Sadie's theory, the watcher and a getaway car.

[stephen25000]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

[Rachel Granada]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric".  I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.

[sadie]

Your turn Stephen.

What proof have you that the Mccanns did someting to cause, or hide, Madeleines so called "death"

[debunker]

Emotive speculation, hardly.

proof of abduction, none.

I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.

They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.

Call that a search ?

NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.

Cite for the quality of Gerry's search please. Or we shall assume it is another fairy tale.

[debunker]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

OK, argue with me.

Nowhere have I said that I believe the McCann's story as it is told- I do not.

However I respect and actively support their right to insist that any suggestion that they broke the law is for the authorities to prove; it is not their reponsibility to prove what really happened.

[stephen25000]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric".  I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.

Let's try again.

The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.

As it stands the case will not be solved.

The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.

Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.

[debunker]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric".  I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.

Let's try again.

The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.

As it stands the case will not be solved.

The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.

Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.

And as the Portuguese Prosecutor said, there were no indications of any crime committed by the McCanns. They were not guilty of criminal neglect and may be seen to be morally responsible for the consequences of their actions or inactions; but that depends on the moral stance and ethical beliefs of the mere individuals making statements about their culpability.

All that such statements such as your "The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that." mean is that some unidentified and unimportant poster on a site on the internet feels that his/her feelings have been aroused by the actions of people who they know of only through the press and forums. It has as much meaning as my feelings about a proposed marriage which I see as doomed- it really does not matter to anyone but me- it is really none of my effing business.

[stephen25000]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric".  I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.

Let's try again.

The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.

As it stands the case will not be solved.

The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.

Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.

And as the Portuguese Prosecutor said, there were no indications of any crime committed by the McCanns. They were not guilty of criminal neglect and may be seen to be morally responsible for the consequences of their actions or inactions; but that depends on the moral stance and ethical beliefs of the mere individuals making statements about their culpability.

All that such statements such as your "The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that." mean is that some unidentified and unimportant poster on a site on the internet feels that his/her feelings have been aroused by the actions of people who they know of only through the press and forums. It has as much meaning as my feelings about a proposed marriage which I see as doomed- it really does not matter to anyone but me- it is really none of my effing business.

If it's none of your effing business, why do you comment on here ?

You can wax lyrical as long as you wish, it won't change my views.

As to responsibility of parents, I suggest you read up on that.

The Mccanns failed on that score.

[debunker]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

So, nil points.

It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric".  I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.

Let's try again.

The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.

As it stands the case will not be solved.

The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.

Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.

And as the Portuguese Prosecutor said, there were no indications of any crime committed by the McCanns. They were not guilty of criminal neglect and may be seen to be morally responsible for the consequences of their actions or inactions; but that depends on the moral stance and ethical beliefs of the mere individuals making statements about their culpability.

All that such statements such as your "The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that." mean is that some unidentified and unimportant poster on a site on the internet feels that his/her feelings have been aroused by the actions of people who they know of only through the press and forums. It has as much meaning as my feelings about a proposed marriage which I see as doomed- it really does not matter to anyone but me- it is really none of my effing business.

If it's none of your effing business, why do you comment on here ?

You can wax lyrical as long as you wish, it won't change my views.

As to responsibility of parents, I suggest you read up on that.

The Mccanns failed on that score.

They failed in your eyes. So what?

They did not fail in their responsibility according to the law.

I don't go on about the case itself.

[debunker]

I do like the rude epithet p.....s. Looks a bit like I am calling people pissheads!

Just noticed that I am a Hero Member!

[Angelo222]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

Why do you pursue such an ill informed  attitude towards evidence stephen?  What evidence would you like me to place before you in relation to abduction?

Does the evidence that Madeleine was seen by many as being alive and well before 7pm yet gone from her bedroom at 10pm hold any relevance for you?

Does the fact that her parents put her to bed along with her two siblings before they departed for their evening meal at 8.30pm yet she had gone from the room at 10pm hold some significance in your black and white world?

Does the fully open shutter and window have some relevance for you stephen given they were closed when last checked by several individuals?  Not the sort of thing a 4 year old child could have done is it?

What about the police search stephen?  The land, sea and air searches?  Who were they looking for stephen and at huge expense?

Why did the PJ alert the Spanish authorities to keep a look out for a missing child at the frontiers stephen?


 Stephen....could I suggest something before you make your next post.  Look up the meaning of the words "ABDUCTION" and "EVIDENCE" and then attempt to put them together in a positive form because frankly your claim that their is no evidence of an abduction is looking pretty silly.

