Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: gilet on April 15, 2014, 08:07:57 PM
Title: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 15, 2014, 08:07:57 PM
When push comes to shove, there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns, there is no theory which can possibly explain the involvement of the parents of Madeleine in any crime. Being a very minor adviser to a government-set-up quango is not a crime.
And there is no explanation for the actions of those people on the internet and in real life who wish to pursue the McCanns for possible crimes without any evidence, without any logical theory as to how they are involved, other than the bizarre response that these people "see things clearer than others".
Is the ability to "see things clearer than others" a way of saying that they don't give a damm about the law, the need for evidence or any of the other niceties of civilised society and prefer just to find the justice they see from behind their blinkers or what exactly do you mean by that phrase?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
If the window was open before Kate arrived why wasn't the door slammed shut. Why did it conveniently shut when she arrived? Also there was no evidence of anyone going through the window - it makes no sense to have that open window whatever way your want to spin it. How couldn't Kate remember the last time she saw her daughter? I don't know if I checked before they left to go to the tapas but Gerry said he did. You'd think she'd try and remember the last time she saw her daughter. Why did she think Madeleine was under the covers but Gerry said she was on top of the covers. These are very important details of when they last saw their daughter and their answers are very suspicious! Also can you explain how the door moved 3 times because an abductor would've only moved it once at the most and then left with Madeleine. If the cadaver scent Eddie found was Madeleine then she died before 8.30 and probably around 7. So that rules an abductor or burglar out of causing her death. A crime was covered up if that is the truth. This is a possible homicide to cover up such a death. Anything else would be a tragic accident e.g. a fall from the sofa. Even her taking tablets which I don't believe is a tragic accident and wouldn't be covered up IMO.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 15, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
Have you never noticed on a hot but breezy day if you leave a door open, and then open another, the first door has a tendency to slam shut. My mother was forever telling me to shut the doors. These days in my own home if I have the outside kitchen door open and go to answer the front door, the inner kitchen door tends to slam shut.
Air movement is a complex matter and without experimenting in the actual flat, neither you nor I can make assumptions as to how the window and doors would be affected.
Your tendency to take the precise words of a reported statement as the only possible interpretation. We have no way whatsoever of knowing precisely what Kate McCann said during the questioning, only the report which was made of those words.
Your inability to understand that real police understand that statements taken when a person is suffering a trauma as Kate was in May, or statements sometimes months after an event have to be taken as the basis of the truth and the content must be examined carefully. People do not always remember things as clearly as you seem to believe, even vital details.
As for your comment about Eddie. You are making a presumption that even Grime never made. You seem to believe 100% that the dog alerted to a cadaver. That simply is a gross mis-representation of fact. Grime stated that his dog alert was suggestive of cadaver scent. But cadaver scent can be introduced without direct cadaver presence in the apartment at all. So you are presuming there was a cadaver in 5A when the facts tell us only that there might have been cadaver scent. A crucial difference.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 15, 2014, 08:46:29 PM
Have you never noticed on a hot but breezy day if you leave a door open, and then open another, the first door has a tendency to slam shut. My mother was forever telling me to shut the doors. These days in my own home if I have the outside kitchen door open and go to answer the front door, the inner kitchen door tends to slam shut.
Air movement is a complex matter and without experimenting in the actual flat, neither you nor I can make assumptions as to how the window and doors would be affected.
Your tendency to take the precise words of a reported statement as the only possible interpretation. We have no way whatsoever of knowing precisely what Kate McCann said during the questioning, only the report which was made of those words.
Your inability to understand that real police understand that statements taken when a person is suffering a trauma as Kate was in May, or statements sometimes months after an event have to be taken as the basis of the truth and the content must be examined carefully. People do not always remember things as clearly as you seem to believe, even vital details.
As for your comment about Eddie. You are making a presumption that even Grime never made. You seem to believe 100% that the dog alerted to a cadaver. That simply is a gross mis-representation of fact. Grime stated that his dog alert was suggestive of cadaver scent. But cadaver scent can be introduced without direct cadaver presence in the apartment at all. So you are presuming there was a cadaver in 5A when the facts tell us only that there might have been cadaver scent. A crucial difference.
What proof is there that the window was open ?
NONE of course.
kate mccanns words, as to telling the truth...............................
A court is where that could be judged.
As to the cadaver scent, insufficient evidence either way.
That also applied to the shelving of the case. Insufficient evidence.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 15, 2014, 09:08:26 PM
kate mccanns words, as to telling the truth...............................
A court is where that could be judged.
As to the cadaver scent, insufficient evidence either way.
That also applied to the shelving of the case. Insufficient evidence.
Well a court would base the judgement on listening carefully, watching her and weighing up the words she speaks against other known facts. Proper observation of the person, proper examination of her actual words (remember the files do NOT contain Kate's actual words).
Now an interesting fact is that all the people who have actually had the opportunity to do those things (unlike Amaral who never bothered to meet her and the internet posse who have never had the chance to meet her) have found Kate McCann to be honest and genuine. They have found that her reports are credible and have supported her and her family.
As to the dog alerts. Even if you don't like it and are too stubborn to accept it, it is nevertheless a statement of fact that they do not indicate definitely that any corpse was present in Apt. 5A and most certainly do not indicate the death of Madeleine McCann. They are simply suggestive that cadaver scent may have been present and there are many potential explanations for that which have been posted many, many times but which you simply choose to ignore.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 15, 2014, 09:14:44 PM
Dogs who alerted to potential cadaver scent which could have no connection to Madeleine. Cell Phones - using mobile phones is not a crime and there is no evidence of anything illegal related to those mobiles Statements - if all the statements matched perfectly that would be suspicious. Inconsistencies between statements is normal. People do not remember the same things as each other or the same things at different times. Sleeping Kids - kids do sleep through things. Perfectly normal especially when exhausted by a busy day on holiday. Question Refusing - done on legal advice. Sensible people take qualified legal advice no matter what the case when it is pointed out that the questions do not directly relate to finding the missing child. Leaving PDL - at a pre-arranged time when it was clear that Amaral's team was misinterpreting the evidence which was available. Litigation - only a moron would sit back and allow newspapers to lie about them and allow a disgraced ex-cop to lie about them. Perhaps that is why you find the litigation so odd. Body Language - the last resort when all else fails is to resort to this. Please refer me to a professional report from a proper expert in the subject rather than the online witterings. Fund - what is your problem with the fund, initially set up to deal with the monies which were coming in unrequested and ever since used legally and for the purpose of ensuring that their missing child is found and that liars do not get to make up theses which damage the search for her.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 15, 2014, 09:56:25 PM
Missing Cell Phone Records. Fund being so unrestricted. ... And the Smiths and the strange book
Of course none is evidence as admissible in a court of law, but explains why some are sceptical.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2014, 10:00:16 PM
Don't forget that the kids routine changed on the day Madeleine went missing.
