Reply to: McCanns sign Madeleine book deal

[TimberWolf]

BTW. Your lack of knowledge of where this event took place does not argue for your having a great grasp of the facts.

My apologies to the Spanish police, replace Portuguese where I said Spanish.

[TimberWolf]

Tenacity is a good quality when allied to intelligence.
When coupled with idiocy, however, it morphs into plain mulish stubbornness which is not a good trait.

You're not destined to rise far in this world.

HTH but IKIW.

Rising far and intelligence are weakly correlated. As proven by you, assuming we are to believe you have risen far. More important to this questionable goal are trickery, dishonesty, deception, selfishness and psychotic tenancies. HTH.

[SupremeSpod]

I'm waiting for "Maddie, the Musical", Music & Lyrics by Dennis Waterman.

[sasguru]

I said her writing a book is proof of nothing and gave a counter example of the book written by the head of police. I don't argue that he and the whole Spanish police force may or may not be bent, but that makes no difference to the point. If he were bent by your 'logic' a bent person would write a book as proof and thus destroy your own argument, which was intended to support her credibility because of her writing a book. Insane either way. Forget the book.

Anyway, I'm sure most would be keen to press someone for an answer when they refuse one, and not receiving a reply would at best raise further questions. Sure the Spanish police may or may not be bent and may also have been rubbed up the wrong way, but that doesn't make her innocent or excuse not answering questions that might have assisted the case. If her lawyer had advised her against answering, the question would be why. Why. Why. Why. Get it?

Tenacity is a good quality when allied to intelligence.
When coupled with idiocy, however, it morphs into plain mulish stubbornness which is not a good trait.

You're not destined to rise far in this world.

HTH but IKIW.

BTW. Your lack of knowledge of where this event took place does not argue for your having a great grasp of the facts.

[AtW]

Once you are a suspect you don't answer any questions at all.

Only if you want to appear very much guilty.

HTH

[TimberWolf]

"You brought her book up to support your argument, I demolished it"

You demolished nothing. Several other people have indicated that they believe a guilty party would have let sleeping dogs lie. I think that is a sensible view to take. You have not said why you think that is not sensible.

"Not replying should not reinforce any belief in innocence, as you appear to be doing. Your view seems to rest on it. "

Nowhere did I say that not replying reinforces innocence. I don't believe it does but neither does it reinforce guilt.


You should question why she is not answering

I have. Probably lack of confidence in the Portuguese police. A view that was vindicated when the Chief of Police (yes the guy who wrote your book) was convicted in a Portuguese court for falsifying evidence in a separate child abduction case.

I knew from past posts that your logical skills were lacking, I did not know your English comprehension and judgemental skills were at retard level too.
Keep posting though, you're doing a better job of making your cretinism obvious to the objective observer than I could.

I said her writing a book is proof of nothing and gave a counter example of the book written by the head of police. I don't argue that he and the whole Spanish police force may or may not be bent, but that makes no difference to the point. If he were bent by your 'logic' a bent person would write a book as proof and thus destroy your own argument, which was intended to support her credibility because of her writing a book. Insane either way. Forget the book.

Anyway, I'm sure most would be keen to press someone for an answer when they refuse one, and not receiving a reply would at best raise further questions. Sure the Spanish police may or may not be bent and may also have been rubbed up the wrong way, but that doesn't make her innocent or excuse not answering questions that might have assisted the case. If her lawyer had advised her against answering, the question would be why. Why. Why. Why. Get it?

[sasguru]

I said it does not prove it, and not that you said it does. You brought the book up and intimated thus:
so I said her writing a book does not constitute proof of truth or innocence and offered another book as a counter example. You brought her book up to support your argument, I demolished it.



That's idiocy and scientifically unsound of course, but don't strain yourself on that.


Nothing, and it works to protect the guilty as well as the innocent. Not replying should not reinforce any belief in innocence, as you appear to be doing. Your view seems to rest on it. You should question why she is not answering, unless you already have a verdict already formed in your tiny mind in which case the questions she was asked are irrelevant to you, sad to say. Your belief is that her lawyer advised her against answering some questions. Well guess what, that's his job whether she's guilty or innocent. It's quite right that people should ask why these were not answered, and perhaps they will be answered by her in her book, after which I also hope they will also also be criticised.



Making judgements based on being happy with refused questions isn't going to solve the case. You're a complete idiot.

"You brought her book up to support your argument, I demolished it"

You demolished nothing. Several other people have indicated that they believe a guilty party would have let sleeping dogs lie. I think that is a sensible view to take. You have not said why you think that is not sensible.

"Not replying should not reinforce any belief in innocence, as you appear to be doing. Your view seems to rest on it. "

Nowhere did I say that not replying reinforces innocence. I don't believe it does but neither does it reinforce guilt.


You should question why she is not answering

I have. Probably lack of confidence in the Portuguese police. A view that was vindicated when the Chief of Police (yes the guy who wrote your book) was convicted in a Portuguese court for falsifying evidence in a separate child abduction case.

I knew from past posts that your logical skills were lacking, I did not know your English comprehension and judgemental skills were at retard level too.
Keep posting though, you're doing a better job of making your cretinism obvious to the objective observer than I could.

[TimberWolf]

Where did I say that writing a book proves or otherwise your innocence?

I said it does not prove it, and not that you said it does. You brought the book up and intimated thus:

As others have pointed out if they had been guilty would they really write a book about it, even allowing for double bluff?

so I said her writing a book does not constitute proof of truth or innocence and offered another book as a counter example. You brought her book up to support your argument, I demolished it.

