4 ms·

I'll give you one example. And remember, this is a timeline, not working backwards from JP is a paedo. I'm not adding credence to the claims, but they are remar

I'll give you one example. And remember, this is a timeline, not working backwards from JP is a paedo. I'm not adding credence to the claims, but they are remarkable coincidences. The sort which would get a visit from the police if it was me and my brother. You read JP's emails for political reasons, you find known paedo / child trafficing jargon in them (Cheese Pizza is Child Porn, various flavours of food describe children etc.). So you dig a bit deeper and then you look at this photo [1] where they look very similar to the police wanted images of Madeline McCann. Wow that's weird. So you look at his email and find that at the time of the abduction, JP is out of the country and someone else is replying to his emails for him, something that doesn't happen regularly. And then you find he is friends with suspected paedophile Clement Freud, who lives 1/3 of a mile from where the McCanns were staying. [2] And that they knew each other. [1] http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11-14_9-31-53.jpg http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/20... [2] http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/11/do-john-and-tony-podesta-have-a-connection-with-missing-child-madeleine-mccann/ http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/11/do-john-and-tony-podesta...

nkurz 10y ago
I think this is good example: if one accepts all these pieces as true, this counts as credible evidence. But the ones that are most certain aren't that damaging, and the ones that are most damaging (I don't think) are that certain. Jumping to the most damaging, the second article you link says "One of our FBI insiders can confirmed the Intelligence community indicates John and Tony Podesta were in Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3rd 2007– the day Madaline McCann vanished. The Podesta brothers were staying with a friend named “Clem”." So far as I can tell, other than this assertion, there has been no evidence uncovered that the either Podesta brother was in Portugal at the time of the girl's disappearance. You reduce the article's claim that "they were staying a friend named "Clem" to saying only that they knew each other, but I haven't seen any proof of even this level of association. As 'nindalf' asks, how do you balance the goal of finding the truth with the responsibility to avoid terrible damage to a innocent person's reputation based on something that (at this point) is based largely on trusting an unaccountable anonymous source?

nkurz 10y ago

I think this is good example: if one accepts all these pieces as true, this counts as credible evidence. But the ones that are most certain aren't that damaging, and the ones that are most damaging (I don't think) are that certain. Jumping to the most damaging, the second article you link says "One of our FBI insiders can confirmed the Intelligence community indicates John and Tony Podesta were in Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3rd 2007– the day Madaline McCann vanished. The Podesta brothers were staying with a friend named “Clem”." So far as I can tell, other than this assertion, there has been no evidence uncovered that the either Podesta brother was in Portugal at the time of the girl's disappearance. You reduce the article's claim that "they were staying a friend named "Clem" to saying only that they knew each other, but I haven't seen any proof of even this level of association. As 'nindalf' asks, how do you balance the goal of finding the truth with the responsibility to avoid terrible damage to a innocent person's reputation based on something that (at this point) is based largely on trusting an unaccountable anonymous source?