According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Mr Gray]

An open window and shutter aren't evidence that an abduction has occurred.

Of course  they are... Evidence  but not proof

[G-Unit]

Post 10

[Soz.     Amended.  similar mistake to before.  the interrupting posts threw me]

    Kate and Gerry pushed for SY to become involved.  Had they been involved in Madeleine vanishing, they would hardly have called in arguably the Worlds best Police Force to look at the case.

Think about it logically, in similar circumstances, would you have lobbied for SY to be called in?

That's just your assessment. There are other possible explanations.

[Mr Gray]

Your claim was that Amaral had said he would prove that Madeleine died in 5A, and that he didn't.

Such was your opinion.  You can't claim it as fact unless
1 you prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, which you can't
or
2 you prove that Amaral did not prove it.  Thus far you have failed on this route.

I have no interest in being diverted onto the dogs.  There must dozens of dog threads.  Kindly stop deflecting.

 

It's quite obvious, amaral did not prove it... On the basis of the evidence he relied on for his proof... One piece of evidence being that the two dogs had solved 200 cases... Which is obviously  rubbish

[G-Unit]

Post 11

     Both SY and the special Force at Porto are looking for an abductor / abductors.  They have stated that.  They have also stated that Gerry and Kate are NOT suspects.   And in any case, hHad it been Gerry ( or another Tapas group member), they would have had this case wrapped up months, nay years ago.

The above points are all pointers to the probability of a stranger abduction, IMO

There seems to be something Mega-big going on here

The PJ have not stated that they are looking for an abductor.

[G-Unit]

Of course  they are... Evidence  but not proof

No they're not. There's no reason to connect them to an abduction at all in my opinion. They seem to have been opened for no practical reason at all.

[Mr Gray]

No they're not. There's no reason to connect them to an abduction at all in my opinion. They seem to have been opened for no practical reason at all.

IMO they are.... Everything  you post is, simply your opinion... Quite clearly... IMO... They suggest the presence of a third party

[Mr Gray]

No they're not. There's no reason to connect them to an abduction at all in my opinion. They seem to have been opened for no practical reason at all.

Opened by whom

[G-Unit]

Opened by whom

Not just whom; when and why also.

[barrier]

Post 8

   [Rewritten -  soz mistake made and amended]

    The cigarette butts found on that balcony opposite support the likelihood that there was someone watching and co-ordinating an abduction

The butts support the likelihood  that some one was on the balcony smoking, thats it  unless one is into conspiracy theories.

[Mr Gray]

Not just whom; when and why also.

I agree... Quite possibly by an abductor... Therefore evidence but not proof

[slartibartfast]

It's quite obvious, amaral did not prove it... On the basis of the evidence he relied on for his proof... One piece of evidence being that the two dogs had solved 200 cases... Which is obviously  rubbish

Surely just a mistranslation?

[barrier]

post 5

    A man was witnessed by Jane Tanner walking away in a hurry, carrying a little girl.  We call him Tannerman. 

Where did he come from, if not block A ?  There are no creches in the direction he came from, are there ?                                                       

If an innocent man, why hasn’t he come forward?

If a loving Father, why hadn’t he wrapped his daughter up more warmly on a chilly night?

If he was Crecheman carrying his daughter, why was he walking in the wrong direction ?

 

So Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying away carrying a little girl.  Said man, now called Tannerman was in a hurry and carrying a little girl who was of the correct size  and wearing very similarly described  clothes to Madeleine.

 

Sounds like an abductor to me, especially as he hasn’t come forward

 

So Redwoods revelation moment didn't happen?

DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html

[barrier]

I agree... Quite possibly by an abductor... Therefore evidence but not proof

Evidence of them being open,thats it.

[Mr Gray]

Surely just a mistranslation?

So you accept  it's a ridiculous claim

[Mr Gray]

Evidence of them being open,thats it.

Yes... Opened by whom