Debate between Tigerloaf and Cristobell

Debate between Tigerloaf and Cristobell

Posted by tigerloaf » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:28 pm

The debate.

I am proposing the following motion, that:

This forum believes that there is a concerted and hateful campaign being conducted against the parents of the missing little girl, Madeleine McCann, and that this campaign is based in substantial measure on false premises and inaccurate claims.

To begin with a false premise.

Rosalind Hutton made the following claim in her conversation with Sonia Poulton.

I believe at one point they had 24 cases on the go, of people that they were suing or threatening to sue.

It was on the basis of this belief that you made claims and agreed with claims made by Poulton that the McCanns are determined to stop discussion of the case by virtue of their alleged litigious nature.

Please substantiate this claim with a full (or as near full as possible) list of all 24 of these these actions being proposed or actually being undertaken by the McCanns It was perfectly clear in the context of the interview that you meant the McCanns having the cases on the go. I have seen some attempts to justify this claim but none approached the 20 mark for cases, let alone the 24 you, as an expert, believe were on the go.

Otherwise it is my contention that your whole argument is based on an exaggerated belief and that you are not looking for real truth but simply using this claim to justify abusive comments about the McCanns.

A second belief which you expounded on the Poulton show.

You stated that you believe the parents of Madeleine are possibly paying "shills" to post for them online.

This is an extremely nasty thing to say about these people and about the McCanns. By clear implication it suggests that people would not post in support of the McCanns as they do, were it not for a financial incentive.

That is not how I see the situation, nor how I suspect the vast majority of the UK population would see it (as evidenced by the 530,000 who have gone to the Official Find Madeleine Page and indicated their support there). It is quite simply the decent thing to do when a person is being attacked to come to that person's defence.

The McCanns are being attacked on line. There have had six years of the most horrendous abuse against them. They have been openly accused of murder, of sexual perversion, and many other criminal offences. Yet they are innocent in the eyes of the law in every civilised country. There is no tangible evidence of any crime committed by them and for people to openly accuse them as so often happens on forums, blogs and even in the media is a gross abuse of their rights.

It is in the nature of being a decent human being, I would suggest, that when you see people being attacked in this way you go to their defence. If that is not your reaction, I am truly sorry. But I know that is my reason for supporting them and that I am in no way paid or have ever been paid in any form for any posting in their defence.

But it appears you hold a different view and prefer to believe that people defending the McCanns' right to the presumption of innocence, their right not to be accused of crimes which cannot in any way be proven, and the right of the twins to be protected from seeing such abuse of their parents and in future being subjected to taunts and bullying based on such claims, are potentially doing this only because they are paid stooges or shills.

I would like you to explain on what you base that belief.

Why can you not see that it is the natural thing to do in civilised society? Why do you presume the worst of these people? What is your evidence to support your belief?

Jayelles
Rosalinda asked me to pass her "replies" to Tiger's questions. She said they were on her timeline and that I could C&P them. The only thing I can see which remotely looks like her addressing Tiger's questions are these two tweets:-

In response to the question asking her to list the 24 McCann legal actions which she has now claimed (and been challenged on) umpteen times about, she says this:-

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu 19h
@Jayelles1 @SoniaPoulton I am happy to be corrected on this, how many cases of libel have #mccanns instigated?

In response to her claim that those of us who support the McCanns are paid to do so, she says this:-

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu 19h
@Jayelles1 @SoniaPoulton Michael Wright said in witness box media monitoring started 3/5/07, its itemised on Fund accounts. #mccann

It's clearly a waste of time trying to debate her. She has been challenged about the 24 legal actions so many times. She even once produced a link to a thread at Haverns which she said was her source. It was a list of "McCann related" actions which included actions by people with connections to the McCanns but which had nothing whatsoever to do with the McCann case. There weren't even 24 of them. I have asked her many times to LOOK at her "source" and count how many of them were actually McCann, but she point blank refuses to do so. I think she sees herself as some sort of clever puppeteer who can command people to jump through hoops for her amusement.

How media monitoring equates to us being paid to support the McCanns, I have really no idea. I think she is that dangerous combination of mad and bad.

Wonder if she really was/is the perfect mother?

Last night I witnessed Rosalinda Hutton DENY that the parents of other missing and murdered children had been targets of abuse. She made some bizarre comment about it being proved by google.

