Madeleine McCann

I know but Gerry also said he didn't take Madeleine. The theory wouldn't fucking work full stop if we took everything Gerry said at face value, would it?

So your saying Gerry would gain something from admitting he “wasn’t particularly religious”?
I don’t accept everything he has said, I’ve been arguing against a lot of what he has said on here, I just don’t see the relevance of what your Catholic angle is?

Below is a quote regarding IVF from the then Pope who they visited in the aftermath of Maddie’s disappearance.

https://www.catholicscomehome.org/what-does-the-church-teach-about-ivf/

“Pope Benedict XVI has said: “The Church pays great attention to the suffering of couples with infertility, she cares for them and, precisely because of this, encourages medical research.” As the Catechism affirms: “Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.” In other words, the Church is not against medical advancements that would help infertile couples as long as they do not interfere with God’s vision of human sexuality and do not disrespect human life.”
————

I think you can drop the Catholic Church having anything to do with the McCann’s thinking on this.
 
It doesn’t matter how many times you say it - they couldn’t see the important bits of the apartment (entrances/exits). They could only see a bit of the apartment and they weren’t constantly looking at it - they were socialising at night ffs.
They couldn't see ANY of the apartment mate. Not at night in a lit room through a window. It's a physical impossibility unless their apartment had floodlights pointing directly at it. Even then it would be difficult to get a clear view of anything through marquee plastic.
 
So your saying Gerry would gain something from admitting he “wasn’t particularly religious”?
I don’t accept everything he has said, I’ve been arguing against a lot of what he has said on here, I just don’t see the relevance of what your Catholic angle is?

Below is a quote regarding IVF from the then Pope who they visited in the aftermath of Maddie’s disappearance.

https://www.catholicscomehome.org/what-does-the-church-teach-about-ivf/

“Pope Benedict XVI has said: “The Church pays great attention to the suffering of couples with infertility, she cares for them and, precisely because of this, encourages medical research.” As the Catechism affirms: “Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.” In other words, the Church is not against medical advancements that would help infertile couples as long as they do not interfere with God’s vision of human sexuality and do not disrespect human life.”
————

I think you can drop the Catholic Church having anything to do with the McCann’s thinking on this.

You do realise that the very link you posted accepts that the Catholic Church is opposed to IVF and that the Pope you quoted and the one that the McCanns met is extremely hostile to IVF and has re-affirmed the Church's opposition to it? It's such common knowledge that I don't even think it deserves a link but here you go because I'm being kind:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081229164506/http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38686.php

For a theory I've already accepted is almost certainly bullshit, you're doing a terrible job of disproving it. That's the fourth time you've tried disproving something I've said (after twice going back through my post history) and it hasn't worked. Seriously, leave the detective work to someone else ffs.
 
Yes - as the window was closed before they left and was then open.

It could be that the intruder opened the window to look and then used the patio door but the window was used.
That's like saying that if a burglar finds a house with an open back door, not overlooked, would collect the valuables and make his escape through a side window.
If you appeared as a character witness for them, (should they appear in court) the jury and the prosecution would be in stitches at your theories.

On a different subject on a different thread, you managed to change my mind on a very important topic. I'd taken your statements as facts. Now that I seen how you're prepared to defend the indefensible, I have to conclude that it was an error of judgement on my behalf.
 
Where are you getting that from? Hopefully not the same documentary that point blank refuses the possibility of the window being opened from the outside! They had an independent expert confirm this on the documentary.

The window was wide open when they came in.

It wasn’t open before.

The Netflix documentary states it.
 
That's like saying that if a burglar finds a house with an open back door, not overlooked, would collect the valuables and make his escape through a side window.
If you appeared as a character witness for them, (should they appear in court) the jury and the prosecution would be in stitches at your theories.

On a different subject on a different thread, you managed to change my mind on a very important topic. I'd taken your statements as facts. Now that I seen how you're prepared to defend the indefensible, I have to conclude that it was an error of judgement on my behalf.

They didn’t necessarily escape through the side window, the side window was on the road so they may have opened it to view or climbed through it on the way in and left out of the patio door.

I’m not sure how stating this aspect of it is defending the indefensible, it’s in the official reports given by Kate that the window was wide open when she got back in.

What thread was that?

You don’t have to agree with me on every topic, some times I’ll be right and sometimes I’ll wrong.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top