You’re being extremely rude to anyone who doesn’t think the same as you. @Eltonjohnsflorist in particular. Bet they wish they could snooze you too.Wish there was a snooze button reaction on here
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No I’m more than open to hearing the opposing side with explanation and evidence which they think leads to their reasoning. It just doesn’t happen from the people who don’t think the McCanns were boring. It’s just ‘I think they weren’t, that’s it. They weren’t. You’re sinister and sexist if you think they were’. Which makes for a boring discussion. Hence the snooze button. xx
Why because not everyone thinks the same as you? Everyone should be allowed to say what they want, without you being rude over again.Wish there was a snooze button reaction on here
It’s more the fact that they have not been charged with anything this whole time. If the “evidence” was so concrete as you seem to believe, they’d be in jail right now. They’re doctors, not criminal masterminds who can get away with anything.
There’s nothing wrong with finding them suspicious, but to shoot anybody down that comes on here to even slightly defend them is pathetic. We can all post what we want here (within reason). Nobody should be being mocked for it.
Exactly. Certain people on here have been snippy and rude. I've tried putting forward my view, based on facts, statements, logic etc, and love hearing others viewpoints, when its backed up with some facts and general courtesy and respect. For whatever reason, some dont like to engage in this manner.
Unrelated - but I saw Kate McCann about a year ago. She was shopping in an Oliver Bonas with what must’ve been the younger daughter, one of the twins. I didn’t want to stare because she (the daughter) seemed pretty quiet/shy.
They seemed to be a pretty close, normal mother daughter.
Ever since then I’ve been convinced Kate didn’t do anything to harm Maddie. I work with a lot of criminals and I get an “off vibe” with wronguns. I didn’t get that from Kate. I got vibes of a mother who very very much loved her child.
They seemed to be a pretty close, normal mother daughter.
Ever since then I’ve been convinced Kate didn’t do anything to harm Maddie. I work with a lot of criminals and I get an “off vibe” with wronguns. I didn’t get that from Kate. I got vibes of a mother who very very much loved her child.
Ironic that you keep banging on about people not bringing any evidence to the table for their opinion and how it’s ruining the thread and yet all you do is post the same pointless rit. This isn’t a one theory thread, make another one if you don’t want to hear any opinions except the ones exactly like your ownWish there was a snooze button reaction on here
You constantly shutting down other posters with “boring” “snooze” or emojis is ruining the thread imo.
How can a mother be labelled sexist ...I didn't say anything about victims of crime..
I want people to say what they want. It would genuinely make the discussion so much more interesting. It’s just boring when I come on here hoping for once to see someone with an opposing opinion to mine with evidence that makes them believe what they do. Instead it’s just ‘It wasn’t them. You’re sinister if you think they are.’ Which makes the discussion so boring, and you’re saying I’m rude when many people who think the McCanns were involved have logically explained their reasoning with evidence they believe supports this been shut down for saying the McCanns were involved. It’s just boring. And you’re saying to let people what they want to say when you’re calling me out for saying it’s boring? Bit hypocritical
I've never said it was concrete. Nothing is concrete. But I've put forward facts from pj files etc and have done it in a respectful way. Absolutely, everyone can have their own opinions, like I've said, I love hearing other perspectives but some people are downright argumentative about it.
Those who question the mccanns have been called conspiracy theorists. I'd call that mocking.
Or potentially she loved her children so much that she decided losing one in a horrible accident/drugging was awful enough that she covered it up to protect her other two children? She didn’t want to lose them due to Maddie dying whilst left unattended, or from drugging, or signs of abuse being found on her dead body? I.e the Gaspar statement. As sad as it was to tragically lose one child, perhaps she didn’t want to lose the other two in potentially being arrested or them being taken off her? It’s not surprising because once she knew Maddie was dead, her focus must’ve been on how to protect her other two, alive children. Just a suggestion before people jump down my throat and call me sinister...
Last edited:
Those who support the McCanns, what are your thoughts on the Gaspar statement?
If the mccanns are guilty, I dont think they deliberately killed her. I think it was a complete accident. Kate looks absolutely haunted. I don't think she intentionally killed her daughter.
