quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
You said it !quote:Originally posted by Yellow Rose:
But they're Catholics, in times of grief you hope for any intervention of peace of mind or answer, from whatever faith you have if you have any
So you cannot grieve for a missing child? is grief only for the dead?
She wasn't suppossed to be dead according to the McCann story.
i dont read the tabloids ........... but IMO little girls just dont go missing for no apparrent reason i'm not blaming the mum or dad but in this day and age she shouldnt have been left on her own ..... i know they must be ate up with *what ifs* but i wouldnt be in their shoes for a million ÂĢ 's it is a very sad tale
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Reviewing your previous post..
quote:Now I know I'm just not gonna bother.....................FGS - they found comfort in that and you just read too many tabloids and are ...................................quite ridiculous.
I think we've gotten personal enough so far, don't you ?
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
Here's an article about the devastated father..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ine-disappeared.html
No need to pity my lack of naivety.
From the same article:
It's also been reported Madeleine's hair and body fluids were found in the apartment of the first offical suspect in her disappearance, Robert Murat.
Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas said detectives are now sure she was in his apartment at some stage, but are not sure if she was dead or alive.
quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Actually I dont see it as uncalled for at all. Sometimes it helps to know something about the poster. TBH ...............i'm finding it really hard to understand where he/she is coming from. That's all.
I haven't asked for photos/finger prints/ credit card details etc. I just would appreciate a little insight.....................why's that so wrong or uncalled for?
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
To take control and obfuscate, release counter "evidence", spin, constantly create the picture of an alive girl while she might be dead. I am not saying this is true, but it as valid an unproven statement as your version.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .............it all makes perfect sense now
You're not being serious are you
I dont know what sort of world you live in ......nor how old you are and life experiences etc> but if you can't see a broken/heart broken/ devestated family simply trying to find their lost little girl ........................I feel sorry for you TBH.
Here's an article about the devastated father..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ine-disappeared.html
No need to pity my lack of naivety.
We are all different .........if it was me I know I'd crumple into a heap and want to die ................i know my husband would be fired up/angry and full of aggression ...............I suspect he'd play tennis/squash or a round of golf to use up some of it.
Are you saying that the man is guilty of murdering his daughter because he played a game of tennis? Do you not accept that we all have different ways of dealing with things?
here i am again .......quoting my own post.
Just to say ....some years ago when my Dad died we immediately drove stright down to be with my mum. We stayed in the spare bedroom and my husband looked up at the ceiling and said 'Oh My god when was that last painted'. The next day he went off to B&Q - bought paint and painted the ceiling .......jut his way of dealing with it. There were some in our family who thought it very odd and disrespectful .......................my husband loved my dad dearly - it was just his way of dealing with it.
Your husbands reaction is quite common when grieving a death.
A "missing" child though is another matter, the finality is not there, in that position I'd expect someone to be heavilly sedated, unshaven perhaps, sitting by the phone hoping it'll ring and bring hope, not popping down to the court for a spot of tennis.
I remember news footage of seeing Kate McCann a few days after Madeleine's disappeance being held up by a friend when visiting the local church, she looked so frail and weak that my immediate thought was she was on numbing medication that was knocking her out, and who would blame her for needing meds unless they have no compassion
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Reviewing your previous post..quote:Now I know I'm just not gonna bother.....................FGS - they found comfort in that and you just read too many tabloids and are ...................................quite ridiculous.
I think we've gotten personal enough so far, don't you ?
Obviously I've overstepped the mark ...........I apologise. I do feel very strongly about this case and get a little over wrought ............personally I saw the questions as relevant but ........that's just me.
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Actually I dont see it as uncalled for at all. Sometimes it helps to know something about the poster. TBH ...............i'm finding it really hard to understand where he/she is coming from. That's all.
I haven't asked for photos/finger prints/ credit card details etc. I just would appreciate a little insight.....................why's that so wrong or uncalled for?
Because everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own without being villified or set upon if that opinion happens to conflict with yours ... Your post was uncalled-for and nobody in their right mind would answer such questions via an internet forum, never mind to someone so blatantly hostile ...
There are two sides to every story and everyone is entitled to an opinion ...
quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Its gives us every right to be worried about the state of mind of someone so lacking in basic common sense.
They say every crime has to have a motive.
Why would two professional people like the McCanns go for a holiday in Portugal with their friends and their children, and plan to kill their eldest baby. Is it to live happily ever after!!!
Shar thank you,
Soosy Woo, I mentioned in reply to the post before the one Shar refers to that there was no need to get personal.
I think we're through Soozy Woo.
