back2basics Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 They're not mutually exclusive Semantics, in a legal sence she is dead... and the body has not been found. Missing ususally is used when a person is alive and not found. Missing generally is used when somebody is still alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 ...The girl is not missing, she is dead. ... Well, technically, she's missing. Whether she's missing and alive or missing and dead is a different matter. If the reports concerning the forensic evidence are to be believed, then it's the latter. I think the 'advertising campaign' is at best misguided... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Oh, and it's good to see that Richard Branson is once again making the most of this PR opportunity donating to a worthy cause... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Oh, and it's good to see that Richard Branson is once again making the most of this PR opportunity donating to a worthy cause... I like Branson... i just went off him. Of all people he should know the scientific method. Basically what he is doing is undermining British DNA testing. Unfortunalty for him the science is very, very tight and he will look like a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 People can say what they want about the parents guilt in this matter. But the DNA evidence says she is dead. This advetising is pure BS designed to fool people in to thinking they are still looking for the girl. The girl is not missing, she is dead. The only possible other explination now is that the peson who killed her used the same hire car as the parents. Which of course is very unlikely. You've obviously made up your mind on the issue as you're entitled to do - but how does the presence of the child's DNA anywhere indicate that she's dead ? What would be remarkable would be that the police had found none of her DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I like Branson... i just went off him. Of all people he should know the scientific method. Basically what he is doing is undermining British DNA testing. Unfortunalty for him the science is very, very tight and he will look like a fool. It's highly unlikely that Richard Branson would be able to distinguish scientific method from a hole in the ground, and he probably knows as much as my cats do about DNA analysis. He's a businessman with an excellent eye for a PR opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 You've obviously made up your mind on the issue as you're entitled to do - but how does the presence of the child's DNA anywhere indicate that she's dead ? What would be remarkable would be that the police had found none of her DNA. You clearly are still delusional on the issue. Its easy to tell from the hair if the person was dead or not. Its a technique the police use all the time. Hundreds of thousands of times each year. Thinking she is still alive is pretty crazy at this stage. I guess you are going on some weird conslusion that she was in a boot of a car 25 days after she went missing... but she is still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 It's highly unlikely that Richard Branson would be able to distinguish scientific method from a hole in the ground, and he probably knows as much as my cats do about DNA analysis. He's a businessman with an excellent eye for a PR opportunity. I think thats unfair... well i used to think that was unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoeshine Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Max Clifford, publicity guru to the stars, has been on Sky News today stating his view that the McCann's reputation has been badly damaged and commenting on their "new publicity campaign". Max Clifford Video..Sky News today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 They're not mutually exclusive - I think both are true in this case. I share yours and Hecate's mistrust of the motivation for a new advertising campaign. Considering the amount of publicity being generated by the possible arrest of the parents, a new campaign does seem somewhat redundant at this stage. Whether innocent or guilty, their decision to launch a new campaign does have the appearance of an attempt to distract attention from the parents' alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.