scothunter 12,609 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 no i think if you genuially show remorse especially if a kid is involved,people would tend to sy "look they f****d up" i wouldnt leave my kid,but its happened. but no born they came on tv from day one and seriously they didnt look like parents who had just had a kid snatched. i watched a thing on tv yers ago, where a local was describing the tides. he said chucking anything in the sea at the resort,it would be taken right out to a busy shipping lane.now it could be argued they did throw her body in sea, two outcomes, the body is found next day, she must have woken up during night and wandered outside and fell in the sea, or if the body isnt washed up, well we could go with the abduction line. like everyone else i dont know,just a theory,but i will tell you this much, if they werent so arrogant/callous call it what you will.i dont think you get half as many doubters. THEY f***ing LOOK GUILTY! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,743 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 fair point,but isnt a juries duty to sum up all the evidence.and then make a decision. lets be honest here there plenty doubt in this case as to there innocence. Scot mate, you ever watched one of these numerous conspiracy programmes and been fecking convinced that the Big Lie is true!? Then later in the programme they torpedo all the evidence they just fed you and suddenly you're convinced it's all bollocks..... You're the jury, what convinced you was the prosecution and what made you think it's all bollocks was the defense. People can be so easily swayed when if they remained truely objective they would not make their judgement untill conclusive evidence was produced. We can all only base our judgements on our experiences, that's a flaw in itself as we suddenly have preconceptions and a beliefe we 'know' things about a situation that really we are far from knowledgeable on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,743 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) People that understand what is proof and what is suspicious evidence Scot. fair point,but isnt a juries duty to sum up all the evidence.and then make a decision. lets be honest here there plenty doubt in this case as to there innocence. i have my own opinion about them,and there arrogance from day one made me despise them. see if that had been my mate,and he said look i f****d up totally. what i did was wrong and i will need to suffer this for the rest of my life.but please dont make my stupidity cloud the hunt for my daughter. i would prob look at him/them diffrent. personally i would have been racked with guilt and would have been in bits. no writing books and holding press confrences They can't do that Scot, they do that then everybody hates them and they get banged up and everybody forgets about their little girl. I'm not saying they haven't monumentally f****d up but when making any judgement you have to retain objectivity, everybody has a 'theory' of what happened and based on these dreams they've made their judgements of what's happened and who's guilty. You see the same with any high profile tragedy. I try to keep an open mind on it....but it's quite hard to when Kate answered most of the initial questions she was asked with "no comment", people don't generally answer no comment when their child has been kidnapped, doesn't make any sense whatsoever if they had no involvement in her disappearance. But there we go, how do you know what people generally do when their child has been kidnapped? Specifically in another country and with a foreign force questioning you? One thing I have come to realise, what people call logic is just their own interpretation of it. It's not a logical behaviour to you or I but with a a certain experience it may suddenly seem very logical.... Edited October 16, 2013 by Born Hunter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mackay 3,260 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 If they found that kid safe and well tomorrow and caught the culprit responsible for her disappearance and it wasn't the Mccanns. I'd still say they were a couple of negligent , cold hearted, selfish bstards. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
riohog 5,684 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 If they found that kid safe and well tomorrow and caught the culprit responsible for her disappearance and it wasn't the Mccanns. I'd still say they were a couple of negligent , cold hearted, selfish bstards. so would I!!.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 im not into this rubbishing everything the portugese cops did/done f**k sake Brit cops have been monumentous at being incompetent in other high profile cases. not saying they were totally proffesional, i dont know! but to shoot down everything they did just to bolster your own argument isnt really being just is it?.especially when you dont have all the facts or access to the case.its kinda what your saying to the people who doubt this pair of c**ts innocence. oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rob190364 2,593 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 People that understand what is proof and what is suspicious evidence Scot. fair point,but isnt a juries duty to sum up all the evidence.and then make a decision. lets be honest here there plenty doubt in this case as to there innocence. i have my own opinion about them,and there arrogance from day one made me despise them. see if that had been my mate,and he said look i f****d up totally. what i did was wrong and i will need to suffer this for the rest of my life.but please dont make my stupidity cloud the hunt for my daughter. i would prob look at him/them diffrent. personally i would have been racked with guilt and would have been in bits. no writing books and holding press confrences They can't do that Scot, they do that then everybody hates them and they get banged up and everybody forgets about their little girl. I'm not saying they haven't monumentally f****d up but when making any judgement you have to retain