Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[Alice Purjorick]

Well you said last week that you had no reason not to believe that the tabloid article that OG were following a lead which involved child traffickers was true. I think it may be you who needs to make your mind up Alfie.

Yeah! a likely tale if the victim was British.
The Portuguese police silent and the Met reducing the squad to a couple of men and a dog.
International Child Trafficking would be a full blooded Europol Job with a real JIT.
Except in this case where different rules obtain cos what you has to realise is we is in de PdL Bubble.

[faithlilly]

Yeah! a likely tale if the victim was British.
The Portuguese police silent and the Met reducing the squad to a couple of men and a dog.
International Child Trafficking would be a full blooded Europol Job with a real JIT.
Except in this case where different rules obtain cos what you has to realise is we is in de PdL Bubble.

But...but the Home Office has been informed so surely that has to mean something Alice, surely goddammit !!!

[Mr Gray]

Yeah! a likely tale if the victim was British.
The Portuguese police silent and the Met reducing the squad to a couple of men and a dog.
International Child Trafficking would be a full blooded Europol Job with a real JIT.
Except in this case where different rules obtain cos what you has to realise is we is in de PdL Bubble.

you have to undrstand portugal believes it was the parents wot dun it....so no invesigation...

Kate will tell you all about it next week

[faithlilly]

Err...are you mistaking me for Operation Grange?  Personally I think Madeleine was stolen by a predatory paedophile, murdered and dumped in the local vicinity, very much like the case Rob cited.  If Operation Grange believe something else then that must be because  they have information I have not been privy to.

So you don't have a lot of faith in OG I take it ?

[Alfie]

So you don't have a lot of faith in OG I take it ?

If only you could stop putting words in my mouth with every post you make and actually read what I wrote it would make for far greater understanding.  But you don't really want to understand my point of view do you? You just troll the hell out of me instead.   goodnight.

  If Operation Grange believe something else then that must be because  they have information I have not been privy to.

[Alice Purjorick]

But...but the Home Office has been informed so surely that has to mean something Alice, surely goddammit !!!

Indeed. It is strange that no advice is given about these gangs by any other country...............or the UK for that matter. Now I would say if the Yanks don't give advice to their citizens about such gangs they are unlikely to be active. Dave Edgar and the lawless hinterland notwithstanding.
I'm off to harvest my magic beans. I feel sales will increase over the next few weeks.

[faithlilly]

If only you could stop putting words in my mouth with every post you make and actually read what I wrote it would make for far greater understanding.  But you don't really want to understand my point of view do you? You just troll the hell out of me instead.   goodnight.

  If Operation Grange believe something else then that must be because  they have information I have not been privy to.

Asking you to explain what your posts is not trolling.

You believe OG are following the wrong lead. Nothing difficult about that.

[misty]

This case has similarities to the McCann case.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOZEkcLoeSs

That's a great find RB on a very tragic case. A massive payout for breach of civil liberties.
(It would be a great addition to the Cipriano thread).

[Brietta]

That's a great find RB on a very tragic case. A massive payout for breach of civil liberties.
(It would be a great addition to the Cipriano thread).

Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 03, 2017, 07:41:01 PM
This case has similarities to the McCann case.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOZEkcLoeSs



WOW! That is one powerful, heartbreaking video.  It ticks practically every box which is pertinent to the McCann case. 

Entry with the intent to burglarise ~ the silent child being carried out.

The simulated abduction.

If anyone ever asks about the forty nine questions ... the answer lies right here. 

If a polygraph is mentioned ... the answer lies right here. 

The lesser charge being the subject of "confession" and how that turned out.

The perpetrator being left to roam and free to offend again because the investigators focused on the parent to the exclusion of all else.

The similarities are uncanny.

Riley Fox's case is a master class for those who insist that Madeleine McCann could not have been abducted.

[Eleanor]

Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 03, 2017, 07:41:01 PM
This case has similarities to the McCann case.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOZEkcLoeSs



WOW! That is one powerful, heartbreaking video.  It ticks practically every box which is pertinent to the McCann case. 

Entry with the intent to burglarise ~ the silent child being carried out.

The simulated abduction.

If anyone ever asks about the forty nine questions ... the answer lies right here. 

If a polygraph is mentioned ... the answer lies right here. 

The lesser charge being the subject of "confession" and how that turned out.

The perpetrator being left to roam and free to offend again because the investigators focused on the parent to the exclusion of all else.

The similarities are uncanny.

Riley Fox's case is a master class for those who insist that Madeleine McCann could not have been abducted.

OMG, that video is horrific, but well worth the watch.

A perfect example of how a three year old child can be abducted during a burglary.

[G-Unit]

Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 03, 2017, 07:41:01 PM
This case has similarities to the McCann case.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOZEkcLoeSs



WOW! That is one powerful, heartbreaking video.  It ticks practically every box which is pertinent to the McCann case. 

Entry with the intent to burglarise ~ the silent child being carried out.

