Billy Casper Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Decide who committed the crime and then make the facts fit seems to be your reason for blaming the McCanns. I hope you will be in line to offer apologies to the couple if the abductor is traced. Even after all that you've just read, you still defend the McCanns! How do you explain Maddies blood being found in the back of a hire car the McCans hired 25 days AFTER her disappearance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenyweeny Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Even after all that you've just read, you still defend the McCanns! How do you explain Maddies blood being found in the back of a hire car the McCans hired 25 days AFTER her disappearance? or the cadevar dog that noticed the smell in the wardrobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Even after all that you've just read, you still defend the McCanns! How do you explain Maddies blood being found in the back of a hire car the McCans hired 25 days AFTER her disappearance? In fairness im not sure it was blood that was found. I seem to remember it being dna which could mean quite a few things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Casper Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 In fairness im not sure it was blood that was found. I seem to remember it being dna which could mean quite a few things. Was it Madeleine's DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Was it Madeleine's DNA? Im pretty sure it was. Just found this http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/multimedia/pa/article268566.ece Havent had chance to read it. Going to do that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 The move came after it was revealed that bodily fluids found in the car hired by Gerry and Kate is a perfect DNA match to Madeleine. Seems to have been hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Im pretty sure it was. Sure enough to call grieving parents liars when you don't even know them apparently. Just found this http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/multimedia/pa/article268566.ece Havent had chance to read it. Going to do that now. You're happy to rely on the Sun to fuel your witch hunt? Nice one, but I think you'll that the Sun and the truth are pretty rare bedfellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddie Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Even after all that you've just read, you still defend the McCanns! How do you explain Maddies blood being found in the back of a hire car the McCans hired 25 days AFTER her disappearance? It was a mistake, all hire cars have blood in from previous occupants, get real Billycaspar:loopy: Sorry was taken over then by team McCann members, had a a fluff then. Billy do you honestly think if the sniffer dogs had scented in Robert Murats house that, Gerry McCann would be dissing the dogs??? It would have been full on "let's see the man in in court" the dogs are 100% proof evidence!! If this was Corrie, it would be laughed off screen as being totally unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Casper Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 It was a mistake, all hire cars have blood in from previous occupants, get real Billycaspar:loopy: Sorry was taken over then by team McCann members, had a a fluff then. Billy do you honestly think if the sniffer dogs had scented in Robert Murats house that, Gerry McCann would be dissing the dogs??? It would have been full on "let's see the man in in court" the dogs are 100% proof evidence!! If this was Corrie, it would be laughed off screen as being totally unbelievable. OI...What's with the loopy sign??? And by the standard of your grammer i can't work out whether you're agreeing with me or just being sarcastic??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 There are thousands of kids out there who's parents are on benefits who are not fit to be in charge of kids, if the rubbish you were spouting was in any way true then those kids would have been removed a long time ago. Take that massive chip off your shoulder. Which might be more of an understandable thing to say if there weren't several instances of people slightly less socially high standing who DID have their children taken into care in very similar situations; Link Link In these cases the children were 8 and 11 - far more capable of being left unsupervised safely while their parents were elsewhere drinking but they still had their children taken into care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.