Madeleine McCann

Slow learner or late entry into the medical field either way she is qualified. As for the rumours that they sedated the children i am sure we would have heard something positive on that surely even 25 days later there would have been some trace of sedative in the blood sample. While people will feel free to have a go at them as parents\people having a go at them professionally is a bit much at the minute.

[iglu]

Originally Posted by AntiSilence

Are you American?

Nope I ain't an Eskimo.

Specialisation and Specialization are both in the British dictionary that comes with Firefox. I randomly clicked on one, while spell checking

[rick47]

Camp McCann seem to have so much to say....they get there info from where......?.....wishful thinking , or from 'Tom & Jerry' (meaning Kate & Gerry), although the comedy aspect will remain. So T & J cannot speak openly to the press...but can tell all the family about it to let them talk........and........still makes it's way to the press.......maybe 3rd hand.......but lets face it..if T & J DID the dirty......then all supporting cast are...........well...................bull****ers.. ............or...............happy to get paid. Are still putting their 2p in. For the extended family to know all the questions that are supposedly have been put to T & J, there would nearly have to have been an open conversation between the finish of interviews with the police of T & J and camp 'Cann or during.......them being there as .a supporter..?.......I would think under the same disclosure law. ? Egg possibly could appear on very many places.as we all know the Porto police do not 'talk' so the only place 'T & J' s supposedly questions and answers have been supplied by camp McCann........by .................................?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

<snip>
Your question of how the body would be moved holds much providence. But if the blood in the hire car is the childs then it renders your question pretty much mute.

BBC24 raised an interesting question this morning which was that if that hire car was so important to the investigation why were the McCanns still allowed to use it

That would be moot.

And in fact it wouldn't be moot; if the child's blood is in the car, it proves the child was in the car, or that someone who had been in contact with the child's blood had been in the car. It certainly doesn't prove the allegation that the child's parents hired the car in order to move a body.

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

Originally Posted by peanutkp

Not the grammer / spell checking police again.

Wow that was really helpful.

It's more helpful than you realise.

There are so many armchair Poirots on this thread, it's reasonable to wonder whether some of them really do have the wit and intelligence to crack a case that has so far stumped the (presumably) finest investigative minds in Portugal, and one or two from the UK as well.

Personally, I tend to give less weight to 'clever' theories espoused by people who can't string a properly constructed sentence together. Call me old fashioned, but as a means of separating out who is really thinking about this, and who is merely pandering to ugly prejudice and confusing real life with soap opera and pulp fiction, I find it works pretty well.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Chris T

It's more helpful than you realise.

There are so many armchair Poirots on this thread, it's reasonable to wonder whether some of them really do have the wit and intelligence to crack a case that has so far stumped the (presumably) finest investigative minds in Portugal, and one or two from the UK as well.

Personally, I tend to give less weight to 'clever' theories espoused by people who can't string a properly constructed sentence together. Call me old fashioned, but as a means of separating out who is really thinking about this, and who is merely pandering to ugly prejudice and confusing real life with soap opera and pulp fiction, I find it works pretty well.

You need to get out more.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by rick47

Camp McCann seem to have so much to say

*SNIP*

Please don't add unnecessary full stops and breaks in your posts. It makes them pretty hard to read

[rick47]

thought it read better than some others

While people may not always use the best punctuation or grammar they might have something valid to say or a good point to raise. Bad or incorrect grammar are hardly reasons to dimiss someone or thier theory to be honest Chris and that attitude smells of snobbery to be honest.

[slug]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

While people may not always use the best punctuation or grammar they might have something valid to say or a good point to raise. Bad or incorrect grammar are hardly reasons to dimiss someone or thier theory to be honest Chris and that attitude smells of snobbery to be honest.

Or to pull the thread off topic.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

While people may not always use the best punctuation or grammar they might have something valid to say or a good point to raise. Bad or incorrect grammar are hardly reasons to dimiss someone or thier theory to be honest Chris and that attitude smells of snobbery to be honest.

I agree, and I think the term is anal retentive springs to mind.

I think a mod of a forum should encourage people to post rather than slate them.

Grammer and spelling rarely bares any resemblance to actual intelligence.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

While people may not always use the best punctuation or grammar they might have something valid to say or a good point to raise.

They might. I don't see much evidence of it in this thread to be honest though.

Bad or incorrect grammar are hardly reasons to dimiss someone or thier theory to be honest Chris

On the contrary, in the absence of any other evidence for how much thought someone has put into a post, the amount of thought they have put into their expression is all we have to go on.

I'm not giving marks out of ten for exact spelling and grammar, but some of the stuff posted on here is unintelligible drivel of the highest order. If someone is so totally incapable of expressing themselves with any clarity, then what right have they to expect anyone to assume they have thought through what they want to say with any clarity?

and that attitude smells of snobbery to be honest.

Fine, if that works for you. Forgive me if I think you're being trite and failing to engage with the point.

I can only repeat what I said earlier. There are a lot of ideas and opinions flying round this thread. Some people are reviewing the evidence and attempting to come to a reasonable view of events based on that evidence (not everyone is coming to the same view, incidentally, which is fine by me - it makes for a more interesting discussion). Other people are simply talking out of their rear ends based on prejudice and an assumption that the likes of Eastenders and Brookside are in some way a reflection of real life.

In my experience, lazy thinking and lazy expression are often found side by side. This is a fast moving thread and there is lots to read so I make no apology for skimming through it and only engaging with the posts that seem to me to be worth engaging with.

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I agree, and I think the term is anal retentive springs to mind.

I think a mod of a forum should encourage people to post rather than slate them.

Grammer and spelling rarely bares any resemblance to actual intelligence.

It's grammar. And I think you'll find it does.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I agree, and I think the term is anal retentive springs to mind.

I think a mod of a forum should encourage people to post rather than slate them.

Grammer and spelling rarely bares any resemblance to actual intelligence.

Seeing as he was speaking as a member rather than mod, surely it's up to him to use any method he see's fit to judge a posts value, as we all do

Originally Posted by slug

Or to pull the thread off topic.

Of course. That's what the team here loves to do most of all.

I thought you might be at least curious to know why I don't think everyone's ideas about what happened to Maddie McCann are equally valid. Sorry if that was too subtle for you.

[slug]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Of course. That's what the team here loves to do most of all.

I thought you might be at least curious to know why I don't think everyone's ideas about what happened to Maddie McCann are equally valid. Sorry if that was too subtle for you.

I think that the McCann's are involved in the dissapperance of Madeleine.
Spelling and grammar correct. I must be right then.

Originally Posted by Chris T

...And in fact it wouldn't be moot; if the child's blood is in the car, it proves the child was in the car, or that someone who had been in contact with the child's blood had been in the car. It certainly doesn't prove the allegation that the child's parents hired the car in order to move a body...

But the car wasn't hired until 25 days after she was reported missing, and according to the Telegraph report posted earlier, the blood was found in the boot of the car.

I assume the police checked to see who hired the car before the McCann's (if anyone) to see who might have had it over the period Madeleine went missing.