― Christopher Hitchens<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-68798371769905307532017-05-22T11:54:41.126+01:002017-05-22T11:54:41.126+01:00Anonymous 22 May 2017 at 09:19
“Rosalinda has lost...Anonymous 22 May 2017 at 09:19<br />“Rosalinda has lost nothing; she is a writer. <br /><br />Your malicious comment and Ziggy’s endless, self-righteous comments are counterproductive. That's all.”<br /><br />RIP 22:54<br /><br />You’re on the money, honey.<br /><br />Amen.<br /><br />Respectfully<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-15307448574496800232017-05-22T09:57:45.266+01:002017-05-22T09:57:45.266+01:00Anonymous 21 May 2017 at 22:54
“Looks like you...Anonymous 21 May 2017 at 22:54<br /><br />“Looks like you've lost your blog, Ros.<br /><br />R.I.P. Ros' blog.<br /><br />It's just a pity you allowed it to happen in the first place.”<br /><br />The first step to take before counting chickens is to visit an optometrist.<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-25511412736011093122017-05-22T09:39:36.693+01:002017-05-22T09:39:36.693+01:0002:06
"Explain away".
Gerry McCann: &q...02:06<br /><br />"Explain away".<br /><br />Gerry McCann: "She's out there or she's not, and there's nothing to say that she's not out there alive. So it's simple. She's out there until proven otherwise."<br /><br />ZS: "I think the abduction did happen though."<br /><br />Because....there were signs of forced entry?<br /> the patio doors were unlocked?<br /> Madeleine was dressed in pink pyjamas?<br /> Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction?<br /><br />The harsh reality, which you appear demonstrably reluctant to accept, is that the only 'because' capable of being substantiated is 'the child is missing'.<br /><br />The narrative according to the parents renders Madeleine McCann's abduction successively contingent upon those aspects listed above. None are valid.<br /><br />whilst (a) + (b) might equal 'abduction', (a) alone cannot equate with it.<br /><br />"if we're talking circumstantial, the games more open now"<br /><br />We're not, and it isn't.<br /><br />I will add just one thing. The parents are not uniquely responsible for the cover up that ensued. After a decade of the torch being deliberately shone in their direction, some light has begun to fall on those in the wings. In that respect at least your hypothesizing is not adrift.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-72123058726803681822017-05-22T09:19:28.046+01:002017-05-22T09:19:28.046+01:00Rosalinda has lost nothing; she is a writer.
You...Rosalinda has lost nothing; she is a writer. <br /><br />Your malicious comment and Ziggy’s endless, self-righteous comments are counterproductive. That's all.<br /><br />RIP 22:54<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-53161565017666692572017-05-22T02:06:41.188+01:002017-05-22T02:06:41.188+01:00Anonymous21 May 2017 at 21:30
''Another m...Anonymous21 May 2017 at 21:30<br /><br />''Another mis-interpretation on your part. The centuries old evidence testifies to the certainty of mathematical/logical proof in general, not the McCann case in particular, although there's no reason why the latter should be immune to the constraints of logic.''<br /><br />I can't see how the certainties of mathematics or logic can be applied to a case like this.I can't see how certainty at all can be. That might be why we're into he eleventh year of it now.How can the laws of logic be applied to a case with little more than volumes of rumour, misinformation, disinformation, unreliable testimony and sightings and a complete lack of tangible evidence to point to anything ? No reason why the McCann case should be immune ?<br /><br />''It is very simple. So simple a schoolboy/girl would understand it, never mind a jury comprised of adults.''<br /><br />I was a schoolboy once. I'm an adult now. I've served a couple of hilarious weeks jury duty too. Explain away.<br /><br />''All you need to understand for now is that if abduction can be proven not to have occurred, it inexorably follows that Madeleine McCann is dead''<br /><br />For now ? I think that's been the sticking point since 2007. You discuss it casually as though it's a minor point in the case. It's the biggest. If there is no evidence of an abduction, does that mean an abduction didn't happen ? Like if a burglar leaves no finger prints or DNA or footprints and wasn't seen entering a building, it can't be considered a burglary ? The missing family jewels are evidence of the home owner faking a burglary ? I was burgled. The burglar didn't leave a trace and nobody saw him. Should it have followed that I was faking the burglary ? I didn't fake anything.<br /><br />''And, since the abduction did not happen, her death must have preceded that non-event - dogs or no dogs.''<br /><br />I think the abduction did happen though. I also think that it's more likely that an abductor panicked and hurt or killed and then took the evidence away .The child was a stranger to the abductor, not his or her baby.It wouldn't be as easy for a parent to suddenly, even in a fit of rage, go that far.But that's only my hypothesis. it's my second most likely scenario.You say 'dogs or no dogs', so, if we're talking circumstantial, the games more open now.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-90769267246434621872017-05-22T01:48:35.374+01:002017-05-22T01:48:35.374+01:00Hi Ziggy@16:09
Smithman & Tannerman are two d...Hi Ziggy@16:09<br /><br />Smithman & Tannerman are two different people. If as you said Smithman was the father coming back from the creche, what was he doing for 40 minutes? JT's sighting 21:15, Smith Family sighting 21:55. Smithman exists, Tannerman I believe was created because of the Smith Family encounter.John100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-24993561649425668532017-05-21T22:54:13.082+01:002017-05-21T22:54:13.082+01:00Looks like you've lost your blog, Ros.
