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

[G-Unit]

According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them... They are not suspects, in either investigation.. Their actions in keeping the investigation  open are, all evidence of their non involvement

You have a cite for that statement, do you?

[barrier]

If they were  suspects I wouldn't expect the investigators to comment... There is evidence if their non involvement but sceptics want to ignore it

I believe many a time you've been asked to high light it but seem reluctant to do so.

[Mr Gray]

You have a cite for that statement, do you?

It was supplied yesterday... [removed possible insult].

[Mr Gray]

I believe many a time you've been asked to high light it but seem reluctant to do so.

I've just posted it... But you wish to ignore it because it doesn't fit you closed view

[G-Unit]

It was supplied yesterday... Are you not aware if it... If you are not then it would show your lack of knowledge of the case is causing you to reach incorrect conclusions

By you or someone else? Please provide a link or post number. 

[Mr Gray]

By you or someone else? Please provide a link or post number.

It's there now

[barrier]

I've just posted it... But you wish to ignore it because it doesn't fit you closed view

My mind is open,I don't have a fixated view either way above all else.

[Mr Gray]

My mind is open,I don't have a fixated view either way above all else.

of course it is...so what conclusions have you drawn after nearly eleven years re the parents involvement

[slartibartfast]

It's there now

Post number?

[Mr Gray]

Post number?

why are you asking me for the post number...the post is supplied

[G-Unit]

Are you saying that 'The McCanns are not suspects' can be quoted elsewhere as 'According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them'? They look like two completely different statements to me. That, in my opinion, is the reason why cites should be provided because there's a tendency to misrepresent what was actually said.

[Mr Gray]

Are you saying that 'The McCanns are not suspects' can be quoted elsewhere as 'According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them'? They look like two completely different statements to me. That, in my opinion, is the reason why cites should be provided because there's a tendency to misrepresent what was actually said.

t would help if you watched the short video...its only one minutes long...what is the point in asking for a cite if you do not look at it....your accusation is totally without merit and again shows your ignorance of what has been said by the PJ..
its at about...1.08...no fact or evidence at this point that suggests they were involved in the disappearance of madeleine..

so tell me...in what way am I misrepresenting the facts

[barrier]

of course it is...so what conclusions have you drawn after nearly eleven years re the parents involvement

Not being a investigative officer I've no access to all the evidence ,but the Portuguese Supreme Court in its ruling Jan 2017, page 70 had this to say.

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

Once they become convinced I will be to.

[Mr Gray]

Not being a investigative officer I've no access to all the evidence ,but the Portuguese Supreme Court in its ruling Jan 2017, page 70 had this to say.

Once they become convinced I will be to.

De Carmo has said there is no evidence...the SCdid not claim  there was any evidence

[Robittybob1]

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT

Rob, it has taken many hours and I have given a 12 post+ direct answer to your topic which is named  * There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction *

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457

I finished posting way after 3am ... but started whilst Gunit and others were on forum.  It seems that Gunit was determined to get in first and started popsting at 7.03 am 
Within minutes she had replied to each post, cursorily dismissing everything .........

....And effectively, with the help of a few others hidden it all from virtually everyone, because no-one bothers to look back very far.  A couple of pages back and it is dead.

HIDDEN FROM PLAIN SIGHT EFFECTIVELY

It is your thread and along with others, I dont think that you have seen my posts about "Circumstantial evidence of abduction", which I have never claimed as proof, but I do claim as pointers/likely possibilities.

In order to help find the 12/13 posts with a similar number of pointers, I have now changed the print colour to teal from black.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457


I know that you do not support the idea of abduction, but I can only guess why.
Your opinion would be appreciated, please

There are a lot of ideas which could be debated within those 12 posts Sadie.  Over the years I personally would have made a thread to thrash out each of those points.