Latest theory lands on Portuguese AG's desk

[G-Unit]

so we have a real situation...not made up...that based on the evidence we are aware of...a figure of 15% is a realistic estmate....based on logic

Why 15%?

[slartibartfast]

ive got nothing back to front...not guilty would signify a 17 % probabilty that they were involved with maddies disappearnace and an 83% probablity that they were not involved...which makes my initial estimte of 15% a pretty good estimate which contradicts your claim I wa simply aking figures up

You are talking about the chances of them getting away with it if guilty or wrongly convicted not the weight of proof required to convict.

[Mr Gray]

You are talking about the chances of them getting away with it if guilty or wrongly convicted not the weight of proof required to convict.

now I thin you are getting mixed up...Im not talking about them getting away with anything....that is presumption they are guilty

[slartibartfast]

now I thin you are getting mixed up...Im not talking about them getting away with anything....that is presumption they are guilty

That is the way you are presenting the statistics, not me.

[Lace]

Yes that was a bit of a thing was it not. Is this woman totally for real? Her friend screams her child is missing JT stands by watching them all search THEN later decides to mention an abductor leaving the scene with Maddie.
What sort of people are they at all?

,
Jane was in her apartment when Kate found Madeleine missing,  she was informed later.

[Lace]

Was it? oh right .. now you can cite that one for  me. Thanks in advance

I thought it was the 'abduction' the police abandoned due to the tapas stories and discovering absolutely no evidence of anyone coming entering or leaving via jemmied shutters and window.. but there ya go.

Maybe they should have thought about another entry then?

[Lace]

Which window was this then? 2 mins  lolololol

where did the abuctor throw that jemmie then? in the non bushes?

 

What jemmie?    Are you getting confused?

[barrier]

,
Jane was in her apartment when Kate found Madeleine missing,  she was informed later.

How much later?

When she was in the apartment, at about 22.00- 22.15 she heard Kate and Fiona shouting and saying that Madeleine had disappeared.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

[Lace]

How much later?


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

You can see how much later.    It was Fiona Jane told about seeing the man as soon as they had told her about Madeleine going missing.    We must remember that Jane even though she was scared that she may have seen Madeleine being taken,  she wasn't SURE it was Madeleine,  so she was hardly likely to go blurting out to Kate that she had seen someone taking Madeleine away was she?   IMO

[John]

For the benefit of new members, it is against forum rules to post links to other blog sites abusing fellow members of this forum.  If you wish to criticise or ridicule someone please do so in your real name and not by hiding behind usernames. TY

[Erngath]

What jemmie?    Are you getting confused?

I don't know about being confused but it is a ridiculous post which should have been removed. I M O

[Miss Taken Identity]

Maybe they should have thought about another entry then?

Yes Indeed, that would have been a good idea, the PJ were not convinced of that 'abductor' entry or exit anyway. Come to think of it it was embarrassingly pathetic IMO.

[Miss Taken Identity]

What jemmie?    Are you getting confused?

No. No confusion here. Perhaps you missed that first interview with sister Phil. claiming Kate saw the the window open, curtains blowing and shutters 'jemmied'  that was the word she used . now how does she know that? well someone who was there told her- simples.

So that initial claim is lies  no shutters were damaged by being 'jemmied'. Perhaps they should have mentioned there was an unlocked door... but then what would people say about them?...

[Miss Taken Identity]

I don't know about being confused but it is a ridiculous post which should have been removed. I M O

It is the Tapas group who made these stupid stories to try and make a time line fit with a 'phantom 'abductor'. I am just questioning them.

[Erngath]

It is the Tapas group who made these stupid stories to try and make a time line fit with a 'phantom 'abductor'. I am just questioning them.

Not at all!

I find your posts extremely enlightening!

I assume you are accusing the Tapas parents of  lying ( making up stories) to make the time line fit with a " phantom abductor"
Is it just your opinion the abductor is a phantom ?
Do you have a cite to  back this statement as the forum rules require?