objectivity, everybody has a 'theory' of what happened and based on these dreams they've made their judgements of what's happened and who's guilty. You see the same with any high profile tragedy. I try to keep an open mind on it....but it's quite hard to when Kate answered most of the initial questions she was asked with "no comment", people don't generally answer no comment when their child has been kidnapped, doesn't make any sense whatsoever if they had no involvement in her disappearance. But there we go, how do you know what people generally do when their child has been kidnapped? Specifically in another country and with a foreign force questioning you? One thing I have come to realise, what people call logic is just their own interpretation of it. It's not a logical behaviour to you or I but with a a certain experience it may suddenly seem very logical.... Obviously I don't know from experience, but I would guess that protecting yourself would be very secondary compared to doing whatever you can to find your daughter. Withholding any information whatsoever can only hinder the police in finding your child if she had been kidnapped. The only time you would be answering 'no comment' would be if you were trying to protect yourself from getting stitched up for something you did or didn't do. If I went to check on my daughter this morning to find a window open and her missing, so I called the police and they came round I simply can't imagine for one minute I would answer "no comment" to a single question, it's just bizarre! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The one 8,450 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 If they found that kid safe and well tomorrow and caught the culprit responsible for her disappearance and it wasn't the Mccanns. I'd still say they were a couple of negligent , cold hearted, selfish bstards. so would I!!.. Aye he looks like a sly b*****d but she looks like shes ready to crack i hope they do find something and the truth comes out 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rob190364 2,593 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 im not into this rubbishing everything the portugese cops did/done f**k sake Brit cops have been monumentous at being incompetent in other high profile cases. not saying they were totally proffesional, i dont know! but to shoot down everything they did just to bolster your own argument isnt really being just is it?.especially when you dont have all the facts or access to the case.its kinda what your saying to the people who doubt this pair of c**ts innocence. oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? no, to be honest it seemed like Crimewatch deliberately took the focus away from them as much as they could. I guess rather than have people watching being convinced that it was them, they were genuinely trying to get people to identify the bloke on the e-fit. If they'd have detailed some of the evidence that implies that this pair are guilty (of something) then people wouldn't put the effort into trying to identify the e-fit. Just my take on it anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 aye i saw the efit in the paper. tbh it looks like gerry lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RubyTex 1,957 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
riohog 5,684 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 they may not feel guilty .for her actual disaperance and maybe they had nothing to do with actually removing her from the apartement , . but whoever took /removed the kid knew they would not be there !! were they told that or just took a chance ? something not right there somewere . I don't think they did do it .but for sure they were negligent , and maybe guilty of abduction by association .. either way they are a pair of assholes for leaving babys alone they deserve punishing for neglect . ffs they are health proffecionalls ..duty of care and all that... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,743 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 they may not feel guilty .for her actual disaperance and maybe they had nothing to do with actually removing her from the apartement , . but whoever took /removed the kid knew they would not be there !! were they told that or just took a chance ? something not right there somewere . I don't think they did do it .but for sure they were negligent , and maybe guilty of abduction by association .. either way they are a pair of assholes for leaving babys alone they deserve punishing for neglect . ffs they are health proffecionalls ..duty of care and all that... Like I said earlier after reading that they can be charged with abandonment in Portugal if they knew they were putting their kids in danger by leaving them: I reckon they are under strict legal instruction to never say they feel guilty or that they messed up.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
redcharge 378 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 In bad taste as it is to compare these sort of things......when people call out for the Mcanns blood i cant help wondering whats worse........allowing a 5 year old girl with cerebral palsey to wander round the streets in broad daylight......or leaving a 3 year old alone in her bedroom at night ? April Jones parent/s had the nations heartfelt sympathies ( and rightly so ) after she was abducted and killed.......nobody was calling for the parents blood then...why not ? The only reason i can see that people are so fired up over the Mcanns but wasnt fired up over April Jones.......is success/wealth. Gnash do you not think with there wealth they should have paid to have they're children in the night crèche... Or maybe clubbed in with they're friends and had both sets of children baby sat by an approved Nannie service?? After all what's the point in being wealthy and successful if you can't use your wealth to look out for your family's best interests... Not often I see a post of yours I don't agree with but I think your way off the mark here. They are a pair of tight, snobby c**ts who knew better.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.