Imagine any detective coming in on the case and asking what was their normal daily routine and was informed that the kids daily routine only changed once and that was the day she went missing - only hours before she was reported to be missing. That doesn't look good. And then he asks did anyone see the missing child at this routine time change and you say Yes a friend of the parents and his testimony contradicts the mother of the missing child. She said she was only wearing a towel, he can't remember what she was wearing. He said he went into the apartment. The mother said he never entered the apartment. They are now put to the top of the possible suspects list.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 15, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
If the window was open before Kate arrived why wasn't the door slammed shut. Why did it conveniently shut when she arrived? Also there was no evidence of anyone going through the window - it makes no sense to have that open window whatever way your want to spin it. How couldn't Kate remember the last time she saw her daughter? I don't know if I checked before they left to go to the tapas but Gerry said he did. You'd think she'd try and remember the last time she saw her daughter. Why did she think Madeleine was under the covers but Gerry said she was on top of the covers. These are very important details of when they last saw their daughter and their answers are very suspicious! Also can you explain how the door moved 3 times because an abductor would've only moved it once at the most and then left with Madeleine. If the cadaver scent Eddie found was Madeleine then she died before 8.30 and probably around 7. So that rules an abductor or burglar out of causing her death. A crime was covered up if that is the truth. This is a possible homicide to cover up such a death. Anything else would be a tragic accident e.g. a fall from the sofa. Even her taking tablets which I don't believe is a tragic accident and wouldn't be covered up IMO.
Based on this mountain of evidence you should then be able to piece together a simple, plausible explanation regarding what happened to Madeleine, who committed the crime, why and with whose help (if any) to cover the tracks. I look forward to reading it. If you're worried about libel you could always describe it hypothetically, changing names where necessary.
ETA: if you were really worried about not committing libel you might actually want to reconsider what you wrote in the above post anyway.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 15, 2014, 11:11:38 PM
Same goes for the abduction theory, Alfie. Who did it, why and how please?
I'm all ears and believe it or not totally open to persuasion.
I've no idea who or why, how is fairly easy though - they entered the apartment either via the window or by using a spare set of keys, or possibly via the unlocked patio doors, picked up the child and left shortly therafter. A three year old child was removed from her parents' home in the middle of the night in Australia whilst the parents were present, which shows it's perfectly possible.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 16, 2014, 12:52:36 AM
Yes I agree, and by far the simplest, most plausible explanation is that she was taken from the apartment by a stranger. In fact it's the only theory that fits the known facts, something which is clearly demonstrated by the complete absence of any other workable theory to have been put forward in the last 7 years.
I don't think the theory that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger is plausible ... not in the circumstances described by the McCanns
That open for instance
No-one climbed in or out of it ... yet it was open
None of the 'explanations' given for it are 'plausible'
... Well, except for the one that says the window/shutters were opened ( but never used for exit/entry ) because it was a staged break-in ... that, at least, is a logical explanation
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 02:42:28 AM
I don't think the theory that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger is plausible ... not in the circumstances described by the McCanns
That open for instance
No-one climbed in or out of it ... yet it was open
None of the 'explanations' given for it are 'plausible'
... Well, except for the one that says the window/shutters were opened ( but never used for exit/entry ) because it was a staged break-in ... that, at least, is a logical explanation
Here we go again. You have seen this dozens of times Icabod. Why do you keep saying the same things, over and over?
If two people were involved in the lifting and carrying, then the lifter is likely to be a woman known to Madeleine. Someone she has confidence in.
Entry is made by the obvious way in, the front door. A door that is deeply recessed and in almost complete darkness. Also a spot that no-one passes and behind a fairly high wall.
Entry was made to two apartments in the block via the front door in the weeks before Madeleine was taken.
Reasons for the window to be open: - As an escape route in emergency - To give moral support to the woman inside - and instructions - To pass things through from man outside to woman inside (maybe chloroform pad?) and receive back - to give the false impression that maddeleine climbed out of the window and wanderd off. - To give a little natural added light to the room - Maybe to illuminate the room with a torch from outside. The lifter would have both hands full. - To warn if anyone came via the front, or if alone to see if anyone was coming. - Heriberto has a theory involving only one man who lifted Madeleine through the window
There are other reasons, but it is late and I am tired. Plenty of reasons for the window to be open. Even if only one person was involved 5 of those reasons stand.
BUT NO reasons if you are determined that The Mccanns Dunit 8)-))) and refuse to consider what SY believe ... that Madelleine WAS ABDUCTED.
All the above imo, of course.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 16, 2014, 08:28:26 AM
I don't think the theory that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger is plausible ... not in the circumstances described by the McCanns
That open for instance
No-one climbed in or out of it ... yet it was open
None of the 'explanations' given for it are 'plausible'
... Well, except for the one that says the window/shutters were opened ( but never used for exit/entry ) because it was a staged break-in ... that, at least, is a logical explanation
Why is it not possible for the intruder to have had a spare set of keys? Why is it not possible to have entered or exited by the window or sliding doors for that matter? How is this scenario less plausible than the supposedly simple scenario which no McCann sceptic has ever been able to describe in any plausible manner that fits the known facts?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
Why is it not possible for the intruder to have had a spare set of keys? Why is it not possible to have entered or exited by the window or sliding doors for that matter? How is this scenario less plausible than the supposedly simple scenario which no McCann sceptic has ever been able to describe in any plausible manner that fits the known facts?
Kate debunked the sliding door herself, whilst also admitting she is lying about something.
Why is it not possible for the intruder to have had a spare set of keys? Why is it not possible to have entered or exited by the window or sliding doors for that matter? How is this scenario less plausible than the supposedly simple scenario which no McCann sceptic has ever been able to describe in any plausible manner that fits the known facts?
