Maddie cops pursue mysterious woman in purple?

[Mr Gray]

All this talk about people hanging round mccanns apartment.

Now indicating it could be an inside job.

Yet they were quite happy to leave twins in creche everyday,after the so called abduction.

Even leaving them, when they wasn't there.

Why did they think it was so safe.

IMO because there was no abduction.

IMO there was an abduction and that's where the evidence points

[Jane Mcard]

Who's to say who should be hanging about and who shouldn't in a busy holiday resort where everyone is a stranger to everyone else. No one knows anyone so they wouldn't know a stranger and who was staying in what apartment. I don't think there was an abduction and the last people to see her should be the ones under investigation imo.

[Mr Gray]

Who's to say who should be hanging about and who shouldn't in a busy holiday resort where everyone is a stranger to everyone else. No one knows anyone so they wouldn't know a stranger and who was staying in what apartment. I don't think there was an abduction and the last people to see her should be the ones under investigation imo.

They have been investigated ...and are now not suspects
All this is off topic I'm surprised it's being allowed to stay

[kizzy]

IMO there was an abduction and that's where the evidence points

Well what evidence is that, Davel.

Surely, not the mysterious woman in purple.

[John]

IMO there was an abduction and that's where the evidence points

I'm afraid your observation is unwarranted. There is no truly independent evidence which can support abduction.  A missing child and an open window can suggest many other things.  Your continued insistence to the contrary is just a tad obvious.

On the other hand however, the trail followed by two specially trained and wholly independent scent dogs who were brought in immediately after Madeleine disappeared tells a different story. Should it be later proven that she did get out and thereafter met with some mischief the attention will then rightly return to focus on her parents.

[Mr Gray]

I'm afraid your observation is unwarranted. There is no truly independent evidence which can support abduction.  A missing child and an open window can suggest many other things.  Your continued insistence to the contrary is just a tad obvious.

On the other hand however, the trail followed by two specially trained and wholly independent scent dogs who were brought in immediately after Madeleine disappeared tells a different story. Should it be later proven that she did get out and thereafter met with some mischief the attention will then rightly return to focus on her parents.

All the circumstantial evidence points to abduction...
As I understand the dogs trail is not considered evidence according to a post by Alice
If we knew why the final report considered woke and wandered highly unlikely we might understand why SAY seem so convinced in abduction

[stephen25000]

Well what evidence is that, Davel.

Surely, not the mysterious woman in purple.

That has been asked for, for some time.

We already know that no forensic evidence has been found of an intruder in the apartment, and the walking out theory is also credible, and accidental death has not been disproved either, inside or outside the apartment.

[kizzy]

All the circumstantial evidence points to abduction...
As I understand the dogs trail is not considered evidence according to a post by Alice
If we knew why the final report considered woke and wandered highly unlikely we might understand why SAY seem so convinced in abduction

I M O the circumstantial evidence points to anything but abduction.

The list is endless.

[John]

All the circumstantial evidence points to abduction...
As I understand the dogs trail is not considered evidence according to a post by Alice
If we knew why the final report considered woke and wandered highly unlikely we might understand why SAY seem so convinced in abduction

Circumstantial evidence is only consequential if real tangible evidence is unavailable.  In the Madeleine disappearance, there was no indication of an intruder, no valuables were disturbed or missing, no ransom was demanded and the investigation of every trail and possible suspect proved futile.

[Mr Gray]

That has been asked for, for some time.

We already know that no forensic evidence has been found of an intruder in the apartment, and the walking out theory is also credible, and accidental death has not been disproved either, inside or outside the apartment.

And I have given it many times
Will post again later
There has to be a reason why the Portuguese said woke and wandered was highly unlikely and why both investigations deem the parents not suspects

You are ignoring both the elephants in the room

[Mr Gray]

I M O the circumstantial evidence points to anything but abduction.

The list is endless.

Give me your top three pieces of evidence

[John]

And I have given it many times
Will post again later
There has to be a reason why the Portuguese said woke and wandered was highly unlikely and why both investigations deem the parents not suspects

You are ignoring both the elephants in the room

Actually the scent dog evidence is the elephant in the room. 

[Mr Gray]

Actually the scent dog evidence is the elephant in the room.

I'm not 100    per cent but as I understand its the same as the alerts and not considered reliable evidence
Why would the Portuguese ignore their own dogs

[Mr Gray]

Circumstantial evidence is only consequential if real tangible evidence is unavailable.  In the Madeleine disappearance, there was no indication of an intruder, no valuables were disturbed or missing, no ransom was demanded and the investigation of every trail and possible suspect proved futile.

Doesn't mean an abduction didn't take place...it may well have been the forensic examination of the apartment was poor
Maddie's sheets being sent to the laundry for instance...they should still be available

[Mr Gray]

Police Dogs cannot be cross-examined!


R v Pieterson and Holloway, (1994) The Times, 11th November

There was no authority hitherto in English law as to the admissibility of evidence concerning a tracker dog. There were a number of authorities from other jurisdictions including R v Te Whiu and Buckton [1964] NZLR 748 where it was held that a person giving evidence of a tracker dog's actions must not express his opinion about what the dog was thinking at the material time. This decision, R v Pieterson and Holloway, (1994) The Times, 11th November should blaze an English trail and set a precedent for any future dog tracking.


The case concerns the admissibility of tracker dog evidence. Within minutes of a robbery, Ben, a police dog, searched an area surrounding a club and picked up a track. Both appeals were based on the contention that the judge was wrong to admit evidence concerning the tracker dog's actions.

The submission was that that evidence was, in effect or certainly analogous to, hearsay because there was only the handler's evidence of the actions or reactions of the dog; which could not be cross examined.

Alternatively it was submitted that the evidence with regard to such tracker dogs was unreliable, that a dog had a will of its own and might act mischievously or, even without that, might act in a way inconsistent with the Pavlovian reaction sought to be induced in the dog by its training.

The Court of Appeal ruled, (with safeguards); that if a dog handler could establish that the dog had been properly trained and, over a period of time, the dog's reactions indicated that it was a reliable pointer to the existence of a scent of some particular individual then that evidence should properly be admitted.