"no evidence" to support a theory missing girl Madeleine McCann is alive

[barrier]

What if the person had removed their shoes?

Any dirt or dust could have been brushed off.

Blooming good job a odd shoe wasn't found they'd have been looking for a Cinderella.

[Alice Purjorick]

With respect there is a lot I find hilarious re your ideas and those of some other sceptics

Classic supporters disease.
"Rightbackatcheritis" with no sign of original thought.

[Lace]

The supporters will have to acept defeat gracefully on this score. Making up accomplaces to make a shoe fit is futile, and some what embarrassing. They have told their story- JT claims to have seen one man not two or three, and this was their 'evidence' of an abductor for years. Kate has maintained that she knew her daughter was abducted and gives the whooshing curtain episode as part of her very important claim. To dismiss any idea that their daughter woke and wandered.

ther are two interesting points:
1. why can the parents not accept the dogs findings as a fact that their daughter may have been killed in the apartment by the 'boogy man?
2.Why do they not accept their daughter walked and wandered?

Very interesting for 'distressed' parents  not to look at all possible scenarios, and tear into the investigators for NOT doing what they were told by the family.

What are you talking about 'the supporters will have to accept defeat gracefully on this score'    IMO there was more than one person involved.   One went into the apartment the other received the child either through the window or at the front door.   The person who went into the apartment left in a different direction or went back to work.  Kate believed her daughter to have been abducted as as she said no child of four would leave through the patio doors and close them behind her then through a child gate and another gate and close both behind her.  Kate knew her child,  she didn't believe Madeleine would have left the apartment.   If I were the McCann's I wouldn't accept the dogs findings either,  there was no body.

[Lace]

see what you want to see?  look closely at the very small gap between the chair and the bed... now you try and get yourself whle  carrying a child out that window  which slides to one side. without getting your foot caught AND without leaving any marks what so ever.

Cover ears and singing  lalalalala can't hear you... heehee

Who is saying anyone went back through the window carrying Madeleine?

[pathfinder73]

What if the person had removed their shoes?

Any dirt or dust could have been brushed off.

  Time? Very small window of opportunity but changing shoes? Meanwhile, back in the real word.........

[Venturi Swirl]

Anyone standing on a bed in stockinged feet risks slipping .
Anyone standing on a bed in bare feet risks leaving DNA .
The suggestions that someone used the window are ridiculous imo.

I think you'd really have to be quite unlucky to slip on a bed in stockinged feet tbh.  Put your socks on, go stand on your bed and see how often you slip over. 

[Sunny]

I think you'd really have to be quite unlucky to slip on a bed in stockinged feet tbh.  Put your socks on, go stand on your bed and see how often you slip over.

The bed would be very rumpled if someone with at least say 8 stone weight stood on it and then pushed off from the bed to land on the floor.   It wasn't, so no abductor in or out of the window IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

The bed would be very rumpled if someone with at least say 8 stone weight stood on it and then pushed off from the bed to land on the floor.   It wasn't, so no abductor in or out of the window IMO.

???  Are you saying it's not possible to stand on a bed and get off it without severely rumpling the bed?  Go try it now and see how severely rumpled your bed gets.

[Brietta]

you tell me that burglars are removing shoes to steal children 

I mean WFT. get real.

JT said she saw the man hurrying... was this because he had to stop and put his shoes on perchance? maybe he even had time for a ciggarette before he made off 

so let us look at the very smal gap between the bed and the chair-and that small window to put shoes on while getting out of a window carrying a child...

Apparently it is not required to remove footwear before putting on a protective covering ... if memory serves me well there is an account that on at least one occasion the man who accessed holiday accommodation was reported as wearing protective coverings on his feet.

Even back then in the dark ages criminals were too well aware of forensics and took steps to avoid leaving any.

[Brietta]

The bed would be very rumpled if someone with at least say 8 stone weight stood on it and then pushed off from the bed to land on the floor.   It wasn't, so no abductor in or out of the window IMO.

On a bed covered by a duvet?  I think not.

[Lace]

Time? Very small window of opportunity but changing shoes? Meanwhile, back in the real word.........

What was stopping the person slipping off shoes,  entering through the window,  passing Madeleine out through the window or door,  going out a  slipping shoes back on?

[jassi]

What was stopping the person slipping off shoes,  entering through the window,  passing Madeleine out through the window or door,  going out a  slipping shoes back on?

Absolutely nothing, but why should you think it likely ? A vivid imagination.or something more tangible ?

[Admin]

Constructive comments please everyone.

[Lace]

Absolutely nothing, but why should you think it likely ? A vivid imagination.or something more tangible ?

Maybe Amaral should have investigated all avenues,  instead of dismissing everything?

[barrier]

Maybe Amaral should have investigated all avenues,  instead of dismissing everything?

That's supposed to be what OG are/were doing according to some,where's it got them?