R.I.P....Looks like you've lost your blog, Ros.<br /><br />R.I.P. Ros' blog.<br /><br />It's just a pity you allowed it to happen in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-13505770431611226352017-05-21T22:41:40.128+01:002017-05-21T22:41:40.128+01:00Just a thought, how many GP's do you know that...Just a thought, how many GP's do you know that come into contact with dead bodies on a regular basis?John100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-6413632671108881362017-05-21T21:30:20.551+01:002017-05-21T21:30:20.551+01:00"That's all a bit abstract for a court of..."That's all a bit abstract for a court of law and a jury don't you think?"<br /><br />My comments were addressed to you, and you are neither of the above.<br /><br />"If anything is to be concluded dependent on 'non-abduction' then 'non -abduction' has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not logical conclusion based on circumstantial evidence"<br /><br />Who said anything about 'circumstantial' evidence? <br /><br />Your continuation with the dogs is irrelevant.<br /><br />"I don't know of the centuries of evidence that would provide a good argument for the prosecution in this case."<br /><br />Another mis-interpretation on your part. The centuries old evidence testifies to the certainty of mathematical/logical proof in general, not the McCann case in particular, although there's no reason why the latter should be immune to the constraints of logic.<br /><br />"I think it would take x-ray vision and magic to extract just logic from the mountain of confusion"<br /><br />Not at all. It is very simple. So simple a schoolboy/girl would understand it, never mind a jury comprised of adults.<br /><br />All you need to understand for now is that if abduction can be proven not to have occurred, it inexorably follows that Madeleine McCann is dead. And, since the abduction did not happen, her death must have preceded that non-event - dogs or no dogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-50442088470677429052017-05-21T16:45:56.046+01:002017-05-21T16:45:56.046+01:00Witness testimony of Martin Smith, 26 May 2007 ......Witness testimony of Martin Smith, 26 May 2007 ...<br /><br />''He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter and thought nothing more of it. ''<br /><br />''He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour...He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone.. the lighting was not very good.'' <br /><br />'' she (the child)was asleep ..She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet.''<br /><br />''states that she may have been the child he saw. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been Madeleine''<br /><br />''States that it is not possible to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. ...He reads and finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs together with the interpreter. ''<br /><br />20th September-same man, this time UK police 4 months on :<br /><br />''Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick.''<br /><br />A man as concerned about Madeleine as most people and wishing he could help but responsible enough to realise how serious and misleading a possible case of mistaken identity could be. His description of the man was generic to say the least.It would probably describe the majority of average caucasian British / German/ males between 30-45.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-8466394602858350702017-05-21T16:20:15.574+01:002017-05-21T16:20:15.574+01:00Björn19 May 2017 at 21:24
''The McCanns c...Björn19 May 2017 at 21:24<br /><br />''The McCanns comments with regards to the skills of Martin Grime's dogs are just as unbelievable as insensitive. ''<br /><br />What about the skills of Martin Grime ? Why do the dogs get a fan club but Grime doesn't ? What did Martin Grime say about the findings ? Dogs don't lie-and neither does Martin Grime . Does he ?<br /><br />As for 'unbelievable and insensitive'... After the endless and groundless accusations you've posted aimed at the parents of a missing child regardless of having nothing to back them up but your own anger and suspicion, you shouldn't make that accusation about anyone.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-55845410958581157532017-05-21T16:09:16.236+01:002017-05-21T16:09:16.236+01:00Björn21 May 2017 at 12:02
'' Regardless of...Björn21 May 2017 at 12:02<br />'' Regardless of how they in detail have described him, he's real. He exists.''<br /><br />''What reason could anyone of them have to lie about that?''<br />''Why do not the McCanns focus on this mysterious man instead of making the police and the public look for non-existent monsters and demons,''<br /><br />He exists, yes. Was he a father taking his child back to the apartment from the night creche but unsure of the route ? Smith had no reason to lie-and he probably didn't. He tried to give information that might be useful. If he was mistaken it doesn't mean he lied. He only hit upon the idea of it being Gerry McCann four months later after four months of anxiety and fading memory. He said seeing Gerry McCann descending the stairs from a plane in sunshine and carrying a child in the exact same way as anyone else would, was an 'action replay' of seeing a man in the dark walking on the level street of PDL. That's why he said he was 80% sure at best, then less sure.<br /><br />''Why do not the McCanns focus on this mysterious man instead of making the police and the public look for non-existent monsters and demons''<br /><br />Because the McCanns aren't heading up the investigation.They can't.The police forces of two countries have the statement and have had it for ten years. You're obsessed with thinking of the McCanns of being guilty of as much as you can dream up. There's more demons driving you than this investigation.<br /><br />''Any innocent parent would do their utmost in order to identify the "Smithman". Is that what they've been doing all these years? If not, why?''<br /><br />Because parents aren't detectives.<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-4755367282913637882017-05-21T15:57:34.175+01:002017-05-21T15:57:34.175+01:00Anonymous21 May 2017 at 10:13
