Re: Epic Thread Of Hater Lies

**lily** Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:08 pm

Ah thanks,Bonny. Haven't looked over there in a while.

Who could forget that she said that one of the MW people had to go find them there, blah blah blah.

They must be feeling bereft if they are relying on such things to buoy themselves up. Why doesn't Gonc send them words of hope?

**bb1** Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:54 pm

Another hoary old chestnut:

What do you think when Gerry was asked in front of a camera, "Do you know Robert Murat". His answer was "No comment". I found that's a very strange think to say. Why not just say 'yes' or 'no'.

I expect that, under the circumstances, it was more tactful than saying:

Hadn't you better ask the PJ about that? They're the ones who have been using him as a translator.

Why do none of them ever, ever ask questions about Murat having semi-official status at the start of the investigation?

Not, I hasten to add, that I am casting aspersions at Murat, but it is frankly ridiculous to pretend there was some connection between the McCanns and Murat, when the connection is actually between Murat and the PJ.

I take it the pitchforkers do know that Murat was being used as a translator? And was going round with the officers involved in the early searches?

No?

**bb1** Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:03 pm

Put yourself in that situation, HB.

Someone who has been being used by the police investigating your child's disappearance is, apparently, suspected of involvement in the crime.

(And please, no more rubbish from the haters about Murat being 'fingered' by UK journos, the main cause of his woes was Gonc.)

What on earth can you say to journos demanding answers besides 'No comment'.

**Maggs** Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:19 pm

bb1 wrote:
What on earth can you say to journos demanding answers besides 'No comment'.

Depends who's asking Bonny. Certain fat defectives might say "how much is it worth". whistle

**Pedro Silva** Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:14 am

the antis are incapable of understanding everything, except of course what´s in their filthy brains yernuts

**bb1** Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:27 am

Interesting -

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/09/28/damed-if-you-do/

So, what Gerry McCann actually said was:

“I am not going to comment on that.”

Which was just about the only possible answer.

It is too much to expect the pitchforkers to read Kate McCann's book, but they should, because the business with Murat is one of the few areas where her book coincides with Gonc's.

I do not know why Smiffy and co insist it was Lori Campbell and others who were responsible for Murat's troubles - IT WAS GONC'S BRIGHT IDEA TO TARGET HIM.

It's all there:

http://thepjfiles.prophpbb.com/topic242.html

Chapter 7

SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR AND CONTRADICTIONS

THE MURAT CASE

and as the pitchforkers are so fond of cherrypicking the Rainbow report, they really should read this section:

FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY

according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party.

Funny how Smiffy and co never mention any of that, isn't it?

**rhodes** Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:12 pm

why did the police clear the undergrowth in Murat's garden/property, but not underneath the balcony at the Ocean Club?

Why did they dig up his garden, but not the surroundings of the Ocean Club?

**bb1** Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:35 pm

JustSaying1233 SamHannah
#McCann ,,am I correct in thinking that the DNA evidence collected in the car etc. would have been enough in the UK to go to trial? #McCanns

No, dear, you are NOT - unless shedding skin cells is now a crime in the UK?

Do read the forensic reports:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10.html

This business of 15/19 markers being found is at best a red herring, and at worst a deliberate attempt to frame the McCanns.

There were 37 markers.

Not only was Madeleine never anywhere near that car, there were no 'bodily fluids', just as there was no 'blood splatter' in 5a.

Go and read it for yourselves; then you might stop regurgitating lies and propaganda.

**bb1** Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:04 pm

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=a9abbf9c5851accd

Well said, Tony! And as for Apeman Hardy - blech vomit

**bb1** Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:24 pm

I suggest the haters and pitchforkers who babble on about DNA read this:

As Amanda Knox walks free, now DNA evidence is on trial

They should pay especial attention to this part:

DNA evidence is not very time-sensitive: in the case of Madelaine McCanns tentative (and as it turned out spurious) DNA evidence 'placed' the missing girl’s body in the hire car used by her parents after she disappeared.
But of course this could have come, retrospectively, from her siblings, her clothes, her toys or her parents.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2044935/As-Amanda-Knox-walks-free-DNA-evidence-trial.html#ixzz1ZoMGBlI7

If they are capable of grasping it, they might then realise why they are called haters and pitchforkers.

**Sabot** Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:01 pm

DNA has always been debatable. It is still a new science. It mostly only fails to prove that someone was actually there, in the absence of such. It rarely proves that someone wasn't there or that someone done it. Except in cases of rape, although even then it could have been consensual. Except in cases of small children.
Personally, I can't see things getting any better. Too many variables. But alone, it just isn't enough.
It is not inconceivable that another person has the same DNA, as has been stated by statistics, albeit large and vast. But all things are still possible in this new field.
Come back and quote DNA to me in ten or twenty years time.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:50 pm

I see that they are all lying away nicely on MM about Amanda Knox leaving Bloody Footprints underneath the body.
Can't these people read? Amanda Knox left No DNA or Bloody Footprints anywhere in that room, and No Bloody Footprints anywhere in the house.

What a bunch of shitbags they are, and what do they think is the purpose of telling these lies?

**bb1** Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:30 pm

What a bunch of shitbags they are, and what do they think is the purpose of telling these lies?

IMO, they can't face the truth about themselves, Sabot - that far from being Seekers of Truth and Justice, they have been fooled by propaganda and swallowed whole lies pumped out by some very rotten apples.