The simulated abduction.

If anyone ever asks about the forty nine questions ... the answer lies right here. 

If a polygraph is mentioned ... the answer lies right here. 

The lesser charge being the subject of "confession" and how that turned out.

The perpetrator being left to roam and free to offend again because the investigators focused on the parent to the exclusion of all else.

The similarities are uncanny.

Riley Fox's case is a master class for those who insist that Madeleine McCann could not have been abducted.

The similarities are the age of the child and the fact that the police suspected her parent. There are also differences.

One of the first things said is that in cases where a child disappears the first thing to be done is to examine those close to her. In this case they looked at her father because he was the last person to see her.

The PJ did not begin by examining those close to Madeleine. Allegedly because the British diplomats asked them not to.

When their attention did turn to the parents they behaved entirely properly, unlike the policemen in this case. The McCanns had a lawyer present, this father did not.

Who has said Madeleine could not have been abducted? Obviously she could have, but it's also obvious that there are other possibilities.

It was noticeable that the child's father didn't assume abduction immediately. He looked for her then called the police who did exactly the same as the PJ; they searched. This abductor did exactly what this type of offender typically does; he killed the child and disposed of her nearby.

The explanation for 'inconclusive' DNA results was interesting. Apparently that's forensic science speak for 'we don't have the equipment to get a result from this sample'. In this case a private laboratory did have the necessary equipment and were able to find the offender's DNA.

[Alfie]

The similarities are the age of the child and the fact that the police suspected her parent. There are also differences.

One of the first things said is that in cases where a child disappears the first thing to be done is to examine those close to her. In this case they looked at her father because he was the last person to see her.

The PJ did not begin by examining those close to Madeleine. Allegedly because the British diplomats asked them not to.

When their attention did turn to the parents they behaved entirely properly, unlike the policemen in this case. The McCanns had a lawyer present, this father did not.

Who has said Madeleine could not have been abducted? Obviously she could have, but it's also obvious that there are other possibilities.

It was noticeable that the child's father didn't assume abduction immediately. He looked for her then called the police who did exactly the same as the PJ; they searched. This abductor did exactly what this type of offender typically does; he killed the child and disposed of her nearby.

The explanation for 'inconclusive' DNA results was interesting. Apparently that's forensic science speak for 'we don't have the equipment to get a result from this sample'. In this case a private laboratory did have the necessary equipment and were able to find the offender's DNA.

and yet you still maintain there is no plausible, logical theory of abduction in the McCann case, perhaps you could remind us why you think that?

[Robittybob1]

The similarities are the age of the child and the fact that the police suspected her parent. There are also differences.

One of the first things said is that in cases where a child disappears the first thing to be done is to examine those close to her. In this case they looked at her father because he was the last person to see her.

The PJ did not begin by examining those close to Madeleine. Allegedly because the British diplomats asked them not to.

When their attention did turn to the parents they behaved entirely properly, unlike the policemen in this case. The McCanns had a lawyer present, this father did not.

Who has said Madeleine could not have been abducted? Obviously she could have, but it's also obvious that there are other possibilities.

It was noticeable that the child's father didn't assume abduction immediately. He looked for her then called the police who did exactly the same as the PJ; they searched. This abductor did exactly what this type of offender typically does; he killed the child and disposed of her nearby.

The explanation for 'inconclusive' DNA results was interesting. Apparently that's forensic science speak for 'we don't have the equipment to get a result from this sample'. In this case a private laboratory did have the necessary equipment and were able to find the offender's DNA.

I think the problem is if they declared they suspect the parents they needed to make them arguidos, but then they would have lawyers present.  I could be wrong but there seemed to be far too few interviews with Kate right from the beginning.

[Brietta]

I think the problem is if they declared they suspect the parents they needed to make them arguidos, but then they would have lawyers present.  I could be wrong but there seemed to be far too few interviews with Kate right from the beginning.

There was the immediate determination of the lead investigators in Riley's case ... " ... the moment he walked up, he knew what had happened ... this is not a kidnapping and murder ... this is a staged crime scene."
The only difficulty with that ... was that he was wrong!  Just as Goncalo Amaral was wrong in Madeleine's case.  But in both cases the lead operatives determined the path the investigation was to take which led to botched inquiries.

Another parallel was that both children were removed from where they were sleeping without apparently making a sound.
No-one witnessed either little girl being carried from the safety of their home.

We now know without a shadow of doubt what happened to Riley.  No-one knows what happened to Madeleine but the parallels with Riley's allegedly staged abduction are too compelling to be dismissed.

[Alfie]

Asking you to explain what your posts is not trolling.

You believe OG are following the wrong lead. Nothing difficult about that.

I keep being denied my right to reply.  I will try again.  I did NOT say what you are saying above.  Please read what I wrote above in bold enlarged text again and see if finally you will understand what I DID write. 

PS: Would the Mod who keeps deleting my posts kindly explain why.