How dare she trivialise the pain these people have been put through by mindless morons who seek only to add to their grief through hatemail, stalking, harassment and now social networking abuse? Every single person whom I have named as victims of abuse has written about their experience of it. For some, it was as though they were being forced through the wringer once again. Some suffered the same torment as the McCanns - accusations of neglect, p.a.e.d.o.philia and even of the murder of their own child. Some were stalked by "troofseekers", others wrote about the shock of receiving hateful letters through the post.

Sara Payne told of how the police filtered their mail and removed the majority of the hatemail. Kevin Wells lashed out at the police for not warning them that this would happen since it is apparently commonplace.

Whilst their own experiences were bad enough, none has endured a campaign quite as brutal or sustained as the McCanns have - probably because of the advent of social networking which has enabled like-minded (sick-minded) individuals to form groups and feed off each other. Nevertheless, it is the inevitability of it which highlights the need for victim support literature to be produced so that when tragedy strikes, the Family Liaison Officers will be able to prepare the families for it.

Hutton needs to prepare herself for the possibility that her own actions may be used in such literature as an example of what the families of victims might have to prepare themselves for - on top of their own grief.

 It is now absolutely clear that Rosalind / Rosalinda / RV / Linda / Cristobell Hutton is unable to give those following this debate any kind of sensible answer to the questions posed to her above.

She knows there are not 24 cases as she so smugly claimed on Poulton's Blog TV show. It was wild and malicious exaggeration done for effect, done to damage the reputation of the McCanns in front of the listeners. Unfortunately for Hutton it has backfired on her. Little did she expect to be challenged. She thought no-one would ask the pertinent questions and that she would simply receive plaudits for her lies. Wrong, madam, so wrong. You have shown yourself up big time. What to believe now that this has been shown to be untrue?

Perhaps we should believe that other claim she made which I challenged, about 'salaried shills'? No we should not. There is not the slightest indication that this is anything but a fantasy on the part of Hutton and Poulton. Not one tiny piece of evidence has been offered to support the idea (other than an irrelevant comment about media monitoring which is not the same as the use of 'salaried shills'.

A familiar patter is appearing in Rosalind / Rosalinda / RV / Linda / Cristobell Hutton's posting. Lies and exaggeration uttered not for the sake of truth but simply to create an effect and damage the McCanns in some way.

And there it seems we must leave these two questions as Hutton has told us to "eff off" in her none-too-endearing way. She seems to think that all is well now. She did her interview, told her disgusting lies and has no need to apologise to anyone.

Why is this woman hiding behind these disgusting claims and not offering to prove they are true? Remember another boast she made on that programme was that she could prove pros wrong a hundred times over. But when given the chance she did no such thing. She scuttled off with her tail between her legs like a frightened and weak puppy.




The replies such as they were can be seen above. They were abysmal and offered those following this debate absolutely nothing on which to focus or on which to base any trust in her words.

So her final word on these two points seems to be the following.



Relying on the language of the fishwife (which does not impress decent people) and lashing out with her name-calling about trolls (as No Fate Worse Than De'Ath states, it is those who have something to hide who lash out in that way) but providing nothing to impress those trying to understand why she made the claims she did. That's Rosalind / Rosalinda / RV / Linda / Cristobell Hutton summed up.

But it seems we can take this section of the debate no further. I've demonstrated I was right and she was wrong and she has been unable to show otherwise.

Therefore I shall in the near future move the debate on and I will get to the heart of the issue which is that Hutton declares she is not a hater. I will use long and short excerpts from her own posts to show that she is not simply 'inquiring' as she pretends but is posting appalling hateful disinformation, that she is in effect precisely the kind of hater she refuses to be labelled as.

: MADDIE COPS PRIME SUSPECT BLUNDER- tomorrows MIRROR 28/12/13
Post Cristobell Today at 6:20 pm

mysterion wrote:
Am I right in saying that it took 3 years for SY to find the innocent dad in the paper work. If he filled in a questionnaire, surely his name,address and phone number would have been on it. How many British people were in PDL at the time. Not that many surely, out of season.

Perhaps SY need more resources.

Not just Scotland Yard Mysterion, the McCanns spent millions of pounds of public donations on private detectives who have also investigated this case, not to mention Kate sacrificing her medical career to concentrate on scrutinizing the files and leaving no stone unturned.

Jane Tanner imo fabricated the description of the pyjamas to match those worn by Madeleine that night. I believe Scotland Yard have fabricated the 'real' crecheman to get her to co-operate. Her evidence has imo perverted the course of justice for nearly 7 years, and cost taxpayers in Portugal and the UK millions.