IMO one of the most plausible reasons for the open window was the fact that an abductor would need to check that the car park was clear of people before leaving the apartment with Madeleine. Surely knowing whether the coast was clear or not would have been of mega importance?
The front door was so recessed that it was not possible to make that vital check by just opening it and looking out. You would need to leave 5A and walk forward a couple of metres to do that - but insodoing you would then also risk being seen by anyone in the car park.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 09:59:55 AM
Good point Benice, so noiw we have
Reasons for the window to be open: - To check that the car park was clear of people before leaving the apartment with Madeleine - As an escape route in emergency - To give moral support to the woman inside - and instructions - To pass things through from man outside to woman inside (maybe chloroform pad?) and receive back - to give the false impression that maddeleine climbed out of the window and wanderd off. - To give a little natural added light to the room - Maybe to illuminate the room with a torch from outside. The lifter would have both hands full. - To warn if anyone came via the front, or if alone to see if anyone was coming. - Heriberto has a theory involving only one man who lifted Madeleine through the window
Nine possible reasons , imo
Anyone add any more?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 10:00:34 AM
IMO one of the most plausible reasons for the open window was the fact that an abductor would need to check that the car park was clear of people before leaving the apartment with Madeleine. Surely knowing whether the coast was clear or not would have been of mega importance?
The front door was so recessed that it was not possible to make that vital check by just opening it and looking out. You would need to leave 5A and walk forward a couple of metres to do that - but insodoing you would then also risk being seen by anyone in the car park.
What abductor benice ?
Where is the evidence, let alone proof of abduction ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Don't forget that the kids routine changed on the day Madeleine went missing.
Imagine any detective coming in on the case and asking what was their normal daily routine and was informed that the kids daily routine only changed once and that was the day she went missing - only hours before she was reported to be missing. That doesn't look good. And then he asks did anyone see the missing child at this routine time change and you say Yes a friend of the parents and his testimony contradicts the mother of the missing child. She said she was only wearing a towel, he can't remember what she was wearing. He said he went into the apartment. The mother said he never entered the apartment. They are now put to the top of the possible suspects list.
This smacks of desperation.
Do you actually stick to a routine on holiday? Do you not take opportunities to see new things, do new things if the chance arises?
And a couple of inconsistencies between statements, some made months after the event. Would you not find it even more suspicious if the statements matched in every single detail. Most people would. And do you think SY didn't notice these or do you think they completely ignored them before they said after a full review and further investigation (which may have included further questioning of the witnesses) that neither the parents, nor the friends were suspects or persons of interest?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Simple scenario, the kid died, her body was chucked into a big dumpster type bin, off to the tip she went, the end.
There is no debunking of the sliding door theory of abduction by Kate in that film. She refers to Madeleine not an abductor. Perhaps you should study it more closely again?
And what lie are you referring to? There is no lie by Kate McCann in that film that I can see.
As for your "simple scenario", it misses out motive for the actions, motive for the friends reactions and explanation of the death. Not actually so simple as you claim.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Where is the evidence, let alone proof of abduction ?
This thread is NOT ABOUT PROOF OF ABDUCTION. Once again you have made it obvious that you either cannot work out what a thread is about by reading the title or you are here simply to disrupt and not contribute to the topic being discussed.
This thread is about the lack of evidence proving that the McCanns were involved.
If you bothered to remain on topic once, you might just manage to come up with some evidence for a crime by the McCanns.
If you cannot manage that, then this thread is simply proving its worth by showing that neither you, nor anyone else can actually show there is any evidence of a crime by the McCanns.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 12:57:36 PM
There is no debunking of the sliding door theory of abduction by Kate in that film. She refers to Madeleine not an abductor. Perhaps you should study it more closely again?
And what lie are you referring to? There is no lie by Kate McCann in that film that I can see.
As for your "simple scenario", it misses out motive for the actions, motive for the friends reactions and explanation of the death. Not actually so simple as you claim.
It's debunked, an abductor would have to do all the things Maddie that would have to do to get in/out via the back door. He or she didn't because there was no trace of that and the abductor doesn't exist.
Kate - "I'm not lying about that..."
Clearly she is lying about something else.
Motive: The kids dead, they want to get rid.
Motive for the friends reactions: Dunno wtf you are chatting about.
Explanation of the death: She ceased being alive.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 12:57:54 PM
Meets the criteria - child missing and never seen again. What more is there?
That is the problem with certain posters here. They think it appropriate to simply invent a scenario like the one you praised and they completely forget the need for EVIDENCE.
Can you provide any evidence for this scenario? No you cannot.
That is the point of this thread and you are making it for me.
You can make up claims about the parents but there is not one iota of evidence to back up the claims you and others are making.
It would be rather funny that you should have asked "what more is there?" as if making up a scenario was all that mattered but this is a serious case and serious cases demand evidence.
Now where is the evidence that supports that scenario or is it just guesswork?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 12:58:26 PM
Meanwhile in the real world what exactly have SY found ?
Ah yes , 'persons of interest', after I believe £6,000,000 or so being spent , and of course .ongoing.
Reasons for mccanns hiding what really happened to Madeleine, there are quite a few. .
If it was proved that Madeleine suffered a fatal accident in the apartment and the parents were negligent in their childcare.................END OF CAREERS.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 01:10:40 PM
It's the simplest solution & doesn't require the invention of an abductor, and all the further speculation that goes with him/her, or collusion between the entire T9.
But as I keep reminding you. Making up stories or scenarios is one thing. Offering any evidence to support those stories is another.
What you seem to forget is that evidence is needed otherwise you are just posting potentially serious libel.
Now do you have any evidence at all? Remember this thread is about evidence not about guesswork.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 01:16:31 PM
For me, there is no clear evidence of abduction and no clear evidence of parental involvement which leaves anybody who wishes to form an opinion on one side of the fence or the other.
I would very much like to believe the McCanns had no involvement but what keeps me on the other side of the fence is the sheer volume of anomalies that have surrounded events from the very beginning. The simple fact is they arouse suspicion in me that should not under normal circumstances be present.
Why is that suspicion there? Maybe because of the things Pathfinder or Slartibartfast listed? Or maybe because the McCanns have voluntarily put themselves in the spotlight like nobody has ever done before in similar circumstances and something about their behaviour has led to me being unable to trust them?
