Mark Williams-Thomas suggests Madeleine woke, wandered and was abducted.

[Mr Gray]

You can type all you wish.

It is quite evident, as I have predicted all along, SY don't have a clue. The Portuguese don't have a clue.


How about you Brietta ?

and you...do you have a clue...

[Alice Purjorick]

I quoted from an interview given by the man himself ... I believe he is on record as making similar statements elsewhere ... and he was the man to know his own line of thinking n'est-ce pas?

OK but the archiving process does not support that view nor do the files.
Which do you want to believe?
The official judicial report or comments made by a former "disgraced" police officer?

[Brietta]

Any good detective would have suspicions about them after hearing their unbelievable story and crying abduction. The first GNR officers on the scene thought they were acting.

"He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father." José María Batista Roque

Isn't José María Batista Roque not the GNR who had mystery payments made into bank accounts opened in his name?

Funny he should also paint a picture which differs entirely from statements made by so many other witnesses concerning Madeleine's parents' distress.

[G-Unit]

MWT is rather scathing about the missing evidence and the manner of it ... do read up on it.

MWT has quite a lot to say, but most of it is assumptions.  He criticises the PJ investigation and assumptions, but his are no better.

He says in his review that he examined the files, but not that well, I suggest. He says no-one saw Madeleine after she was collected from high tea, ignoring David Payne's statement.

He tries to construct a definitive timeline but can't because of inconsistencies in witness statements, mostly Gerlad McCann's. He puts this down to confusion and also to discussion with each other, although he admits other interpretations are possible.

His woke and wandered theory is based on
a) an abductor wouldn't leave Madeleine's toys neatly arranged on her pillow
b) an abductor would have been more likely to take a twin who would resist less.

He reiterates that he doesn't think the McCanns harmed their daughter or had anything to do with her disappearance, but he gives no reason for his conclusion.

Once again he offers no opinion at all on the opened window and shutters.
http://williams-thomas.co.uk/sites/default/files/Review%20of%20Madeleiene%20McCann%20Investigation.pdf

[Alice Purjorick]

Isn't José María Batista Roque not the GNR who had mystery payments made into bank accounts opened in his name?

Funny he should also paint a picture which differs entirely from statements made by so many other witnesses concerning Madeleine's parents' distress.

The double negative not withstanding are you not the one who has been peddling that bill of goods for a couple of days?
Give us the full SP with all the appropriate links then we can form an opinion.

[Brietta]

You can type all you wish.

It is quite evident, as I have predicted all along, SY don't have a clue. The Portuguese don't have a clue.


How about you Brietta ?

Your 'discussion' skills leave quite a bit to be desired. Asking questions the answers to which you are aware couldn't possibly be known is a particularly duplicitous method used by you ad nauseam.

Perhaps you should allow the members in on whatever superior knowledge you possess which allows you to pontificate on exactly what it is SY and the PJ have entrusted only to you ... particularly as we have been told they are still following active lines of inquiry.

They certainly have gone beyond the woke and wandered theory  ... but if you are still content to base your rather negative opinion on unattributed leaks ... that is a matter entirely for you.

[stephen25000]

Your 'discussion' skills leave quite a bit to be desired. Asking questions the answers to which you are aware couldn't possibly be known is a particularly duplicitous method used by you ad nauseam.

Perhaps you should allow the members in on whatever superior knowledge you possess which allows you to pontificate on exactly what it is SY and the PJ have entrusted only to you ... particularly as we have been told they are still following active lines of inquiry.

They certainly have gone beyond the woke and wandered theory  ... but if you are still content to base your rather negative opinion on unattributed leaks ... that is a matter entirely for you.

My discussion skills ?

You need to take a look in the mirror and immerse yourself in the real world.

The investigation as regards abduction has revealed nothing for rather obvious reasons.

It is a pity you are unable to comprehend that .

[mercury]

It was very obvious the question Thu AM was about Weds night IMO Mercury.
And (very hypothetically of course) if someone rehearses an innocent witness how to phrase things then that's the trainer to ask not the witness.
(Mods: on topic because MWT theory more likely if knew where to wander to)

There seems to be no evidence for this though and two witness statements (PM and RO)  actually say the opposite.

[Mr Gray]

MWT has quite a lot to say, but most of it is assumptions.  He criticises the PJ investigation and assumptions, but his are no better.

He says in his review that he examined the files, but not that well, I suggest. He says no-one saw Madeleine after she was collected from high tea, ignoring David Payne's statement.

He tries to construct a definitive timeline but can't because of inconsistencies in witness statements, mostly Gerlad McCann's. He puts this down to confusion and also to discussion with each other, although he admits other interpretations are possible.

His woke and wandered theory is based on
a) an abductor wouldn't leave Madeleine's toys neatly arranged on her pillow
b) an abductor would have been more likely to take a twin who would resist less.

He reiterates that he doesn't think the McCanns harmed their daughter or had anything to do with her disappearance, but he gives no reason for his conclusion.

Once again he offers no opinion at all on the opened window and shutters.
http://williams-thomas.co.uk/sites/default/files/Review%20of%20Madeleiene%20McCann%20Investigation.pdf

This report is extremely supportive of the McCanns...no surprise there....another professional with access to all the evidence who considers the mccanns innocent. He is particularly critical of the validity of the dog's alerts...

[stephen25000]

This report is extremely supportive of the McCanns...no surprise there....another professional with access to all the evidence who considers the mccanns innocent. He is particularly critical of the validity of the dog's alerts...

So he is an expert, just like gerry mccann as regards the use and deployment of dogs ?

 &%+((£ &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[Mr Gray]

So he is an expert, just like gerry mccann as regards the use and deployment of dogs ?

 &%+((£ &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

He is an expert yes

[stephen25000]

He is an expert yes

Cite.

[G-Unit]

Cite.

I think he was a policeman for a while; DC?  Then he took an MA in criminology. Then he set up his own company and became an expert.

[Mr Gray]

I think he was a policeman for a while; DC?  Then he took an MA in criminology. Then he set up his own company and became an expert.

Why was now in PDL
At whose request
There is no doubt he was extremely supportive of the McCanns and critical of the dog's alerts

[stephen25000]

Why was now in PDL
At whose request
There is no doubt he was extremely supportive of the McCanns and critical of the dog's alerts

Supporting of parents who needlessly endangered the safety of their children ?

Very nice.