Nil points!

[stephen25000]

No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.

The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.

You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.

You believe them, but it does not make it true.

It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.

All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.

Why do you pursue such an ill informed  attitude towards evidence stephen?  What evidence would you like me to place before you in relation to abduction?

Does the evidence that Madeleine was seen by many as being alive and well before 7pm yet gone from her bedroom at 10pm hold any relevance for you?

Does the fact that her parents put her to bed along with her two siblings before they departed for their evening meal at 8.30pm yet she had gone from the room at 10pm hold some significance in your black and white world?

Does the fully open shutter and window have some relevance for you stephen given they were closed when last checked by several individuals?  Not the sort of thing a 4 year old child could have done is it?

What about the police search stephen?  The land, sea and air searches?  Who were they looking for stephen and at huge expense?

Why did the PJ alert the Spanish authorities to keep a look out for a missing child at the frontiers stephen?


 Stephen....could I suggest something before you make your next post.  Look up the meaning of the words "ABDUCTION" and "EVIDENCE" and then attempt to put them together in a positive form because frankly your claim that their is no evidence of an abduction is looking pretty silly.

Nil points!

No Angelo, you don not know the Mccanns put their children to bed at that time. Merely because they said it, does not make it true.

The authorities started searching for Madeleine when they were informed, and the initial assumption, note the word assumption, was that she could have wondered out from the apartment or have been abducted.

That would be standard practice in any country to alert the borders, includiong customs, along with relevant police authorities, or don't you know that.

The PJ found no evidence of an abduction, and it was the UK police who suggested they investigate the Mccanns as well, again standard practice in the UK.

However, abroad, unlike in some sections of this country, children dine with the parents, and are NOT left by themselves unprotected.

The results of forensics from the apartment were inconclusive, and remain that way.

You do not know whether the M<ccanns and associates told the truth or not.

Evidence of abduction, merely hearsay and no more than that.

As to 'ABDUCTION' and 'EVIDENCE', I know full well what they mean, and so should you.

[sadie]

stephen

The PJ found no evidence of an abduction, and it was the UK police who suggested they investigate the Mccanns as well, again standard practice in the UK.

No, but only  cos they ignored Golden witness Jane, and they ignored Mrs Caroline Carpenter.   For what reason?  I wonder why?

stephen

However, abroad, unlike in some sections of this country, children dine with the parents, and are NOT left by themselves unprotected..

In hot countries, Stephen, as I suspect you know, everyone has a siesta in the middle of the day to avoid the heat.  In cooler countries that is not the case.  A child that has had a siesta will be able to stay up later than one who has not.
simples...........


[/quote]

[stephen25000]

stephen

The PJ found no evidence of an abduction, and it was the UK police who suggested they investigate the Mccanns as well, again standard practice in the UK.

No, but only  cos they ignored Golden witness Jane, and they ignored Mrs Caroline Carpenter.   For what reason?  I wonder why?

stephen

However, abroad, unlike in some sections of this country, children dine with the parents, and are NOT left by themselves unprotected..

In hot countries, Stephen, as I suspect you know, everyone has a siesta in the middle of the day to avoid the heat.  In cooler countries that is not the case.  A child that has had a siesta will be able to stay up later than one who has not.
simples...........

[/quote]


'Golden witness Tanner', the woman with X-ray eyes, whose statement is uncorroborated.

Not a clever choice.

What has a siesta in the afternoon got to do with wining and dining at a tapas bar in the evening.  ?

Mind you there is a certain Noel Coward song which springs to mind having read that.

[sadie]

What the hell is the matter with you, Stephen?  What's all this talk about uncorroberated statements?  People make statements all over the world without peeps who were not there, nor knowing anything, challenging them all the time. 

Can we be clear
Are you saying that Jane is a liar?
Are you saying that all the Brits are liars?

Remember she is not the accused,  Seems you are treating her as that.
Why are you suspicious of her all the time?


A child was seen being carried by a man we call bundleman and she reported to the PJ what she saw.  Simples



Remember "The Cutting Edge Video" Youtube?  Just spare a moment and have a look at that.

Please note as I am a bit deaf, I might not have the exact words.  Feel free to correct me.

I suggest you start at 10.59

@11.57 she says about herself, in a chiding manner

"Why the hell didn't you think?
Not even thought anyone go into an appartment and take a child out.

Probably the one person who could have actually stopped anything
What if, what if, what if ...."

At 12.30-12.40, she is weeping.


Are you unable to see how wrong you are?