Latest theory lands on Portuguese AG's desk

[G-Unit]

I don't believe he has, accused the mccanns of lying so he is, therefore not a, skeptic

Williams-Thomas disagreed with the abduction theory. I assume that was because he thought the evidence didn't support it. SIL also found no evidence to support it. Why then do you reach different conclusions about them?

[Mr Gray]

Williams-Thomas disagreed with the abduction theory. I assume that was because he thought the evidence didn't support it. SIL also found no evidence to support it. Why then do you reach different conclusions about them?

Because sil has doubted the mccanns on several other issues, suggesting they are not telling the truth

There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction so to say there is no evidence is untrue

[jassi]

Is there anyone currently posting on this forum on a regular basis who believes there is any merit in this letter and this theory?  Is there anyone here prepared to defend it?

Why should anyone  feel the need to defend it ?

[sadie]

Williams-Thomas disagreed with the abduction theory. I assume that was because he thought the evidence didn't support it. SIL also found no evidence to support it. Why then do you reach different conclusions about them?

Why are you quoting SIL as an authority?  He has made a number of mistakes in his blog .... and I have only skim read part of it.  SIL has done some valuable research and taken some wonderful photos for which we must thank him, but he certainly is no authority.

Williams-Thomas might have been influenced by the Mccanns being made arquidos?  And his possible misunderstanding of the dog alerts and what they did and did not mean?  I think many of us misunderstood those until they were deeply researched (thanks to Ferryman, Carana and others) and we began realise how futile they were.   

Amaral, a senior Police Officer certainly misunderstood them, and maybe influenced by him W-T accepted them at face value, not realising what little they showed ?

AIMO, of course, but SILS mistakes are facts

[Carana]

The moment the author claimed that something  happened to Maddie prior to the 3rd May 2007 was the moment he or she lost ALL credibility because numerous independent witnesses saw her that day.

But, according to that group, all of the witnesses were all "unreliable", either because they were all mistaken or were in cahoots in a mega conspiracy.

What I find a bit bewildering is the hero worship of a certain coordinator who apparently got everything right... except for, well... just about everything.

[Carana]

Why should anyone  feel the need to defend it ?

Those who feel that it's an accurate portrayal of facts that would withstand scrutiny might, Jassi, why not?

[jassi]

But, according to that group, all of the witnesses were all "unreliable", either because they were all mistaken or were in cahoots in a mega conspiracy.

What I find a bit bewildering is the hero worship of a certain coordinator who apparently got everything right... except for, well... just about everything.

Don't know about 'hero worship' but there's certainly a degree of enthusiasm for the guy who challenged the McCanns and won.
 What is there not to like ?   

[Mr Gray]

Williams-Thomas disagreed with the abduction theory. I assume that was because he thought the evidence didn't support it. SIL also found no evidence to support it. Why then do you reach different conclusions about them?

 think the latest development means sil could never be regarded as neutral....I had to chuckle...what neutral person would name their dog......wait for it......

[G-Unit]

Because sil has doubted the mccanns on several other issues, suggesting they are not telling the truth

There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction so to say there is no evidence is untrue

So your post #311 in answer to SIL's post wasn't in answer to that particular post at all. It was, in effect, an accusation based upon your opinion of SJL's unidentified previous posts? An accusation for which you have offered no evidence. Until you do so, it remains your opinion.

What is your circumstantial evidence of abduction?

[Mr Gray]

So your post #311 in answer to SIL's post wasn't in answer to that particular post at all. It was, in effect, an accusation based upon your opinion of SJL's unidentified previous posts? An accusation for which you have offered no evidence. Until you do so, it remains your opinion.

What is your circumstantial evidence of abduction?

lets start withe the mccanns statements

[Carana]

Don't know about 'hero worship' but there's certainly a degree of enthusiasm for the guy who challenged the McCanns and won.
 What is there not to like ?   

On his right to continue to accuse them of unproven crimes.

If you were the subject of such a book, a documentary and an intense promo tour all to the effect that, as an expert, professional X's view was that you had (substitute anything you like... that you had defrauded a family member, that you are a covert hooker working for the FSB, that you had raped x victims, ate babies for breakfast, whatever you like), all in the name of the superior right of free speech, what would your reaction be?

Add to that that you felt at the time that you felt that you were being framed.

[G-Unit]

lets start withe the mccanns statements

What about them?

[jassi]

On his right to continue to accuse them of unproven crimes.

If you were the subject of such a book, a documentary and an intense promo tour all to the effect that, as an expert, professional X's view was that you had (substitute anything you like... that you had defrauded a family member, that you are a covert hooker working for the FSB, that you had raped x victims, ate babies for breakfast, whatever you like), all in the name of the superior right of free speech, what would your reaction be?

Don't take it so to heart, he hasn't written about you, has he?

[Mr Gray]

What about them?

They are circumstantial evidence of abduction

[G-Unit]

They are circumstantial evidence of abduction

Really? How?