Re: Hideho allowing more death threats to Kate McCann

**Sabot** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:14 pm

Lamplighter wrote:Okay, I iz so versatilly.. versitally.. oh, b*gger it, clever and rich I'll be all CR. That'll suit me nicely. LL

You don't want to be Isabel Whatsit, do you? Mind you, I can just about see you in a ffrock. That would be very versa, versi, erm, challenging.

**lily** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:19 pm

Couldn't LL wear a kilt with a frilly shirt?

**Lamplighter** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:25 pm

When I last looked - wait, let me check - yes, I am a fella. I do not cross dress and I don't remember anyone in a kilt involved in all this. If I can't be the judge then I'll be all of CR - I will sulk immoderate if anyone suggests I wear a dress, so there!! Oh, I could change sides and offer my help elsewhere - no, bonny, I didn't mean it, 'twas a wee joke, honest!!!! LL Comeonthen

**lily** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:43 pm

There. Settled. LL is all of them. hug

**Sabot** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:52 pm

lily wrote:Couldn't LL wear a kilt with a frilly shirt?

Don't forget The Socks and the Laced Up Shoes, Lily. Forget the nether garments. I don't think they wear those.

**crazytony** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:55 pm

OK, I've debated adding this contribution to the controversy for several years.
How long has controversy been established?

**Sabot** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:56 pm

Lamplighter wrote:When I last looked - wait, let me check - yes, I am a fella. I do not cross dress and I don't remember anyone in a kilt involved in all this. If I can't be the judge then I'll be all of CR - I will sulk immoderate if anyone suggests I wear a dress, so there!! Oh, I could change sides and offer my help elsewhere - no, bonny, I didn't mean it, 'twas a wee joke, honest!!!! LL

Ffrock, LL. There is a difference. A Dress is not the same as a Ffrock. Priests get deffrocked, and I have no desire to put some peculiar connotation on that. Although I suppose that I could.

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:58 pm

crazytony wrote:OK, I've debated adding this contribution to the controversy for several years.
How long has controversy been established?

I think the troll means the general uproar, not hoho's hate group, Tony.

IMO, there is something very suspicious about that post - wouldn't surprise me if she hadn't been parachuted in by someone to do a bit more muck-spreading. Wink

**crazytony** Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:59 pm

Thanks, Bonny.

**greenink211** Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:18 pm

The great failing in the logic of Lizzy Taylor and the other people following her is that they seem to believe that the content of the PJ files is entirely truthful, that it somehow cannot contain lies, that it is almost some kind of religious book of truth. But a book of truth which the high priests and priestesses such as Hideho and Bennett (the proven fool and liar of Essex) only quote from selectively.

Do they not understand that it is simply a record of a police investigation? Do they not realise that police spend more time down blind alleys than they do in following the truth in almost every investigation? And that it is the later records of an investigation which demonstrate the true understanding of the police? Thankfully Judge Tugendhat is not as foolish as they are.

Is their loathing of the McCanns so dominant that they cannot see beyond the fog it is creating and recognise the facts about the PJ files?

Reliance on certain aspects of these files will NOT cover them when they are taken to court and it is shown (as in the case of the convicted fool, Bennett) that they have ignored the later evidence in the files which demolishes the earlier reports?

People like Lizzy Taylor are fooling no-one in their reliance of the earlier parts of the files and their deliberate ignorance of the later documents in them. Such reliance is either proof of their hatred and nasty personalities or is a demonstration of their utter inability to comprehend the nature of the files. Either way, it shows them up as ignorant.

She may think that being in Canada puts her out of the reach of the law but it doesn't. She is most definitely on the legal radar now. Rabid paranoia and demands for TROOF will not be a satisfactory defence when it is shown just how selective her films and posts have been over the years. And relying on things that Amaral has said when he is grasping at straws over his own libel case is the height of stupidity.

**Sabot** Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:26 pm

Can she argue that she believed her shite to be true?

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:32 pm

I doubt it, Sabot, after it was so comprehensively demolished on the Justice site, and she ran away without even attempting to defend it.

She knows it isn't true.

