09-06-2020, 05:09 PM
482
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by Zuleika
->
They did .Proven by forensics . Window only had Kate NcCann’s fingerprint on it ,shutter had not been tampered with .
Statements repeated in interviews to the media until Clarence Mitchell made a public announcement .
No use arguing really if you haven't followed the case .
Surely not just putting out your interpretation of "he said, we said"?
The writers of reports have a great advantage in that they can spin what has been said into whatever they want to hint at.
If you weren't there you can only say what you think was meant!
Anyway, this "discussion" has been suitably wrecked.
Next....!
09-06-2020, 05:59 PM
483
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by tedc
->
presumably you were there?Surely not just putting out your interpretation of "he said, we said"?
The writers of reports have a great advantage in that they can spin what has been said into whatever they want to hint at.
If you weren't there you can only say what you think was meant!
Anyway, this "discussion" has been suitably wrecked.
Next....!
09-06-2020, 06:11 PM
484
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by WE177B
Next month I am due to give evidence for the prosecution in a case with two defendants. Would it be right for the court to decide at the start that the defendants are innocent without due consideration of the evidence, saying it's obvious? As it happens, my evidence is so solid, and I have my own video to corroborate it, that it seems that the defendants will be pleading guilty in order to try to minimise sentence. They know that when my evidence is heard the decision to convict will be obvious. As the case is [I
sub judice[/I] I cannot give you any further details as I am sure you will understand, but the point is that opinions have no merit unless supported by facts.Next month I am due to give evidence for the prosecution in a case with two defendants. Would it be right for the court to decide at the start that the defendants are innocent without due consideration of the evidence, saying it's obvious? As it happens, my evidence is so solid, and I have my own video to corroborate it, that it seems that the defendants will be pleading guilty in order to try to minimise sentence. They know that when my evidence is heard the decision to convict will be obvious. As the case is [I
I respect your opinion, but can you offer sound evidence based reasons why anyone should believe you?
So, you are still actively employed as a serving policeman?
Even, though names haven’t been mentioned, should you be discussing your legal activity on a public forum?
Something isn’t quite right here?
09-06-2020, 06:22 PM
485
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by Tedc
->
Presumably you were there?Surely not just putting out your interpretation of "he said, we said"?
The writers of reports have a great advantage in that they can spin what has been said into whatever they want to hint at.
If you weren't there you can only say what you think was meant!
Anyway, this "discussion" has been suitably wrecked.
Next....!
09-06-2020, 06:30 PM
486
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by WE177B
->
I'm afraid to say that yes, the McCanns have lied.On numerous occasions.
They've even lied to judges in court. Both when seeking a judicial order to get Amaral's book banned in Portugal, and also in the trial McCann v Amaral et al. The Supreme Court commented on it.
There's also been other lies, such as the period when the McCanns were still in Portugal after the disappearance. There was a day when they described where they had been and what they had been doing, but examination of mobile phone records of phones pinging on nearest masts showed that they had been in a totally different place. What they were up to is unknown as the police were not monitoring them - a mistake Amaral freely admitted later.
Ah the author of the tragic accident fairy tale .
I would take anything he said with a ton of salt .
09-06-2020, 06:31 PM
487
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by Zuleika
->
So are you saying I misheard what the McCanns said many times during interviews about the window and shutters during many interviews? Misheard Clarence Mitchell telling reporters the window wasn't in fact open ?
So what ?
It’s doesn’t make an iota of difference whether the shutters were opened or closed .
09-06-2020, 06:32 PM
488
Re: Maddy McCann
Some are saying, she died in accidental circumstances and the parents covered it up. So how do you think she died?She wasn’t tall enough to reach the cooker. Did she fall and die? Now as far as l know, children of her age their bones are still very soft and supple, they are more likely to bounce and roll in a fall.
Did she get a knife out of the drawer and cut herself and bleed to death... well she might have done, that’s if she could reach?
Did the apartment go on fire? No evidence of that so she didn’t die of burning.
.... but wait, according to some on here, she’d been given an overdose of Calpol, so wouldn’t she be ‘knocked out’, in a deep sleep and incapable of doing anything that would kill her?
So, if she wasn’t abducted. Please tell me how on earth did she die?
09-06-2020, 06:34 PM
489
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by Artangel
->
Eh Hang On!So, you are still actively employed as a serving policeman?
Even, though names haven’t been mentioned, should you be discussing your legal activity on a public forum?
Something isn’t quite right here?
I always thought the police were snowed under with paperwork and that’s why they haven’t the time to come out for burglaries .
09-06-2020, 06:36 PM
490
Re: Maddy McCann
Originally Posted by tedc
->
presumably you were there?Surely not just putting out your interpretation of "he said, we said"?
The writers of reports have a great advantage in that they can spin what has been said into whatever they want to hint at.
If you weren't there you can only say what you think was meant!
Anyway, this "discussion" has been suitably wrecked.
Next....!
|
|
