Madeleine McCann

[Suzi]

Anna,

Id rather assess the evidence on its own merits than get pointed into a certain direction by incompetant police and scum gutter press.

Monty

Me too Mont!
The last place I'd look would be the red tops!- and then for the real crap I'd send someone else out to buy a Daily Mail- cos I don't want to be caught on CCTV buying one!!!

It'll bubble to the surface at some point I guarantee it..........
Suz xx

[anna]

So,
Monty hasn't bothered to read through the last week of posts,before insulting me on the thread....he thinks I would post information that was in the press,here-say,gossip...whatever.
IF he had read through,he would see that everything posted had an explanation with it..was taken from STATEMENTS and POLICE FILES...
Monty...the McCanns are as sharp as knives to jump on anything they find that they do not approve of.....and that includes the press,they got enough money out of them...however,the information on the thread is freely available for all to see.....including the fact that the nannies were out all night,until 4 in the morning calling for Maddie...while the McCanns spent all night on the phone...the video of Kate's mum admitting on US tv that she was told by Gerry to push the abductor theory,is there too.
To all,
People have had to post in capital letters to Maria,as she knows in her heart of hearts that all is not correct,as she has indicated before,but wavers if she can find one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.Maria and I are friends,this is the only subject we hold differing views on,and we can discuss our differences without it getting insulting.If Maria holds any other view on my posts to her,I would apologise,but I don't think,as far as I am aware,that this is the case.
I did think her posts about Bob's dress and everything else she posted to him,was a bit out of order, but that is for Bob and Maria to sort out.
ANNA.

[anna]

Monty

As for the police files.....actually OUR police found more discrepancies than the Portuguese police.


ANNA.

[Monty]

Anna

Firstly I was replying to you simply because you posted me. Secondly I apologise if you feel Ive insulted you but, honestly speaking, I cant see any personal attack on you by me.

Im sorry, Im not swayed by your arguements. The simple fact is you, Bob, Maria or I are not party to the full facts. Until then you can only speculate, which for me is unhelpful and morally wrong.

[Monty]

PS

Do you honesty think Anna that Ive not kept up with a thread that Ive started?

[anna]

Monty,

I apologise...I misread your post to me.

I agree that we do not know all that happened that night.

We can do without personal attacks that appeared here between one poster on another's character,dress and reputation.

As Suzi says,the truth will eventually surface.

Regards,
ANNA.

[Monty]

Anna

Agreed.

Theres a more important issue to hand.

Take care

[Bob Hinton]

Not Again!

Dear Everyone,

Once again a quick trip to Maria land results in the following.

“and now these two claim that they never said the McCann´s were guilty of murdering their daughter. At least that is a start.”

I don’t know just how many ways I can say this. I have never accused the McCanns of murdering Madeline. To make my point I will donate £100 to the Madeline fund if anyone can find anywhere that I have stated that they were guilty of murdering Madeline. I expect Maria to either put up and show everyone where I have accused the McCanns of murdering their child or shut up. Don't expect her to do either!

Monty I really cannot agree with your statement:

“Until then you can only speculate, which for me is unhelpful and morally wrong.”

Every single investigation is mere speculation until the jury returns a verdict of Guilty. Are you saying that nothing should be discussed or investigated unless it comes with a stack of evidence and a signed confession?

Speculation is the thought process whereby we eventually come to a conclusion about an event. No one starts off by knowing everything – and that would be the only time speculation would not be needed.

[Monty]

Bob,

Monty I really cannot agree with your statement:

“Until then you can only speculate, which for me is unhelpful and morally wrong.”

Every single investigation is mere speculation until the jury returns a verdict of Guilty. Are you saying that nothing should be discussed or investigated unless it comes with a stack of evidence and a signed confession?

Speculation is the thought process whereby we eventually come to a conclusion about an event. No one starts off by knowing everything – and that would be the only time speculation would not be needed.

Nice use of colour.

Im sorry, are you stating this thread is part of the investigation, and that you are actually aiding that investigation?

Discussion is fine, as long as its balanced and fair minded. After all, thats a criteria of your job as magistrate. And discussion differs from investigating, the two shouldnt be confused.

Speculation is a thought process indeed, and yes, a conclusion can be reached. However that doesnt mean that the conclusion is a correct one. Especially if you are not party to the full and correct facts.

I still stand by my statement.

Tell me, are you a Stipendiary?