Soosy Woo, I mentioned in reply to the post before the one Shar refers to that there was no need to get personal.
I think we're through Soozy Woo.
quote:Originally posted by paace:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Its gives us every right to be worried about the state of mind of someone so lacking in basic common sense.
They say every crime has to have a motive.
Why would two professional people like the McCanns go for a holiday in Portugal with their friends and their children, and plan to kill their eldest baby. Is it to live happily ever after!!!
I've already given my opinion above ...
And I think it's also common knowledge that not all murder is premeditated ...
quote:Originally posted by paace:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Its gives us every right to be worried about the state of mind of someone so lacking in basic common sense.
They say every crime has to have a motive.
Why would two professional people like the McCanns go for a holiday in Portugal with their friends and their children, and plan to kill their eldest baby. Is it to live happily ever after!!!
Yes how dare I put the evidence above the McCanns word.
Because my opinion differs from your own, you don't have "every right" to get personal.
Doesn't work like that.
quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Actually I dont see it as uncalled for at all. Sometimes it helps to know something about the poster. TBH ...............i'm finding it really hard to understand where he/she is coming from. That's all.
I haven't asked for photos/finger prints/ credit card details etc. I just would appreciate a little insight.....................why's that so wrong or uncalled for?
Because everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own without being villified or set upon if that opinion happens to conflict with yours ... Your post was uncalled-for and nobody in their right mind would answer such questions via an internet forum, never mind to someone so blatantly hostile ...
There are two sides to every story and everyone is entitled to an opinion ...
If I've villified someone or been hostile I really am truly sorry. I've obviously overstepped the mark and I apologise.
i just find - especially when you're so vehemently opposed to someone it helps to know something about them ...........to see where they're coming from.
On this occaision I'm wrong - hold my hands up.
quote:Originally posted by paace:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Its gives us every right to be worried about the state of mind of someone so lacking in basic common sense.
They say every crime has to have a motive.
Why would two professional people like the McCanns go for a holiday in Portugal with their friends and their children, and plan to kill their eldest baby. Is it to live happily ever after!!!
Soozy, our questions continue to imply that Comrade's opinion must be wrong and yours must be right because you are older, have more life experience and read a better quality newspaper! He or no-one else on here have never remotely suggested that the McCanns went on hol planning to kill her!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogsâ track record by Zapataâs defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.
Since Eddie indicated SEVERAL times 6 as far as I know, even by the worst number 78% he would have had a chance of roughly 22% to be wrong 6 times.
If you take the worst case numbers in the research paper scenario around 10% wrong, the chances of him detecting 6 times wrong would be 0.0001%.
Additional to that you have the handlers opinion..
How d'you work that out then?
A dog is wrong 7 or 8 times out of 10 and you think the chances of getting it wrong six times in a row are miniscule?
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
Shar thank you,
Soosy Woo, I mentioned in reply to the post before the one Shar refers to that there was no need to get personal.
I think we're through Soozy Woo.
You've been composed and reasonable in your posts on the matter ... just thought it was unfair to see you being attacked for having a different opinion ...
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Shar:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
I know this isn't really relevant but .................comrade Ogilvy - three questions
a. How old are you?
b.Do you have any children?
c. What paper do you read?
i'm finding it hard to understand your complete lack of empathy/understanding and your tendency to reel off old tabloid stories that are in many cases disproved or simply irrelevant.
Do you realise how totally uncalled-for that post actually is ...? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't give you the right to get so personal ...
Actually I dont see it as uncalled for at all. Sometimes it helps to know something about the poster. TBH ...............i'm finding it really hard to understand where he/she is coming from. That's all.
I haven't asked for photos/finger prints/ credit card details etc. I just would appreciate a little insight.....................why's that so wrong or uncalled for?
Because everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own without being villified or set upon if that opinion happens to conflict with yours ... Your post was uncalled-for and nobody in their right mind would answer such questions via an internet forum, never mind to someone so blatantly hostile ...
There are two sides to every story and everyone is entitled to an opinion ...
If I've villified someone or been hostile I really am truly sorry. I've obviously overstepped the mark and I apologise.
i just find - especially when you're so vehemently opposed to someone it helps to know something about them ...........to see where they're coming from.
On this occaision I'm wrong - hold my hands up.
I understand that emotions can run high when you're debating a subject you feel strongly about ... I admire that you can admit to taking it too far ...
Soozy, you care, never be apologetic about that
Yellow Rose: I think Soosy Woo was apologising for overstepping the mark by getting personal.
Soosy Woo: I appreciate that you accept a line was being crossed and I'm not the sort of person to hold a grudge, so if you were in fact apologising it is accepted.