Whatever the reason, it should be pretty easy for me to believe in abduction but yet I just don't and as yet no argument that I've heard has changed my view. Why should it be so hard to convince myself and others about abduction?
8((()*/
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 01:20:21 PM
The trouble is that there is no evidence which can prove the guess which you are making as to what happened.
Can you provide any evidence that the McCanns were involved in any crime or not, because nobody so far has managed to do so either in the real world or on this thread?
As it stands there is no proof of anything.
The case was shelved due to lack of evidence.
What have SY produced after spending several millions of taxpayers money ?
Nothing, apart 'from persons of interest'.
Has there been a sign or trace of Madelene in nearly 7 years ?
No.
Have SY the power to act in this case ?
No.
So what do we have ?
Inconclusive evidence from the forensic examination of the samples taken.
No evidence of abduction.
...and the rest ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 01:21:05 PM
A child went missing and was never seen again. Have I named anybody responsible?
The scenario which you so rapidly and enthusiastically praised just a few posts ago. Do not try to pretend that you did not heap praise on that scenario now or have you forgotten what you posted so quickly?
I have no idea why you are asking whether you have named anyone, that is not the point of the post you are replying to.
I simply asked if you had any evidence to support the scenario which you so clearly supported? Do you have any or not?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 16, 2014, 01:24:22 PM
Do you actually stick to a routine on holiday? Do you not take opportunities to see new things, do new things if the chance arises?
And a couple of inconsistencies between statements, some made months after the event. Would you not find it even more suspicious if the statements matched in every single detail. Most people would. And do you think SY didn't notice these or do you think they completely ignored them before they said after a full review and further investigation (which may have included further questioning of the witnesses) that neither the parents, nor the friends were suspects or persons of interest?
I don't think so. Detectives are looking for the abnormal. First kids routine change of the week happening before the child's disappearance alarm bells are ringing! Only a fool would think otherwise. Look at the recent Kular case. She said Mikaeel's normal routine had changed and was lying to cover up his death.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2014, 01:25:53 PM
The scenario which you so rapidly and enthusiastically praised just a few posts ago. Do not try to pretend that you did not heap praise on that scenario now or have you forgotten what you posted so quickly?
I have no idea why you are asking whether you have named anyone, that is not the point of the post you are replying to.
I simply asked if you had any evidence to support the scenario which you so clearly supported? Do you have any or not?
As I recall, that simple solution said that a child had died and been disposed of in a skip. I agreed that it was a simple solution and one that was difficult to refute.
You have a very nasty habit of reading what you wish to read, rather than what is written.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 16, 2014, 01:30:15 PM
As I recall, that simple solution said that a child had died and been disposed of in a skip. I agreed that it was a simple solution and one that was difficult to refute.
You have a very nasty habit of reading what you wish to read, rather than what is written.
I would have liked to have seen photos of that building site behind the church at the time.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 01:31:13 PM
What have SY produced after spending several millions of taxpayers money ?
Nothing, apart 'from persons of interest'.
Has there been a sign or trace of Madelene in nearly 7 years /
No.
Have SY the power to act in this case ?
No.
So what do we have ?
Inconclusive evidence from the forensic examination of the samples taken.
No evidence of abduction.
...and the rest ?
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.
Thank you for admitting that fact at last.
Not only is there no proof, though, but:
There is no evidence of an abduction which I stated in the opening post. That is not in dispute.
There is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns either. For some reason you always fail to state that fact, a sure sign that you are biased I would suggest.
And there is no evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead. The inconclusive nature of the forensic samples you referred to relates to none of them being conclusively related to Madeleine. Even where the samples to be related to Madeleine they would provide no evidence of death.
And though your point about SY not having jurisdiction is off topic, I will respond to it for completeness. Though they have no direct jurisdiction, do you seriously believe that were they to find something of a crucial nature in the case, that the PJ and PT Judiciary would not react to that and deal with it? That there are two forces working on discovering the fate of Madeleine is something we should be glad about, in my opinion. But clearly you just think their attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine are a waste of time. Obviously we don't have the same desire to make sure that everything possible is done to seek this child and to seek justice for this child?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 01:32:46 PM
I don't think so. Detectives are looking for the abnormal. First kids routine change of the week happening before the child's disappearance alarm bells are ringing! Only a fool would think otherwise. Look at the recent Kular case. She said Mikaeel's normal routine had changed.
Yes but the McCanns are not suspects, SY are investigating 'a criminal act by a stranger' so they must have already been re interviewed, all the discrepancies cleared up & ruled out blahdy blahdy blah.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
For me, there is no clear evidence of abduction and no clear evidence of parental involvement which leaves anybody who wishes to form an opinion on one side of the fence or the other.
I would very much like to believe the McCanns had no involvement but what keeps me on the other side of the fence is the sheer volume of anomalies that have surrounded events from the very beginning. The simple fact is they arouse suspicion in me that should not under normal circumstances be present.
Why is that suspicion there? Maybe because of the things Pathfinder or Slartibartfast listed? Or maybe because the McCanns have voluntarily put themselves in the spotlight like nobody has ever done before in similar circumstances and something about their behaviour has led to me being unable to trust them?
Whatever the reason, it should be pretty easy for me to believe in abduction but yet I just don't and as yet no argument that I've heard has changed my view. Why should it be so hard to convince myself and others about abduction?
Suspicion is one thing. When that turns to outright libel and hateful abuse as it does in other places then that is entirely wrong.
When it becomes spurious scenarios for which not one tiny bit of evidence can be produced, in my opinon that is also wrong.
As for your inability to believe in abduction, I admit with the plethora of posts raising every possible suspicion on such grounds as blinks, a few inconsistencies in statements, a giggle or two over a few balloons, misinterpretation of DNA evidence such as that oft repeated mantra of 15 out of 19 and the dog alerts being seen as evidence when Grime himself is clear they are not, it is difficult to remain open-minded but that is what genuine seekers of truth must do.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 01:40:23 PM
Yes but the McCanns are not suspects, SY are investigating 'a criminal act by a stranger' so they must have already been re interviewed, all the discrepancies cleared up & ruled out blahdy blahdy blah.
The first part of your post is probably very accurate but unfortunately you seem to mock yourself for even posting it by the time your post ends.
