The 30 jokes.

Someone asked for a link to the abridged version of bennett's book, well here it is.

http://madeleinefoundation.org/main/30-reasons/

And here's one of the most libelous comments,

They even trade-marked Madeleine’s coloboma.

NO, THEY DID NOT!

You CANNOT trademark a bodypart, not without the consent of every other person in the world with that same eye defect. Notice the use of the word 'Trademark.' An early slur from the anti's, Trademark is an American term. In this country it is 'Copyright.' If they HAD trademarked the eye defect, then every poster, leaflet, T-shirt etc would, by law, have to have the copyright logo on it. I'll keep reading, for as long as my stomache holds out.

vee8 wrote:Someone asked for a link to the abridged version of bennett's book, well here it is.

http://madeleinefoundation.org/main/30-reasons/

And here's one of the most libelous comments,

They even trade-marked Madeleine’s coloboma.

NO, THEY DID NOT!

You CANNOT trademark a bodypart, not without the consent of every other person in the world with that same eye defect. Notice the use of the word 'Trademark.' An early slur from the anti's, Trademark is an American term. In this country it is 'Copyright.' If they HAD trademarked the eye defect, then every poster, leaflet, T-shirt etc would, by law, have to have the copyright logo on it. I'll keep reading, for as long as my stomache holds out.

Good spot about the 'trademark', Vee. I'd not noticed that one.

It is my intention to set aside the time to read the English translation on The McCann Files of the PJ's 40 (odd) page summary of the case properly.

Another one to notch -- abduction of children from the family home 'almost never happens'. He labours long on previous cases where the claim (of abuction of a child from the home) was made and established false. I doubt anything he says will be of comfort to the parents of the little girl who was Voisey's victim, two years older than Madeleine when she was abducted, and abducted from the bath of the ground floor flat where she, her parents and other family members lived while the little girl's mother was in the flat. From what I gather on another board where I post, this example (of a child being abducted from the home) is not unique.

You only need to know that it can happen ...

ALMOST never happens is not the same as NEVER happens. Or are we to abandon the long held legal position that a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, for Twatfaces new idea that a person is guilty by weight of statistics?

Another similarity with the Countess Drachula Vee? Guilty by virtue of statistics.