If i think that when you keep putting snooze emojis is rude & that somehow makes me hypocritical then so be it.I want people to say what they want. It would genuinely make the discussion so much more interesting. It’s just boring when I come on here hoping for once to see someone with an opposing opinion to mine with evidence that makes them believe what they do. Instead it’s just ‘It wasn’t them. You’re sinister if you think they are.’ Which makes the discussion so boring, and you’re saying I’m rude when many people who think the McCanns were involved have logically explained their reasoning with evidence they believe supports this been shut down for saying the McCanns were involved. It’s just boring. And you’re saying to let people what they want to say when you’re calling me out for saying it’s boring? Bit hypocritical
Im here for other peoples views not tit for tat.
I feel like I am more in the McCanns didn’t do it camp then thinking they did, but am open to others opinions even if I don’t personally believe that. I must admit I would be shocked if evidence came out that proved they were involved. I have commented quite a few times on this thread as to why I lean more towards them not being involved and I know I have said why I think that. I’m not going to go back through all of my old comments to prove that, but I don’t know why people are saying anyone who doesn’t believe they are involved has not backed it up with why they think that?
I find it so strange, in many ways to be honest. Obviously if any of it is true it is absolutely horrific but I find it odd that she doesn’t remember if the events happen while on holiday or at dinner in the U.K.? I find it strange that you wouldn’t be sure about that because surely that would be the last time you seen that person so it would stand out?
Also the situation involving Gerry in the conversation raises more questions than answers. It seems to be implying several of the men were involved with children inappropriately, and that the others all knew? Therefore what happened to Madeline included a big cover up which I just don’t find to be all that believable.
It also strikes me as odd that she let Payne bath her children (child maybe?) and told her husband to not leave Payne on his own. That doesn’t seem like how you would logically act if you suspected someone of molesting children. Why would you allow him to be there during bath time at all? Why not bath your children in your own apartment? Having your husband present so Payne wasn’t with the children on his own seems oddly passive?
absolutely.
From an investigative viewpoint also;
Sometimes you know the individual is guilty as hell. But there’s a difference between “intelligence” and “evidence”
even when you find evidence, it has to be properly handled or else it becomes inadmissible - you’d be shocked at how draconian this can be. for example, in her youth Hillary Clinton managed to get a non-guilty verdict for a guy who’d had sex with a child. The child’s underwear had been cut up - the semen/dna piece had been kept and served as evidence. The leftover bits were lost. Hillary successful argued that the chain of evidence therefore, had been broken. the DNA/Semen sample wasn’t presented in court as a result, so the jury never heard about it’s existence. It was a clear cut case, The man had sex with an underage girl, but the evidence wasn’t handled in accordance with draconian rules and thereby because pretty much irrelevant - it’s an example of how the law really is an a.
even when you have evidence, and youve handled it properly; it has to be agreed in advance of any trial and the prosecuting body has to agree it is sufficient to progress - due to the high court costs this isn’t any easy feat.
I often hear people say that juries “hear all the evidence” but actually, they usually only hear a proportion thats been agreed in advance. Evidence that is very damning sometimes doesn’t get heard at all - because it might bias the jury.
another thing that is misunderstood about criminal trials - they don’t just seek to get a guilty/non guilty verdict. They must also be “safe verdicts” aka not one that can be appealed later down the line - and again, people would be truly shocked at the mundane things people successfully appeal over.
so in summary - the Portuguese police might’ve known something no one else does, hence their conviction and assuredness in pursuing the McCanns. Or they might have just decided to go down the easiest, seemingly most obvious route.
logically, I would concur that the McCanns could absolutely have been responsible, even accidentally, and there could’ve been a wealth of information in existence that isn’t in the public sphere.
intuitively though, I don’t think they are involved.
That’s really interesting to know! Do you know if, for example, the Portuguese policeman who wrote the book about the McCanns, if he has left the police force now, would he ever be allowed to share that information publicly? Or would that be illegal?
So would the German ever be tried even if they had some kind of evidence as all the press coverage would bias the jury would it not ?
this. I’m shocked they’ve given so much away.
a trial by media isn’t evidence. It exerts prejudices and bias certainly, but every jury will have some element of that.
The jury would probably be asked if they were aware. In a high profile case such as this though, it’s probably unreasonable to expect them not to have some sort of awareness.
they would most definitely be instructed by the judge, to base their verdict on what they are presented with in a courtroom and they will likely be instructed to leave preconceived ideas at the door.
also, a jury isn’t expected to just agree on guilty or not guilty. Instead the judge will issue a criteria -a list on what they must base their decision on. So in essence, a judge will guide them in how they approach their verdict, and make sure its done on a logical basis.
- Status