Goncalo Amaral.

[Ms Para glider]

There's a lot of 'what if' and 'perhaps' used because the evidence doesn't support some people's opinions imo.

  That's funny , it really is. You have no evidence the parents were lying yet your (and all the other sceptics) theory relies entirely on this premise. And not just the parents lying, but the entire group. It's an exciting theory if you're into that sort of conspiracy, the problem is it's missing one rather major thing. A credible motive. Please enlighten me if you have one.

[Venturi Swirl]

We've been over this dozens of times for as long as I've been a member and nothing has changed that I have seen. I saw no evidence of an abduction, all we have was the McCanns claims about doors and windows. For all anyone really knows the kid walked out herself.

Add to this the conduct of the parents in the days following Maddie's mysterious disappearance, the laughing, the jogging and God knows what else followed by the attempts to thwart the investigators followed by the refusal of her mother to answer any police questions at the arguido interview.

Not really the conduct of someone who had a child abducted by a stranger imho???

Wait, so you think “the kid” walked out of her own accord and vanished and the parents didn’t care?   Well, that’s a new one!

[Venturi Swirl]

Are you saying that an open window is evidence of abduction?

Of course it is.  Is an open zip on a tent evidence of abduction?  If not please explain why not.

[Ms Para glider]

Which all ultimately points to the kid walking out of the apartment under her own steam and getting into trouble outside.

I'm at a loss for words with both of your recent posts. They do not make sense in any way whatsoever. I think you've trumped everyone in the backwards logic department. Congrats.

[Ms Para glider]

Of course it is.  Is an open zip on a tent evidence of abduction?  If not please explain why not.

Quite. I'd love to know what does constitute evidence of an abduction in the mind of a sceptic, short of it being filmed on camera. If you can just claim everyone is lying then what else is left? Blood splattered across the walls to show signs of an epic struggle presumably? We're talking about a 3 yr old sleeping kid, being walked out of an unlocked apartment in a quiet resort. What evidence are people expecting to be found here exactly?

[G-Unit]

That's funny , it really is. You have no evidence the parents were lying yet your (and all the other sceptics) theory relies entirely on this premise. And not just the parents lying, but the entire group. It's an exciting theory if you're into that sort of conspiracy, the problem is it's missing one rather major thing. A credible motive. Please enlighten me if you have one.

The only evidence of abduction is that provided by Madeeine's parents. Therefore those who accept that story are  relying entirely on the truthfulness of her parents.

[Ms Para glider]

The only evidence of abduction is that provided by Madeeine's parents. Therefore those who accept that story are  relying entirely on the truthfulness of her parents.

Don't forget the truthfulness of the other 7 people in their group. Again, tell me the motive if it all makes so much sense. Point me to another similar case where you can draw a parralel of a conspiracy on this scale to cover up an accidental death. Or tell me what evidence you think we should have seen if an abduction did take place. What is it you think is "missing"? What evidence is "normally" found in abduction cases to prove an abduction occurred if there's no eye-witness to the crime itself?

[Venturi Swirl]

The only evidence of abduction is that provided by Madeeine's parents. Therefore those who accept that story are  relying entirely on the truthfulness of her parents.

Do you accept the possibility that the McCanns are innocent?  You’ve always claimed to open-minded, so the answer should be yes, right?  So, the open window would be evidence in that case would it not?  But you always say there is no evidence of abduction which proves you don’t believe the parents and that you are closed to the possibility that they are innocent.  IMO.

[Ms Para glider]

The only evidence of abduction is that provided by Madeeine's parents. Therefore those who accept that story are  relying entirely on the truthfulness of her parents.

You can apply that weak logic to almost any crime if there is no video of it and you want to assume everyone is just lying. In most burglaries for example, there is no evidence of a burglary other than the owner saying they have been burgled. But just because the only evidence of the burglary is because the owner "said so", does not mean that there is no evidence of a burglary.

Yes, they could have set it up themselves, the open door, the missing items, all as part of an elaborate insurance fraud because this is all circumstantial evidence. And if police have reason to suspect that as a motive, then it's reasonable to suspect they may be lying and investigate accordingly. But that is where the sceptics argument falters. What is the motive for the McCanns AND the Tapas 7 to ALL lie?

[Mr Gray]

The only evidence of abduction is that provided by Madeeine's parents. Therefore those who accept that story are  relying entirely on the truthfulness of her parents.

For me... All the evidence supports the truthfulness of the McCanns. SY and the BKA both find them truthful

[Venturi Swirl]

You can apply that weak logic to almost any crime if there is no video of it and you want to assume everyone is just lying. In most burglaries for example, there is no evidence of a burglary other than the owner saying they have been burgled. But just because the only evidence of the burglary is because the owner "said so", does not mean that there is no evidence of a burglary.

Yes, they could have set it up themselves, the open door, the missing items, all as part of an elaborate insurance fraud because this is all circumstantial evidence. And if police have reason to suspect that as a motive, then it's reasonable to suspect they may be lying and investigate accordingly. But that is where the sceptics argument falters. What is the motive for the McCanns AND the Tapas 7 to ALL lie?

You won’t get an answer from G-Unit to this question, guaranteed.

[G-Unit]

Don't forget the truthfulness of the other 7 people in their group. Again, tell me the motive if it all makes so much sense. Point me to another similar case where you can draw a parralel of a conspiracy on this scale to cover up an accidental death. Or tell me what evidence you think we should have seen if an abduction did take place. What is it you think is "missing"? What evidence is "normally" found in abduction cases to prove an abduction occurred if there's no eye-witness to the crime itself?

Why do you assume there was a conspiracy? Had there been they would all have claimed to see the open window imo but not one of the did.

[Venturi Swirl]

Why do you assume there was a conspiracy? Had there been they would all have claimed to see the open window imo but not one of the did.

In order for the pair of them to have executed this perfect crime, they would have needed the support of their fellow holiday makers, that is surely a given?  If you don’t believe there was a conspiracy then you can rule out the “dead before the 3rd” theory which you seem reluctant to do, any reason for that?

[Brietta]

For me... All the evidence supports the truthfulness of the McCanns. SY and the BKA both find them truthful

Setting aside the fact that Amaral is a convicted perjurer where does one start when it comes to quantifying either his truthfulness or his well documented capacity for promulgating error as in the Calpol saga.

There is no doubt he has gone out of his way to interfere detrimentally in the German investigation into Madeleine's case.

My impression of that is that msm in Portugal is at long last casting a critical eye over his pontifications and reporting on the facts.  Which reflect the view that there is a realistic prime suspect in Madeleine's case who was ignored in 2007 and Amaral's recent conduct might be an indication of exactly why it was impossible to crack the case back then.

I think more appropriate than the propaganda tool of Amaral with a gag over his mouth a more appropriate one would be Amaral with a blindfold over his eyes.

[G-Unit]

In order for the pair of them to have executed this perfect crime, they would have needed the support of their fellow holiday makers, that is surely a given?  If you don’t believe there was a conspiracy then you can rule out the “dead before the 3rd” theory which you seem reluctant to do, any reason for that?

Being supportive isn't conspiring, particularly if it involves self interest.

I don't know if Madeleine is dead or, if she is, when and how she died. Suggesting that she died before 3rd means that the MW childcare staff weren't up to the job. The only question I would have about that is why, according to DC Marshall, David Payne said in his questionnaire;

he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm

At 17H00 Madeleine was, according to the evidence, eating her tea in the Tapas complex under the care of the nannies.