You have no evidence of any crime by the McCanns do you? That is what I am taking from that comment about SY having stated that the McCanns are not suspects. And because you cannot bring yourself to admit that you resort to a stupid "blahdy blah" phrase to hide your inability.
If you have any evidence for your scenario or for the question in the opening post then do let us know. But as nobody has managed to provide any so far I doubt you will manage it.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 01:40:49 PM
There is no evidence of an abduction which I stated in the opening post. That is not in dispute.
There is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns either. For some reason you always fail to state that fact, a sure sign that you are biased I would suggest.
And there is no evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead. The inconclusive nature of the forensic samples you referred to relates to none of them being conclusively related to Madeleine. Even where the samples to be related to Madeleine they would provide no evidence of death.
And though your point about SY not having jurisdiction is off topic, I will respond to it for completeness. Though they have no direct jurisdiction, do you seriously believe that were they to find something of a crucial nature in the case, that the PJ and PT Judiciary would not react to that and deal with it? That there are two forces working on discovering the fate of Madeleine is something we should be glad about, in my opinion. But clearly you just think their attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine are a waste of time. Obviously we don't have the same desire to make sure that everything possible is done to seek this child and to seek justice for this child?
I judge SY by their lack of results.
i.e. they have found nothing.
The mccanns, no proof they have told the truth, and that's a fact as well.
They claimed they exhibited responsible parenting. NO THEY DIDN'T.
THEY and only they are responsible for Madeleine's predicament.
Surely you must agree on that ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 01:47:00 PM
Suspicion is one thing. When that turns to outright libel and hateful abuse as it does in other places then that is entirely wrong.
When it becomes spurious scenarios for which not one tiny bit of evidence can be produced, in my opinon that is also wrong.
As for your inability to believe in abduction, I admit with the plethora of posts raising every possible suspicion on such grounds as blinks, a few inconsistencies in statements, a giggle or two over a few balloons, misinterpretation of DNA evidence such as that oft repeated mantra of 15 out of 19 and the dog alerts being seen as evidence when Grime himself is clear they are not, it is difficult to remain open-minded but that is what genuine seekers of truth must do.
That's abduction out of the window too then.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 01:47:43 PM
The mccanns, no proof they have told the truth, and that's a fact as well.
They claimed they exhibited responsible parenting. NO THEY DIDN'T.
THEY and only they are responsible for Madeleine's predicament.
Surely you must agree on that ?
Just to correct one point in your post.
You are pre-judging SY, not judging them as you have nothing to judge. You do not have the remotest idea what they have found so far as they have not chosen to share all their information.
They appear to have found out one thing for certain. And have stated that fact very clearly. That finding is that neither the McCanns, nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest.
You choose to disbelieve the Police. I prefer to wait for their findings.
It is not up to the McCanns to prove they have told the truth. Your abysmal understanding of law shines through that ridiculous claim you make about them. When that is allied to your inability to believe what the police tell you, it suggests you should get a better understanding of law and a better sense of proportion in dealing with UK police forces.
And then you go completely OFF TOPIC by resorting to your mantra of parental blame. You don't agree they exhibited parental responsibility and cannot get that fixation from your mind when discussing the other matters can you. It is not the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss it then do so on a thread of your own. If you continue to attempt to discuss it here it will be blindingly obvious that you are trying to disrupt and that you cannot manage to discuss the topic of the thread at hand.
Now do you have any evidence of the McCanns being involved in any crime (against their daughter or any other crime at all)?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2014, 01:51:39 PM
Shame that school did not have on its curriculum the subject of Logic.
Then they might have taught the need for evidence.
No matter how you dress up the guesses as "schools for thought", theses, scenarios, theories etc. the fact remains that they are utterly worthless without evidence.
And no matter how many scenarios you post or praise here the fact remains that neither you nor any other poster is offering any evidence whatsoever to back up those guesses.
That is the point of the thread and you are making it perfectly for me. Thank you.
My pleasure. I think all are agreeing with you that there is no evidence of anything to implicate anyone.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 01:59:23 PM
The point is there is no evidence of anything isn't it ? (other than the cavity beneath the Murat driveway). Thread seems like a total waste of internet space...
[... post moderated ...]
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 02:04:01 PM
The point is there is no evidence of anything isn't it ? (other than the cavity beneath the Murat driveway). Thread seems like a total waste of internet space...
[... post moderated ...]
Is there any real evidence of such a cavity? Do you believe a crazed South African fantasist, self-confessed law breaker so much?
And yet you have no faith in SY officers?
Bias or what?
And just because you don't like a thread which proves that nobody can offer any more evidence about the involvement of the parents of Madeleine than they can about abduction does not mean it is a waste of internet space.
Perhaps all those out there on the internet whose lives seem to centre around abusing the McCanns for perceived crimes would do well to realise that when push comes to shove those claiming that the parents of Madeleine were involved CANNOT PROVIDE ANY REAL EVIDENCE OF THOSE CLAIMS. It is good that the admin of this forum are willing to allow the thread and give people the opportunity to try to offer such evidence. It is a shame that none of the posters so far can do so. Indeed most admit openly there is no evidence.
[... response to deleted quote off topic thus removed...]
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 02:10:55 PM
Clearly you are not aware that the threads on this forum are a kind of debate where posters "debate the issues". I am not entirely surprised about that as the bulk of your posts are merely mocking.
And how easily you forget that you posted the scenario as your belief as to what might have happened. Luckily we don't all have such short attention spans.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 02:13:48 PM
Stephen doesn't know what SY have found. He is not judging them. He is, as I pointed out, prejudging them.
And even when they do state what they have found such as that the McCanns are not suspects. He chooses not to believe them anyway and demands evidence.
A shame that in the past he has not demanded evidence of all those who suggest that the McCanns have committed some kind of crime. Such bias is unbecoming in one who claims to be a truth seeker but hardly surprising in a person whose only role is to trot out a mantra.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 02:18:49 PM
Clearly you are not aware that the threads on this forum are a kind of debate where posters "debate the issues". I am not entirely surprised about that as the bulk of your posts are merely mocking.
And how easily you forget that you posted the scenario as your belief as to what might have happened. Luckily we don't all have such short attention spans.
I believe many different things could have happened, but only one of them really did.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 02:26:55 PM
I believe many different things could have happened, but only one of them really did.
Of course a number of things could have happened but only one thing did happen.
