With reference to the opening post and the title of the thread ... Re: Sceptics beliefs ? ...
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg518505#msg518505
Please note that from now on I shall delete everything else which I consider is Off Topic ... thank you
The guilt has to be qualified? LOL ask the supporters to qualify their belief.
The parents are guilty of leaving their children alone every night to go and drink, socialise, and eat. This is not a belief this is an actual fact.
The mother claims she put the children to bed and in particular recalls Madeleine was snuggled UNDER the covers as it was a
cold night. The father claims He last saw Madeleine alive in bed on top of the covers where he left her as it was a
Warm nightThe mother claims the curtains were blowing as it was a
windy night The searchers never claimed that to be the case.
This is not a belief this is FACT.
The parents both claimed a door had been moved -which was the main reason MBM was allegedly abducted.
We cannot establish how wide the door was open/closed. how would Gerry on his visit know the door was moved AND as Gerry did look in he could only see Madeleine- which means the door was only ajar/slightly open. So, was it really moved on his visit?
Door was more open on Kates visit, why would it be more open if an abductor came and went out of a window?
These are written facts -not beliefs- by people who see these FACTS do not suggest an abduction in the way it was described by the mother.
So to sum up: As I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann, I BELIEVE she was a victim of some horrific crime- I don't know what that crime was- as the police have failed to ascertain it I do not pretend to know.
The circumstantial evidence could include the dogs to enforce a particular theory. The supporters point blank refuse to believe that the theory of walk and wandered is plausible- even though it is more believable that the whooshing curtain, jemmied shutters version.