Soosy Woo: I appreciate that you accept a line was being crossed and I'm not the sort of person to hold a grudge, so if you were in fact apologising it is accepted.
If you've both reached some kind of understanding, even if different beliefs are held that's good 
I agree and hope that is the case.
quote:And I think it's also common knowledge that not all murder is premeditated ...
OOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
Are you for real????
Shar- I am not sure if you know how your words are coming across, it might seem fine in your head but to me, this is all sorts of wrong.
Please think about what your are saying before you post. If you are not 100% sure her parents did it and you can prove it, dont accuse them.
I think in this day and age for someone to go missing forever just doesn't happen something fishy is going on something happened that no-one can ever find out
Aw Funky it does happen though. People do go missing forever, and is so sad.
I still think about a little boy (Called Ben I think) that went missing whilst he was with his family on holiday in Greece. He must be grown up now, and they still don't know where he is.
I still think about a little boy (Called Ben I think) that went missing whilst he was with his family on holiday in Greece. He must be grown up now, and they still don't know where he is.
I'm more intrigued about Comrade Ogilvy's interest, actually more like obsession, in trying to convince people that the McCann's are guilty. What's the story there? It's clearly beyond just a mere debate about a highly public case of some time ago.
Fess up.
Fess up.
quote:Originally posted by cinderella123:quote:And I think it's also common knowledge that not all murder is premeditated ...
OOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
Are you for real????
Shar- I am not sure if you know how your words are coming across, it might seem fine in your head but to me, this is all sorts of wrong.
Please think about what your are saying before you post. If you are not 100% sure her parents did it and you can prove it, dont accuse them.
Thank you for your advice. As the case has still not been solved and various theories abound, it's obviously not possible for anyone to prove 100% if they did or didn't do it ... I was expressing an opinion ... and there are plenty of opinions flying about this thread ... If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but I don't need to be patronised.
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Supercalifragilistic:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy
A "missing" child though is another matter, the finality is not there, in that position I'd expect someone to be heavilly sedated, unshaven perhaps, sitting by the phone hoping it'll ring and bring hope, not popping down to the court for a spot of tennis.
Or looking for her??????
That could have got in the way of meeting with the pope though.
I find that last remark VERY, VERY distasteful and disrespectful. My opinion and I am entitled to it.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I'm more intrigued about Comrade Ogilvy's interest, actually more like obsession, in trying to convince people that the McCann's are guilty. What's the story there? It's clearly beyond just a mere debate about a highly public case of some time ago.
Fess up.
Good for you, this thread however is not about me it is supposed to be a discussion about the Madeline McCann case.
I am entitled to my opinion and just because I agree with the official police opinion (that has at least some evidence to back it up) rather than the McCann conspiracy theory which the evidence does not bear out does not entitle you (or anyone) to personal attacks.
It has become obvious to me that rational debate is not possible on this forum.
Could you explain the maths behind your 'dog success rate' post, Comrade?
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I'm more intrigued about Comrade Ogilvy's interest, actually more like obsession, in trying to convince people that the McCann's are guilty. What's the story there? It's clearly beyond just a mere debate about a highly public case of some time ago.
Fess up.
Good for you, this thread however is not about me it is supposed to be a discussion about the Madeline McCann case.
I am entitled to my opinion and just because I agree with the official police opinion (that has at least some evidence to back it up) rather than the McCann conspiracy theory which the evidence does not bear out does not entitle you (or anyone) to personal attacks.
It has become obvious to me that rational debate is not possible on this forum.
It's hardly a personal attack. I think it's valid probing given the content of your posts. I'm even more intrigued now. Are you involved personally in the case? Do you, for example, run a blog which focuses heavily on this particular case?
It's interesting that you view a probe like this as a personal attack and try to deny me an opportunity to ask it directly yet you feel entitled to question the McCanns in absentia and invite people to infer their criminality. Now that is a personal attack, I'd say.
Have they been charged with a crime? Are they official suspects in a criminal case? If not then they're innocent before the law if Portugese law is anything like English law.
oooooh 
quote:Originally posted by Penny Gabrielwise:
oooooh
Uh huh
There's a lot of it about today Leccy...
Oh, and see that big billy stamper under my post? That should avoid any confusion from now on
Oh, and see that big billy stamper under my post? That should avoid any confusion from now on
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I'm more intrigued about Comrade Ogilvy's interest, actually more like obsession, in trying to convince people that the McCann's are guilty. What's the story there? It's clearly beyond just a mere debate about a highly public case of some time ago.
Fess up.
Good for you, this thread however is not about me it is supposed to be a discussion about the Madeline McCann case.