Where did I talk about my "certainty view", as you call it?

The intellectually gifted weigh all options and rapidly come to conclusions...

That's idiocy and scientifically unsound of course, but don't strain yourself on that.

What's so hard about understanding that the ancient right to silence exists for a reason?

Nothing, and it works to protect the guilty as well as the innocent. Not replying should not reinforce any belief in innocence, as you appear to be doing. Your view seems to rest on it. You should question why she is not answering, unless you already have a verdict already formed in your tiny mind in which case the questions she was asked are irrelevant to you, sad to say. Your belief is that her lawyer advised her against answering some questions. Well guess what, that's his job whether she's guilty or innocent. It's quite right that people should ask why these were not answered, and perhaps they will be answered by her in her book, after which I also hope they will also also be criticised.

Of course we are not certain of many things - making judgements in life hinges on assessing the balance of probabilities.

Making judgements based on being happy with refused questions isn't going to solve the case. You're a complete idiot.

[SizeZero]

I agree although I would never leave my kids alone.

You don't have to. James Bulger's mother never did, did she? Did Ben Needham's?

Incidently, nobody cares about the parents - what about when the kids start leaving them alone? This Monday was the first time I shouted my lad up for college, to find his bed not slept in. Bloody tom cat, he is.

[sasguru]

No, I raised the issue of the Head Of Police's book in response to your raising the McCann book as evidence of innocence. To make this explicitly clear, as you didn't appreciate it implicitly the first time, writing a book on your side of the story does not prove innocence.

So it appears you rest your certainty view on a 'probably'. She probably refused to answer for some maybe reason. In your world questions are for morons, as are answers, aren't they?

God you really are incredibly dense aren't you?

Where did I say that writing a book proves or otherwise your innocence?
Where did I talk about my "certainty view", as you call it?
What's so hard about understanding that the ancient right to silence exists for a reason?
Of course we are not certain of many things - making judgements in life hinges on assessing the balance of probabilities.

Congratulations. You win the CUK Village Moron of the Day award.

[TimberWolf]

Well you're certainly in a position to speak for the moronic.
As proven by the fact that you bring up some book written by a discredited police chief trying to cash in.
He was removed from the case for insisting that the British police were in cahoots with the McCanns over a cover up.
Do you really think that was the case?

And some of those questions are completely leading ones - her lawyer probably advised her to say nothing rather than analyse which questions to answer and which not.
But for some reason you and your fellow half-wits don't get that.

No, I raised the issue of the Head Of Police's book in response to your raising the McCann book as evidence of innocence. To make this explicitly clear, as you didn't appreciate it implicitly the first time, writing a book on your side of the story does not prove innocence.

So it appears you rest your certainty view on a 'probably'. She probably refused to answer for some maybe reason. In your world questions are for morons, as are answers, aren't they?

[sasguru]

You are hardly in a position to speak for the intellectually gifted.

The Spanish Head Of Police Investigation wrote a book about it too, and that doesn't make him right either.

Some people would have liked to see those questions answered. If she is innocent, refusing to answer does more harm than good IMO.

Well you're certainly in a position to speak for the moronic.
As proven by the fact that you bring up some book written by a discredited police chief trying to cash in.
He was removed from the case for insisting that the British police were in cahoots with the McCanns over a cover up.
Do you really think that was the case?

And some of those questions are completely leading ones - her lawyer probably advised her to say nothing rather than analyse which questions to answer and which not.
But for some reason you and your fellow half-wits don't get that.

[TimberWolf]

You're confusing feeble-mindedness and indecisiveness with open-mindedness.
The intellectually gifted weigh all options and rapidly come to conclusions based on probabilities and the balance of evidence.
They are also willing to change their initial conclusions should new evidence come to light.
As others have pointed out if they had been guilty would they really write a book about it, even allowing for double bluff?
Even if they murdered their girl, they would have to be unusually cold-blooded to replay their lies in a book, wouldn't they?
The fact that they refused to answer questions when they were arguido (sp?) says absolutely nothing about their guilt or otherwise, a point the dumber and dumber on here have singularly failed to grasp.

FFS there really are some sad morons on here. Being a moron is probably not a choice one makes but being a sad winker is.

You are hardly in a position to speak for the intellectually gifted.

The Spanish Head Of Police Investigation wrote a book about it too, and that doesn't make him right either.

Some people would have liked to see those questions answered. If she is innocent, refusing to answer does more harm than good IMO.

[sasguru]

You may be 100% certain but to many others the case remains unsolved. Open mindedness is sadly an alien concept to a few here, and confused with accusations of guilt.

You're confusing feeble-mindedness and indecisiveness with open-mindedness.
The intellectually gifted weigh all options and rapidly come to conclusions based on probabilities and the balance of evidence.
They are also willing to change their initial conclusions should new evidence come to light.
As others have pointed out if they had been guilty would they really write a book about it, even allowing for double bluff?
Even if they murdered their girl, they would have to be unusually cold-blooded to replay their lies in a book, wouldn't they?
The fact that they refused to answer questions when they were arguido (sp?) says absolutely nothing about their guilt or otherwise, a point the dumber and dumber on here have singularly failed to grasp.

FFS there really are some sad morons on here. Being a moron is probably not a choice one makes but being a sad winker is.

[TimberWolf]

Yes I'm right about the fact that you have a very limited intellect.

HTH

In relative or absolute terms? Do you think you don't have a 'limited intellect'?