A wonderful post, Greenink, and a first-class summary of the situation.

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:31 pm

She's telling outright lies now, and committing outright libel:

Lizzy Hideho Taylor
PLEASE REMEMBER...Madeleine DID NOT disappear because of neglect! This is IMPORTANT!

How many times have you heard someone say 'If Madeleine hadn't been left alone....' 'McCanns were out for the night drinking and leaving the children alone...' 'They never cared for Madeleine and left her in the apartment 'looking after the twins'.... 'They left the door open in case of fire....'

Every one of those statements indirectly suggests Madeleine could have been abducted...The OFFICIAL POLICE FILES tell us differently....

Madeleine DIED, her parents HID HER BODY and SIMULATED AN ABDUCTION!

I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE FALLING INTO THE 'TRAP' OF BEING ANGRY WITH THE McCANNS FOR NEGLECT......

McCanns WANT everyone to claim 'neglect'!..........pitchforking libel follows ad nauseum.

Look at this later LIE:

In reality (according to the files) they FAKED the abduction as, for some unknown reason, (avoiding autopsy results?) they could not tell the police that Madeleine had died. WHY?

The police files say NO SUCH THING.

She has told a flat-out lie, in public - and not for the first time. That is one of the worst though - is she so desperate she now has to lie about the contents of the PJ files?

**greenink211** Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:43 pm

bb1 wrote:She's telling outright lies now, and committing outright libel:

Lizzy Hideho Taylor
PLEASE REMEMBER...Madeleine DID NOT disappear because of neglect! This is IMPORTANT!

How many times have you heard someone say 'If Madeleine hadn't been left alone....' 'McCanns were out for the night drinking and leaving the children alone...' 'They never cared for Madeleine and left her in the apartment 'looking after the twins'.... 'They left the door open in case of fire....'

Every one of those statements indirectly suggests Madeleine could have been abducted...The OFFICIAL POLICE FILES tell us differently....

Madeleine DIED, her parents HID HER BODY and SIMULATED AN ABDUCTION!

I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE FALLING INTO THE 'TRAP' OF BEING ANGRY WITH THE McCANNS FOR NEGLECT......

McCanns WANT everyone to claim 'neglect'!..........pitchforking libel follows ad nauseum.

Look at this later LIE:

In reality (according to the files) they FAKED the abduction as, for some unknown reason, (avoiding autopsy results?) they could not tell the police that Madeleine had died. WHY?

The police files say NO SUCH THING.

She has told a flat-out lie, in public - and not for the first time. That is one of the worst though - is she so desperate she now has to lie about the contents of the PJ files?

Her logic fails. That's her problem.

She HAS to resort to lies and if she does not realise that post is one of the most clear examples of LIBEL on her Facebook Page then she is simply stupid.

She is accusing the McCanns of serious crimes. Does she really think that is clever when there is NO EVIDENCE (according to the very PJ FILES which she so keen to propagate) of those crimes?

Her mental faculties should now be questioned because she is saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.

**Sabot** Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:59 pm

Free Speach but only for her, you mean?

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:06 pm

That one is a shocker. Is she doing it because she knows that lot are too dim - and less than literate - to go and read the police files for themselves and see that she's lying?

And yes, it is outright, unpardonable, libel.

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:26 pm

Jill Granger Up until a couple of weeks ago I believed that the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughters death , but after reading all of the links (which took me a few days) im now not so sure

Well, there's one who's fallen for hoho's lies and propaganda.

**lily** Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:47 pm

bb1 wrote:Jill Granger Up until a couple of weeks ago I believed that the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughters death , but after reading all of the links (which took me a few days) im now not so sure

Well, there's one who's fallen for hoho's lies and propaganda.

There's always one who is brought in to say things like that. Just like, I just found your forum and until reading it I thought they were innocent.......now I am converted and will be a good disciple. blah blah blah.

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:44 pm

Now, how are these people going to feel in a month or two, Lily? When hoho is shown up as an obsessed, rather unpleasant woman, who has been conducting a vicious crusade - for some agenda so far unknown - against the parents of an abducted child?