But nobody knows which thing that was, do they? Those who claim they do are simply guessing based on unreliable data. Or do you have evidence to show otherwise?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 02:31:14 PM
Of course a number of things could have happened but only one thing did happen.
But nobody knows which thing that was, do they? Those who claim they do are simply guessing based on unreliable data. Or do you have evidence to show otherwise?
Kate & Gerry do.
And no, none of us here have any evidence, with the exception of sadie.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 16, 2014, 02:52:31 PM
Smithman is the key. If they identify him they can prove the nonsense of the impossible moving door and why those finger prints were found on the window.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
Smithman is the key. If they identify him they can prove the nonsense of the impossible moving door and why those finger prints were found on the window.
How will identifying a man carrying a child a quarter of a mile away relate specifically to the evidence given by Kate about a moving door within the apartment?
How will identifying a man carrying a child a quarter of a mile away relate specifically to the fingerprints found on the window? We know they were not the fingerprints of a man.
What evidence do you have for making that general claim in the above post?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 16, 2014, 02:59:46 PM
How will identifying a man carrying a child a quarter of a mile away relate specifically to the evidence given by Kate about a moving door within the apartment?
How will identifying a man carrying a child a quarter of a mile away relate specifically to the fingerprints found on the window? We know they were not the fingerprints of a man.
What evidence do you have for making that general claim in the above post?
Everything connects when he's identified. How Why When etc. His efits were done in 2008 and suppressed.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 03:01:04 PM
Right that's that dealt with, now let's get on with our lives.
Thank you for admitting that at last.
There is no evidence for the McCanns having committed any crime at all. And there is no evidence for abduction.
That is the point I have been making and finally you have managed to see the truth of the matter.
It is a shame that so many people still persist in their spurious definitive allegations about the McCanns when there is no evidence of any crime by them.
And it is a shame that some people persist in claiming that Madeleine was definitely abducted when there is no evidence for that either.
The fact is that anyone claiming to know what happened is simply guessing.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 03:02:31 PM
Everything connects when he's identified. How Why When etc. His efits were done in 2008 and suppressed.
I asked you to explain how you believe the identification of this man a quarter of a mile away specifically "connects" with the door closing in the apartment and with the female fingerprints.
Can you do that with some kind of logic or evidence or are you just guessing?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2014, 03:08:21 PM
There is no evidence for the McCanns having committed any crime at all. And there is no evidence for abduction.
That is the point I have been making and finally you have managed to see the truth of the matter.
It is a shame that so many people still persist in their spurious definitive allegations about the McCanns when there is no evidence of any crime by them.
And it is a shame that some people persist in claiming that Madeleine was definitely abducted when there is no evidence for that either.
The fact is that anyone claiming to know what happened is simply guessing.
Is there evidence that a crime has taken place at all?
Madeleine is missing, but as there is no knowledge of what happened to her, her disappearance might not be criminal. Have the police every stated a specific criminal act, or are they, too working on an assumption?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 03:08:45 PM
I asked you to explain how you believe the identification of this man a quarter of a mile away specifically "connects" with the door closing in the apartment and with the female fingerprints.
Can you do that with some kind of logic or evidence or are you just guessing?
It will be proved that he was carrying Madeleine so that means at least two knew about her death when it happened in the apartment due to the dogs evidence. Anything said after her estimated time of death by the accused can't be believed as it is simply staging including any other evidence found such as finger prints.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 03:12:42 PM
Is there evidence that a crime has taken place at all?
Madeleine is missing, but as there is no knowledge of what happened to her, her disappearance might not be criminal. Have the police every stated a specific criminal act, or are they, too working on an assumption?
I find that highly unlikely, there's no way she could have got out on her own.
I've known that all along, I didn't just work it out.
There is no evidence, that's why I was saying it's a pointless thread.
A shame that you didn't admit to that knowledge earlier then.
As for your belief that this is a pointless thread. I disagree strongly.
It is seriously eye-opening to see certain people such as yourself finally posting that there is actually no evidence that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.
And it is very revealing that nobody at all can offer any such evidence yet some people insist without evidence that they are guilty.
The value of the thread is in making it clear that is actually an untenable position and demonstrates that those people are merely guessing.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 03:28:24 PM
I believe that is one of the three possible explanations for her disappearance as you would realise if you had bothered to read the posts I have made on this thread and on others.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 03:28:58 PM
Is there evidence that a crime has taken place at all?
Madeleine is missing, but as there is no knowledge of what happened to her, her disappearance might not be criminal. Have the police every stated a specific criminal act, or are they, too working on an assumption?
Other than her leaving the apartment alone I'm struggling to think of what other non criminal scenarios for her disappearance there could be.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 03:32:37 PM
You are pre-judging SY, not judging them as you have nothing to judge. You do not have the remotest idea what they have found so far as they have not chosen to share all their information.
They appear to have found out one thing for certain. And have stated that fact very clearly. That finding is that neither the McCanns, nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest.
You choose to disbelieve the Police. I prefer to wait for their findings.
It is not up to the McCanns to prove they have told the truth. Your abysmal understanding of law shines through that ridiculous claim you make about them. When that is allied to your inability to believe what the police tell you, it suggests you should get a better understanding of law and a better sense of proportion in dealing with UK police forces.
And then you go completely OFF TOPIC by resorting to your mantra of parental blame. You don't agree they exhibited parental responsibility and cannot get that fixation from your mind when discussing the other matters can you. It is not the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss it then do so on a thread of your own. If you continue to attempt to discuss it here it will be blindingly obvious that you are trying to disrupt and that you cannot manage to discuss the topic of the thread at hand.
Now do you have any evidence of the McCanns being involved in any crime (against their daughter or any other crime at all)?
Another inane set of responses.
The SY police are far from foolproof.
Their history is littered with flawed cases, but you already know that.
You can prevaricate until the end of time,but it is solely the mccanns responsibility , that they left their children unprotected and in peril. This is the catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance. In all probability, they would have been charged with neglect if it had occurred in the UK.
As to the way the law works, I don't need any lectures from you.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 03:32:45 PM
It will be proved that he was carrying Madeleine so that means at least two knew about her death when it happened in the apartment due to the dogs evidence. Anything said after her estimated time of death by the accused can't be believed as it is simply staging including any other evidence found such as finger prints.
So you cannot connect the man with the door shutting or fingerprints as you claimed other than to guess that there has been some "staging".