Their idea of Justice is pointing at some innocent person - usually a woman, but they do it to men too. Remember them pitchforking Ms Yeates boyfriend? He was guilty because his mouth was the wrong shape; then her landlord was guilty because he had wierd hair.

They're like superstitious peasants shreiking Burn the witch! Or vigilantes rounding up lynch mobs.

Rather than look for truth, like credulous idiots they believe confessions given under physical torture - Cipriano. Or babbled nonsense produced under psychological torture - Knox.

It is a very good thing that the British embassy in Lisbon knew all about Gonc's little tricks, and that Kate McCann is a mentally strong woman, or that attempted frame-up may well have succeeded.

Those morons cannot or will not grasp that real justice comes from a proper investigation, with the right person in the dock, and a fair trial in which the prosecution have to prove guilt.

Not shrieking Burn the witch! at some innocent because you don't like their hair.

**sans_souci** Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:02 pm

How nice - it seems Kitti has found someone else to stick her pitchfork into.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:06 pm

Yes, I shudder sometimes when I think of Kate McCann in that Police Station, and was only slightly reassured because she had her lawyer with her, although he doesn't seem to have been much good. And they all wonder why she refused to answer the "Questions."

As for Amanda Knox, I have lost count of the number of times that it has been stated that they found NONE OF HER DNA in that room. So where did they dream up her bloody foot print underneath the body This is a downright, outrageous lie. It's not even a fib. It's A LIE.

**sans_souci** Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:16 pm

As far as I can tell, during the initial interviews Knox did not have access to a lawyer. Which is alarming in itself.

I do not think that the Italian police and judicial system come out of this very well.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:32 pm

sans_souci wrote:As far as I can tell, during the initial interviews Knox did not have access to a lawyer. Which is alarming in itself.

I do not think that the Italian police and judicial system come out of this very well.

No, Sans, she didn't have access to a lawyer, and nor did Leonor Cipriano. Nor were any of the interviews with either of these women taped.

Italy? Portugal? Even Spain appears to be a bit suspect. All Patriarchal Societies. They hate women, especially clever women.

**bb1** Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:32 pm

We have some of the background material about it here, sans:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t209p30-knox-appeal-dna-comes-under-the-spotlight

You may find it of interest. Seems she was interrogated in a manner more fitting the Gestapo, than a 21st century Western European democracy.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:59 pm

I am getting really cross about this. Again. Who do these Detectives think they are?
Did they think it wouldn't come out eventually? Eyes of The World, and all that.

Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito were completely cleared. Aquitted. Found Not Guilty. None of your Not Proven malarky, which could have been the outcome. It was a Miscarriage of Justice, and it took four festering years.

I don't know about Guede, but he was there, and it has been known for one person to inflict that sort of damage. But Guede has to know more than he said because he obviously lied about Knox and Sollecito. There is no way those two could have been involved in that blood bath without leaving some evidence behind.

I am desperately sorry for The Kercher Family, and for Meredith, but there is no virtue in convicting the wrong people.

And I am beginning to think that I should become a Detective. I, for certain sure know more about detecting than that bunch of Latin Morons. And I understand DNA, or the lack of.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:09 pm

Sorry. Had to bring this over.
===================

Re: Knox V McCanns
margaret Today at 9:22 am

Knox was aquitted on a technicality. Call me old fashioned but if l was accused of murder l'd want to be free because l was innocent not because evidence wasn't looked after properly or some such minor detail.

Can't wait for Knox to be interviewed, lets see how she can explain HER footprint in Merediths blood UNDERNEATH Merediths body, plus other bloodied footprints of hers.

She can't, IMO she quite literally got away with murder.

______________________________________________

**crazytony** Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:21 pm

Sabot wrote:
Sorry. Had to bring this over.
===================

Re: Knox V McCanns
margaret Today at 9:22 am

Knox was aquitted on a technicality. Call me old fashioned but if l was accused of murder l'd want to be free because l was innocent not because evidence wasn't looked after properly or some such minor detail.

Can't wait for Knox to be interviewed, lets see how she can explain HER footprint in Merediths blood UNDERNEATH Merediths body, plus other bloodied footprints of hers.

She can't, IMO she quite literally got away with murder.

______________________________________________

What Footprint?

**bb1** Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:24 pm

There wasn't one, Tony, it simply isn't true.

Those idiots have swallowed every single lie they were fed.

**crazytony** Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:27 pm

bb1 wrote:There wasn't one, Tony, it simply isn't true.

Those idiots have swallowed every single lie they were fed.

I know there wasn't a footprint under the poor girl's body, Bonny. I was curious how they came up with that one. You answered the query perfectly.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:36 pm

Knox was aquitted on a technicality. Call me old fashioned but if l was accused of murder l'd want to be free because l was innocent not because evidence wasn't looked after properly or some such minor detail.
==========================

Eek

So Evidence is a Minor Detail now. Silly me. Do these persons even think about what they say?

Do something with this, Tony, will ya? Because I cannot quite believe that she said that.

**crazytony** Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:23 pm

Sabot wrote:
Knox was aquitted on a technicality. Call me old fashioned but if l was accused of murder l'd want to be free because l was innocent not because evidence wasn't looked after properly or some such minor detail.
==========================

So Evidence is a Minor Detail now. Silly me. Do these persons even think about what they say?

Do something with this, Tony, will ya? Because I cannot quite believe that she said that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/11/amanda-knox-case-breakthrough-barbie-latza-nadeau-on-new-evidence.html

Sponsored content