Cheers

Monty

[A L Morrison]

Anyway,

Just been reading the book by Danny Wallace entitled "Vanished- The truth about the dissapearance of Madeline McCann".
It's a good read, but I had to give it back to the wife

I think that should be Danny Collins. Danny Wallace is a writer and TV presenter and friend of the comedian Dave Gorman.

[Bob Hinton]

Interesting discussion

Dear Monty,


I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. You ask:

Im sorry, are you stating this thread is part of the investigation, and that you are actually aiding that investigation?

I would say that this thread is part of an investigation, albeit unofficial. I would disagree with you totally about discussion being different from investigation. Investigation is the process of assembling the facts and hopefully reaching a conclusion. Discussion is part of that process, and an indespensible part of any investigation.

I would also disagree with your statement that:

Speculation is a thought process indeed, and yes, a conclusion can be reached. However that doesnt mean that the conclusion is a correct one. Especially if you are not party to the full and correct facts.

It also is equally true that the conclusion is an incorrect one. Very few investigators are party to the full and correct facts, this is where circumstantial evidence comes in. If A enters a locked, empty, windowless room with B, and A comes out with B’s blood over him and a smoking revolver clutched in his hand, I don’t need to know for a fact that the gun he is holding killed B. I can surmise as much. What I don’t know is whether he shot B or B shot himself and A just picked up the gun. That would be discovered by investigation.

What I have trouble with is your assertion that:

“Until then you can only speculate, which for me is unhelpful and morally wrong.

But then go on to admit that speculation can lead to a conclusion and is indeed a necessary part of the vast majority of investigations.

No I wasn’t a ‘stipe’, they are drawn from the legal profession and so are looked down on by true Magistrates!!

[Monty]

Dear Bob,

Unofficial investigation? Why unofficial?

Discussion is part of investigation, not the whole of the investigation. Events have to be proven with fact or reason, circumstantial evidence as you put it. However as Ive stated, no one is party to the full facts or reasons in this particular case other than those present and those investigating the event officially. So basically speculation on these boards, regarding this case, can be incorrect. Therefore, to me as stated, it is unhelpful and morally wrong.

Its just base gossip.

And don’t Diss the Stipes, they don’t need the Clerk to guide them..…and we all know who really runs the beaks.

Monty

[Mike Covell]

I think that should be Danny Collins. Danny Wallace is a writer and TV presenter and friend of the comedian Dave Gorman.

Doh! Yep, your right! If only she would let me read it! she has taken it to work now!

[Bob Hinton]

Unofficial investigation? Why unofficial?

Discussion is part of investigation, not the whole of the investigation. Events have to be proven with fact or reason, circumstantial evidence as you put it. However as Ive stated, no one is party to the full facts or reasons in this particular case other than those present and those investigating the event officially. So basically speculation on these boards, regarding this case, can be incorrect. Therefore, to me as stated, it is unhelpful and morally wrong.



Its unofficial because no one on this board has any official standing. Your argument that speculation on these boards can be incorrect and is therefore unhelpful and morally wrong is nonsense. You don't make any allowance for the possibility that the speculation on these boards can also be correct.

What you are saying is that speculation if incorrect is unhelpful and morally wrong. Not so, if you know what is wrong it can lead you to what's right. I believe Edison tried over 800 filiments before he could find one that would work in a light bulb. Asked if his failures demoralised him he said no, I didn't fail, I succeeded 800 times in finding out which ones didn't work.

Using your theory no investigation would ever take place because no speculation would be allowed on the off chance it was wrong.

I leave you with two ideas to mull over :

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

The secret of completing Sudoku puzzles is not to find out which numbers fit where, but rather to find out which numbers cannot fit where.

[Monty]

Bob,


You are obviously entitled to your opinion, however questionable it is.

As you have admitted, your stance with regards this case is unofficial. As you are not party to the full facts you continue to use whatever you have picked up from the media and those partly released by the authorities. And these lines are questionable and contradictory.

Yet again you tend to use the general whereas Im using the specific, as Ive clearly stated. Unless you wish to use analogies pertinent to this case, then these recent exchanges of posts will only escalate on a personal level. As they have no relevance to the case in hand.

And I shall lead you with this to mull over:-

Do you not think that it is wise to pursue all lines of evidence, whether it leads you to or away from the accused party? Or would you only listen to half the evidence?

Or, alternatively, would you sooner be guided by the Court Clerk, as are most Magistrates?

Monty