And you add a spurious claim that a man carrying a child will prove that two people knew about this presumed death. And I am correct in calling it a presumed death on your part as the dog evidence neither proves that a cadaver ever was present in Apt 5A, and most certainly not that the cadaver scent detected related to Madeleine McCann. Your guesswork/presumptions about the alerts and their meaning is no more than that.
And your presumption that everyone is lying is no more than that either. You are merely guessing.
As the title says, there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.
You are simply confirming that fact.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 16, 2014, 03:32:51 PM
I believe that is one of the three possible explanations for her disappearance as you would realise if you had bothered to read the posts I have made on this thread and on others.
So you are not convinced that she was abducted by a stranger ?
thanks, I just wanted to clarify before joining your thread
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 03:35:45 PM
Their history is littered with flawed cases, but you already know that.
You can prevaricate until the end of time,but it is solely the mccanns responsibility , that they left their children unprotected and in peril. This is the catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance. In all probability, they would have been charged with neglect if it had occurred in the UK.
As to the way the law works, I don't need any lectures from you.
A great shame that you demonstrate a failure to understand the way the law works in your own posts then. I can only go on the actual evidence of the content of your posts, you understand.
And I do find it laughable that we have had on this thread another person citing a belief in the fantasist from South Africa which you did not query but you cannot bring yourself to understand that the vast proportion of the work of SY is honest and reliable.
In your desperation to harangue the McCanns you cannot bring yourself to admit that most UK police work is done honestly and reliably. That is the kind of inanity which most posters and readers will recognise.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 03:40:20 PM
A great shame that you demonstrate a failure to understand the way the law works in your own posts then. I can only go on the actual evidence of the content of your posts, you understand.
And I do find it laughable that we have had on this thread another person citing a belief in the fantasist from South Africa which you did not query but you cannot bring yourself to understand that the vast proportion of the work of SY is honest and reliable.
Prove Mr Birch is wrong, go on, get your spade out.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 03:40:53 PM
It will be proved that he was carrying Madeleine so that means at least two knew about her death when it happened in the apartment due to the dogs evidence. Anything said after her estimated time of death by the accused can't be believed as it is simply staging including any other evidence found such as finger prints.
Surely, surely, by now, you understand thta there is NO EVIDENCE from the dogs in 5A, in the villa or in the car. No evidence.... NONE .... just a mighty cock up by Amaral, who at best did not understand the alerts meanings and the forensics from the UK.. And at worst may have been trying to fit the Mccanns up? Only my opinion.
NO EVIDENCE Pathfinder. It has been gone over repeatedly and you are still denying the facts.
Try pulling your head out of the sand and rereading all the stuff, pathfinder. Please.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 03:41:55 PM
So you are not convinced that she was abducted by a stranger ?
thanks, I just wanted to clarify before joining your thread
Though mine is the opening post, it is not in fact my thread. It was created out of another by the admin of this forum.
The initial post was in fact a response to some rather ridiculous comments from people alleging that the McCanns were guilty of criminal actions, which they could not support with evidence.
As I said at the time, when push comes to shove, the truth is that people cannot provide any evidence at all that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 03:43:17 PM
A great shame that you demonstrate a failure to understand the way the law works in your own posts then. I can only go on the actual evidence of the content of your posts, you understand.
And I do find it laughable that we have had on this thread another person citing a belief in the fantasist from South Africa which you did not query but you cannot bring yourself to understand that the vast proportion of the work of SY is honest and reliable.
In your desperation to harangue the McCanns you cannot bring yourself to admit that most UK police work is done honestly and reliably. That is the kind of inanity which most posters and readers will recognise.
An expected response, but hardly surprising.
The bottom line remains, the mccanns are responsible for the fate that befell Madeleine, no one else.
Posters who know the background to what happened will know that as well, and not some watered down version on crimewatch, or the Mills and Boon rubbish of km's book.
You are marked by your uncritical defense of the mccanns.
P.S. Birch is a nut job, and if you had paid attention to my posts in the past you would have seen that.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 03:43:55 PM
The bottom line remains, the mccanns are responsible for the fate that befell Madeleine, no one else.
Posters who know the background to what happened will know that as well, and not some watered down version on crimewatch, or the Mills and Boon rubbish of km's book.
You are marked by your uncritical defense of the mccanns.
You are marked by your obsessive mantra which is entirely OFF TOPIC as usual.
And your inability to understand that the McCanns were actually cleared of any abandonment of their children is also very enlightening.
The mantra you choose to repeat ad nauseam, does not help anyone solve the case. It is said just to hurt the parents of Madeleine as much as you are able. Everyone knows about the mistake they made. Your sick pleasure in posting your mantra about it dozens and dozens of times a week helps nobody to find the missing child. You know that and don't really care do you?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 03:52:08 PM
Though mine is the opening post, it is not in fact my thread. It was created out of another by the admin of this forum.
The initial post was in fact a response to some rather ridiculous comments from people alleging that the McCanns were guilty of criminal actions, which they could not support with evidence.
As I said at the time, when push comes to shove, the truth is that people cannot provide any evidence at all that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.
Well of course no-one here can provide evidence that the McCanns are guilty of any crime ... but you knew that before asking didn't you ?
What might be more interesting, I think, would be a discussion as to whether there is any evidence which might be seen to implicate the McCanns
What do you think ? ... do you think there is any evidence which might be 'suggestive' of the McCanns being involved in a crime ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 16, 2014, 04:00:27 PM
Surely, surely, by now, you understand thta there is NO EVIDENCE from the dogs in 5A, in the villa or in the car. No evidence.... NONE .... just a mighty cock up by Amaral, who at best did not understand the alerts meanings and the forensics from the UK.. And at worst may have been trying to fit the Mccanns up? Only my opinion.
NO EVIDENCE Pathfinder. It has been gone over repeatedly and you are still denying the facts.
Try pulling your head out of the sand and rereading all the stuff, pathfinder. Please.
Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 16, 2014, 04:33:53 PM
Simple scenario, the kid died, her body was chucked into a big dumpster type bin, off to the tip she went, the end.
SO you're ruling out the sliding door (for reasons I haven't fully investigated but never mind) but don't say why it is impossible for someone to have gained entry with a spare set of keys or via the window.