''Logic out...Anonymous21 May 2017 at 10:13<br /><br />''Logic outweighs both, since a logical proof enables a determination with absolute certainty - i.e. beyond dispute.''<br /><br />((which isn't a 'point of view', but a truth for which there exist centuries of evidence).<br />The best bit is that a logical proof can be arrived at without reference to DNA or the dogs''<br /><br />(death contingent upon non-abduction)<br /><br />That's all a bit abstract for a court of law and a jury don't you think ? Where does 'contingent upon' end and 'dependent on' begin ?<br />If anything is to be concluded dependent on 'non-abduction' then 'non -abduction' has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not logical conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.Circumstantial evidence is a grey area and it's that grey area that can be the 'reasobable doubt' that a defence team would present to a jury.As soon as they recognise that, they have to conceded that doubts are reasonable enough to arrive at a 'not guilty'. This is why the alleged 'findings' of the dogs has been a bone of contention chewed by both sides of the argument. If it was labelled as 'proof' then the prosecution has something that can't be disputed by a defence team. If it's labelled as insufficient evidence( which it has by being shelved) there isn't a case to advance. I can't see a prosecution using an argument that concludes 'it stands to reason' and hoping that a jury would shrug it's shoulders and say, 'yep, if you put it like that'.<br /><br />I don't know of the centuries of evidence that would provide a good argument for the prosecution in this case. I'll take your word.With all the efits and confused statements and recollections i think it would take x-ray vision and magic to extract just logic from the mountain of confusion. Let's also remember that the McCanns' have been been put on trial for years online and via the MSM and everyone has opinions and theories already. The jury would be warned in advance to put that aside. That's a big ask.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-15372154901357540782017-05-21T12:02:44.939+01:002017-05-21T12:02:44.939+01:00Hi Anon 20 May 13:39
May I remind you that members...Hi Anon 20 May 13:39<br />May I remind you that members of a whole Irish family have witnessed that they saw a man carrying a small sleeping, or possibly a dead child, towards the beach around 9.55 p.m. Regardless of how they in detail have described him, he's real. He exists.<br /><br />What reason could anyone of them have to lie about that? Why do not the McCanns focus on this mysterious man instead of making the police and the public look for non-existent monsters and demons, none of whom have been seen in the evening of that day, carrying a child around in PDL. Any innocent parent would do their utmost in order to identify the "Smithman". Is that what they've been doing all these years? If not, why?Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-6212110544087135942017-05-21T10:13:21.953+01:002017-05-21T10:13:21.953+01:0018:41
"Science versus Rumours"
You'...18:41<br /><br />"Science versus Rumours"<br /><br />You've overlooked a 'trump card'. Logic outweighs both, since a logical proof enables a determination with absolute certainty - i.e. beyond dispute.<br /><br />Mind you, on past form I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to that argument (which isn't a 'point of view', but a truth for which there exist centuries of evidence).<br /><br />The best bit is that a logical proof (of death contingent upon non-abduction) can be arrived at without reference to DNA or the dogs. (The clue is in the word 'contingent' btw.).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-80651495882903477082017-05-21T08:31:35.223+01:002017-05-21T08:31:35.223+01:00@Anonymous 20.5 at 13:39
"As for 'consis...@Anonymous 20.5 at 13:39<br /><br />"As for 'consistency', he twice changed the age of the man he said he saw." <br /><br />Sources?<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134<br /><br />"He [Martin Smith] has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. <b>He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.</b> He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment."<br /><br />...<br /><br />"I [MS] would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, <b>aged 40 years approximately.</b>"<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-31511785238645159792017-05-20T18:46:34.341+01:002017-05-20T18:46:34.341+01:00Anonymous20 May 2017 at 13:39
''As for &#...Anonymous20 May 2017 at 13:39<br /><br />''As for 'consistency', he twice changed the age of the man he said he saw. What would his evidence be worth after so much chopping and changing. Ziggy is right. His testimony would be worthless.''<br /><br />Exactly-respect.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.com