Facebook groups.

I'm not on Facebook myself, and never really wanted to, I have more than enough to keep up with all the forums. But both my wife and daughter are. While the wife was at work daughter was on her account, and I just wondered what would happen if she typed Madeleine McCann into the Facebook search. We were both astonished to see a list of over five hundred diferent groups, all dedicated to Madeleine! And by far the biggest majority are fully supportive, something like 20-1 in favour, and some of these groups have over 60,000 members! SIXTY THOUSAND!! I find that very encouraging. We had a quick surf, and on a couple, where an anti-Madeleine posts one of their typically ignorant comments they get a second butthole ripped for them, in no uncertain terms, with language I haven't seen since my forces days! By contrast, the few anti-Madeleine groups had, on average, fewer than ten members, with only one managing to achive over a hundred members, and these were attracting pro comments also taking them to pieces. The forum wars have nothing on the facebook groups! And all this stands in stark contrast to bennett's pathetic claims that the majority of the British public doubt the McCann's version of events. But then we always knew he was a habitual, compulsive liar. The evidence is there, see for yourself. No, hang on, Facebook is a social networking site, and we all know what bennett's social skills are like!

If he joined Facebook, how many friends would he get?!

Nil point!

Or how do you say it in French Sabot?

Cheers Vee, thats very reassuring to know.

Vee, it is only the anti's themselves who think they have public support and swaying public opinion their way.

Your facebook inquiries show it how it really is. By far, the majority of people support the McCanns in their search for Madeleine, and do not believe they were involved with her disappearance. Most people believe it was an abduction, and even most that dont know, do not have the hatred for the McCanns that the anti's have.

And everytime these anti's post more of the vile bs, they garner more sympathy for the McCanns. The average person has no time for vindictive stalkers who for some unexplained reason just wish to hurt two people who have lost their child in tragic circumstances. The anti's are just so dense that they cant see it yet, they continue to fail to face reality. They are wrong, their behavious is despicable, and the majority of people the world over know this.

And what has always got me about Bennett's actions (and Morais to a lesser extent) is why are they even trying to sway public opinion. The only people that need to be swayed are the law enforcement agencies, yet Bennett (for eg) makes no effort to sway them.

There is no glaring piece of evidence that has been overlooked, ie no smoking gun, that the average person can see has caused justice to go wrong (assuming you ignore Amaral of course) and failed to get the McCanns prosecuted. There is nothing here at all. Only spin, twisting words, cherry picking evidence and outright lies, and none of that is going to ever get a public outcry. So just why is Bennett continually saying about public support/opinion. Is this just another bait to get those that 'follow' him to keep following? Is it yet more ego feeding rubbish from Bennett.

And Morais also has an ego that needs feeding.

Is this what it is all about for them. Because honestly, they are never going to sway public opinon. Luckily, the public likes honesty and empathy, not lies and harrassment.

TB facebook friends? He'd have loads Vee, thousands in fact



of socks!

Diane, I tend to agree with you - Facebook does have a LOT of support for the McCanns and I've joined two of the groups I think. I've seen people getting the boot for stirring the pot or making negative slurs about the McCanns.

Diane, you're absolutely right.
For the average person, even if they listened to the papers in the summer and fall of 2007 and winter of 2008, they now feel horrified probably about their reaction (as I do about my reaction to the Natalie Holloway case).
Everything that has come out since then, officially, has branded Amaral as a criminal and a buffoon, with a chip on his shoulder against the McCanns, deliberately manipulating the investigation and public opinion against the McCanns.
And the McCanns as victims of the voracious and unscrupulous British press, now with its tail between its legs -- and there are few figures than the "press" that the public will turn on and grow angry with.

HOw did you get the Natalie Holloway case wrong?

I thought straight away that she was murdered by someone she either was partying with, or met that night.

Also, a young Australian woman (Brit Lapthorne) was killed in a similar manner in Dubrovnik, Croatia. She was seen leaving the bar/nightclub, and no one knows what happened to her after that. The son of the man who owned the backpackers where she was staying was a person of interest to the police, but nothing came of it. Very similar, is it not. Unlike Natalee, Brit's body was found in the sea, badly decomposed about 2 weeks later. I saw a report on the tv that the only way her body could have been as badly damaged as it was, is if it was weighted down.

I didn't get it "wrong;" I always thought that that is what had happened to her, but I brashly and wrongly judged her behavior, the position I thought she'd "put herself" in, etc. It was regrettable to the core.

It is a very similar story, Diane. Very sad.

Bluj

I understand how you can have made a judgement on it. We are all human after all, and often bad things happen as the result of stupid decisions. The things is that now you realise that she was the victim and that something was done to her against her will. You came to this conclusion on your own, and that says more about you than your initial rush to judgement.

It really doesnt matter if Natalie agreed to go with someone in their car, or she got onto some bloke, she never agreed to go and be killed. She may have trusted the person (a trust that was likely cultivated) or she may have been drugged. It is most likely that she was killed because she trusted the person, at the very least to take a drink which may have been drugged. She was unlucky to meet a killer. Most people that are out on the town dont meet killers, and many are in the same situation as she was, just out having a good time.

Agreed, Diane. Part of it was being younger and brash -- she was relatively close to my age and I felt unsafe, that my friends and I "wouldn't be so stupid", etc. etc. I think it can be a natural first impulse, and like you said, it's still making the same claims months and months later when it's so clear the kind of suffering involved by her family and friends and the tragedy involved. Lesson learned!

I honestly think that the way people react to the McCann case is a excellent way to judge their character. I fully understand people reacting with dismay to the fact that the kids were alone in the apartment, but I have serious issues with people who cannot get past that - especially after almost three years. Quite frankly, I have zero respect for anyone who would sooner bash the McCanns than support the search for their daughter.

I followed the Ramsey case for about 8 years and had pretty much decided whom I thought were the good guys amongst the online community. When the McCann case developed, only a handful of those posters disappointed me. I think I'm a fairly good judge of character :-)