Are they going to be telling her how wonderful she is then? Or are they going to be pretending that, Oh no, they were never in any hategroup, not them, they never fell for that nasty woman's lies?

Because she IS going to be shown up as a liar and propagandist before too much longer. And watch all the numpties head for the hills when that happens....

**bb1** Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:57 pm

Frances Gallagher My gut instinct from the start was that there was something ''off'' with the McCanns . Nothing has happened to change that opinion since.

liar

**lily** Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:10 am

That must have been her clone who posted on JATYK. Pcorneater

**bb1** Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:03 am

Yes, Lily. And who posted this on J4:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2175p15-sofia-s-open-letter-to-kate

Re: Sofia's Open Letter to Kate
by blondie on Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:03 pm

After a while, Gonçalo appeared driving the same car, and again in a notorious state of drunkenness. Having asked him for Inês Sofia, he ordered me to go inside the house, where he insulted me and threatened me of death.

Good grief! I have not seen this before.

It is disgraceful that this drunken and callous man is being financed to defend his libel case by pensioners while he was squandering his not inconsiderable salary by Portuguese standards[ taking into account their lower cost of living]

Is this in the public domain or is it exclusive to this forum?

[Hi Cath and Sabot BTW

---------------

And who played such a leading role in wrecking MM when Amber was in charge.

**Lamplighter** Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:36 am

From Amazon, via Myths, with thanks. LL

Amazon

The problem is that there are people out there, like this Stephanie Spielberg lunatic, who repeatedly distribute false information - information, what's more, on which she has been challenged many times in the past. She must know that what she claims is false, yet it seems impossible for her to get it into her thick head that repeating it again and again does not strengthen her position - it massively weakens it.

Regardless of what the McCanns did, neglected to do, refused to do or may be suspected of, that stupid woman insists on repeating such nonsense as this

''* How many people in the UK know that CADAVER odour and 'cellular material' were found in the McCanns rental car and that 15:19 markers MATCHED MADELEINE'S DNA? The four markers remaining were degraded which means it does not EXCLUDE the 'cellular material' from belonging to Madeleine. Experts claim the chances of the DNA belonging to anyone else is 1:1 BILLION (including siblings)''

Basically, this is complete nonsense, and she keeps putting this out with what I can only assume is a deliberate intention to mislead. When she was challenged on it, on the justice forum, she ran away, and no doubt she will do so again.
In fact, it isn't just misunderstood nonsense - it's gone beyond that. She has embroidered it with lies, presumably to attempt to give it more credence.

So here is the true picture:

The cellular material recovered on the swab from the car yielded a LCN DNA result which contained not 19 markers, but 37, and indicated a mixed sample from at least three individuals, possibly more. Of those 37 markers, 15 corresponded with markers which matched Madeleine's markers - but this is completely meaningless. If two of the contributors to the mixed sample were her parents - not unlikely given that they were the ones using the car - then it is hardly unexpected that many of the markers in the sample would match markers Madeleine was known to possess, given that she inherited them all from her parents. While this result cannot RULE OUT the presence of Madeleine in the car, it absolutely DOES NOT prove that she was present.

The statement Hi-idiot-ho has added at the end - ''Experts claim the chances of the DNA belonging to anyone else is 1:1 BILLION (including siblings)'' - is a complete and utter falsehood, and the only possible assumption is that her intention was to mislead.

While people like her run around pulling stunts like this, and morons like Bennett continue in a similar vein then any efforts to really examine what actually happened in PdL will continue to be tainted.

Frankly, I have little sympathy for them in the abuse they receive from the McCann supporters. They kind of deserve each other

**Sabot** Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:46 am

Oh Dear. I'm afraid I was a teensy bit abusive yesterday. But nothing like that which was directed at me, and had been for some time. Phfft.

**bb1** Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:46 am

She has to be telling lies deliberately, LL - at this stage, there simply is no excuse for not understanding the DNA.

15/37.

Our DNA is probably in that soup - anyone of Celtic ancestry is likely to be represented in it.

She has to be doing it on purpose, knowing her numpties are too dumb to actually go and check for themselves.

Sponsored content