I am entitled to my opinion and just because I agree with the official police opinion (that has at least some evidence to back it up) rather than the McCann conspiracy theory which the evidence does not bear out does not entitle you (or anyone) to personal attacks.
It has become obvious to me that rational debate is not possible on this forum.
I havenât looked at your video of âevidenceâ but Iâm willing to bet itâs a crock. The Portuguese police were clutching at straws from the outset, whether that was down to ineptitude or a lack of leads Iâve no idea.
You want rational - well rational thought tells any free thinker itâs extremely unlikely that Kate and Gerry are BOTH psychopaths. Iâm not using the term psychopath in the slang sense, they would BOTH have to be certifiable â i.e. medically defined â psychopaths to be able to kill their daughter (whether accidentally or not) and lack emotion to the extent they could coolly and calmly lie to the world and its media. It's a wholly unreasonable, ludicrous actually, proposition as far as Iâm concerned.
So nice to see this thread still trundling along in it's halfwit way of the world, fashion 
Fact: 3 independant witnesses saw a man watching the McCann flat before she was taken.
Fact: 3 independant witnesses saw a person carrying a baby in a blanket near the McCann flat.
I certainly believe that was little Madeline, as they probably removed her in a darkened room and at that age it is so easy to remove a sleeping child.
Fact: Not so long ago Portugal was a dictatorship and a lot of the guys that served in that dictatorship are now with the Portuguese police.
Fact: 3 independant witnesses saw a person carrying a baby in a blanket near the McCann flat.
I certainly believe that was little Madeline, as they probably removed her in a darkened room and at that age it is so easy to remove a sleeping child.
Fact: Not so long ago Portugal was a dictatorship and a lot of the guys that served in that dictatorship are now with the Portuguese police.
How totally, um, relevant.quote:Originally posted by paace:
Fact: Not so long ago Portugal was a dictatorship and a lot of the guys that served in that dictatorship are now with the Portuguese police.
quote:Originally posted by JasmineJ:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I'm more intrigued about Comrade Ogilvy's interest, actually more like obsession, in trying to convince people that the McCann's are guilty. What's the story there? It's clearly beyond just a mere debate about a highly public case of some time ago.
Fess up.
Good for you, this thread however is not about me it is supposed to be a discussion about the Madeline McCann case.
I am entitled to my opinion and just because I agree with the official police opinion (that has at least some evidence to back it up) rather than the McCann conspiracy theory which the evidence does not bear out does not entitle you (or anyone) to personal attacks.
It has become obvious to me that rational debate is not possible on this forum.
I havenât looked at your video of âevidenceâ but Iâm willing to bet itâs a crock. The Portuguese police were clutching at straws from the outset, whether that was down to ineptitude or a lack of leads Iâve no idea.
You want rational - well rational thought tells any free thinker itâs extremely unlikely that Kate and Gerry are BOTH psychopaths. Iâm not using the term psychopath in the slang sense, they would BOTH have to be certifiable â i.e. medically defined â psychopaths to be able to kill their daughter (whether accidentally or not) and lack emotion to the extent they could coolly and calmly lie to the world and its media. It's a wholly unreasonable, ludicrous actually, proposition as far as Iâm concerned.
Absolutely and that's without probing into the proposition of them killing their daughter, hiding her body for 3 weeks and then disposing of her, all under the noses of the Portuguese Police and the world media.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I'm more intrigued about Comrade Ogilvy's interest, actually more like obsession, in trying to convince people that the McCann's are guilty. What's the story there? It's clearly beyond just a mere debate about a highly public case of some time ago.
Fess up.
Good for you, this thread however is not about me it is supposed to be a discussion about the Madeline McCann case.
I am entitled to my opinion and just because I agree with the official police opinion (that has at least some evidence to back it up) rather than the McCann conspiracy theory which the evidence does not bear out does not entitle you (or anyone) to personal attacks.
It has become obvious to me that rational debate is not possible on this forum.
It's hardly a personal attack. I think it's valid probing given the content of your posts. I'm even more intrigued now. Are you involved personally in the case? Do you, for example, run a blog which focuses heavily on this particular case?
It's interesting that you view a probe like this as a personal attack and try to deny me an opportunity to ask it directly yet you feel entitled to question the McCanns in absentia and invite people to infer their criminality. Now that is a personal attack, I'd say.
Have they been charged with a crime? Are they official suspects in a criminal case? If not then they're innocent before the law if Portugese law is anything like English law.
Well said Daniel J
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:
Could you explain the maths behind your 'dog success rate' post, Comrade?
Perhaps you could ask the digitalspy people:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/fo...+i+know#post32366209