How about elaborating somewhat on your simple scenario, eg: when was "the kid" dumped?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 16, 2014, 04:35:19 PM
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on April 16, 2014, 04:36:32 PM
"Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it."
Of course. But it is also the case that the onus is on the person making a claim to provide the corroborating evidence.
Afaik no such corroborating evidence has been provided. It is of course possible that, at some time in the future, corroborating evidence may be found. But at present it is perfectly correct for sadie to say No Evidence.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 16, 2014, 04:37:25 PM
It's the simplest solution & doesn't require the invention of an abductor, and all the further speculation that goes with him/her, or collusion between the entire T9.
I'm afraid it does require the invention of a T9 conspiracy if the "kid" being "dumped" occurred at the time of the Smiths sighting.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2014, 04:37:39 PM
Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it.
how can the alerts be part of the case...where is the corroborating evidence going to come from from the appt...from the car
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2014, 04:38:54 PM
SO you're ruling out the sliding door (for reasons I haven't fully investigated but never mind) but don't say why it is impossible for someone to have gained entry with a spare set of keys or via the window.
How about elaborating somewhat on your simple scenario, eg: when was "the kid" dumped?
Do you imagine there was an abductor & that he/she also had some keys?
when was "the kid" dumped?
Probably some time after her death.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Albertini on April 16, 2014, 05:27:17 PM
Let us be clear that there was no evidence found (in the opinion of a bureaucrat) to implicate the McCann's in an INCOMPLETE investigation.
Why was that investigation incomplete? Because the McCann's lawyers (helpfully admitted by Clarence Mitchell) blocked them and the group from going back to perform a reconstitution which was required by the Portuguese in order to further the investigation, because the Portuguese police quite rightly required clarification of the events of that night in order to satisfy themselves that the parents and the group were not involved, to then open up the investigation into other areas.
As a result of this the case is a big box of loose ends. But that box was created and left there by the McCann's and their friends.
There is a huge difference between saying no evidence was found against the parents at the end of an investigation as opposed to no evidence found in an incomplete one.
Now McCann supporters state that they were right not to go back because they suspected they were being fitted up.
However an even more plausible explanation (given the fact that Portugal is not North Korea and could "fit up" the parents of the most famous missing girl in the world) is that the parents deliberately did not want to perform the reconstitution because they did not want to have to explain the discrepancies to the police.
This is not evidence against the McCann's but it is an "indication" that something is amiss and needs further investigating. In much the same way that the dog alerts were an "indication".
Indications and hypotheses are what police forces work on, which develop or change as more evidence is uncovered.
The ability to uncover more evidence was stopped by the decisions of the McCann's friends in halting the investigation.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 05:29:24 PM
Let us be clear that there was no evidence found (in the opinion of a bureaucrat) to implicate the McCann's in an INCOMPLETE investigation.
Why was that investigation incomplete? Because the McCann's lawyers (helpfully admitted by Clarence Mitchell) blocked them and the group from going back to perform a reconstitution which was required by the Portuguese in order to further the investigation, because the Portuguese police quite rightly required clarification of the events of that night in order to satisfy themselves that the parents and the group were not involved, to then open up the investigation into other areas.
As a result of this the case is a big box of loose ends. But that box was created and left there by the McCann's and their friends.
There is a huge difference between saying no evidence was found against the parents at the end of an investigation as opposed to no evidence found in an incomplete one.
Now McCann supporters state that they were right not to go back because they suspected they were being fitted up.
However an even more plausible explanation (given the fact that Portugal is not North Korea and could "fit up" the parents of the most famous missing girl in the world) is that the parents deliberately did not want to perform the reconstitution because they did not want to have to explain the discrepancies to the police.
This is not evidence against the McCann's but it is an "indication" that something is amiss and needs further investigating. In much the same way that the dog alerts were an "indication".
Indications and hypotheses are what police forces work on, which develop or change as more evidence is uncovered.
The ability to uncover more evidence was stopped by the decisions of the McCann's friends in halting the investigation.
Amen.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 06:03:00 PM
Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it.
But there is none Pathfinder. NONE
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 06:10:03 PM
Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it.
A perfect example of the muddled thinking which prevails about the non-existent evidence.
Pathfinder tells us that the dog alerts need to be corroborated with actual forensic evidence.
But he then describes those alerts as "the dogs evidence" (sic).
When people actually bother to read the full report submitted by Grime they appreciate that the dog alerts "have no evidential value" and are just pointers to where forensic specialists might possibly find such evidence.
We all know that the forensic experts found absolutely no evidence to demonstrate either that a cadaver had ever been present in Apartment 5A or that the suggestion of cadaver scent was even related to Madeleine McCann.
There is no evidence related to the dogs which points to any guilt in any crime by the McCanns.
There isn't even any evidence related to the dog alerts which is even linked to Madeleine McCann.
It is a shame that Amaral (that PJ officer who got himself booted off the case because he could not stick to the rules) was one of the first to completely misinterpret the dog alerts and confuse them with evidence. Others have latched onto his failure to understand and have continued the myth that the dog alerts constitute evidence.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2014, 06:23:08 PM
The responding officers seem to have abrogated all responsibility for taking control of the crime scene. They allowed the scene to become contaminated by all and sundry walking through it leaving prints and DNA in their wake. Not content with that they added to it by smoking and dropping cigarette ash on the floor.
Surely they did not have to wait for the arrival of the Portuguese Judiciary on the morning of the 4th to secure the crime scene, should they not have done that on arrival?
Breaking the code of silence that Portuguese police are normally expected to adhere to, the pair said they were among the first to arrive on the scene and watched, appalled, as people went in and out of the two-bedroom flat.
"It was chaos," one said. "The world and his dog were in that room just to look under a bed. It was crazy allowing so many people to trample through. "There was nothing we could do. The damage had already been done."
His colleague added: "It's not brain surgery and probably, in this case, could have saved a lot of speculation, heartache and unnecessary investigation time and money. "The world's eyes are on us and we mucked up big and there's nothing they can do to change things - it's too late."
IMO the victims of this crime, Madeleine and her family were badly let down in the first hours and days after Madeleine’s disappearance, when evidence was fresh and might have been there to be found if looked for.
For example, the bedclothes were allowed to be removed by housekeeping and washed!! no thought was given that the DNA or other traces of an intruder could have been present.
It could even have been considered appropriate to make the Drs McCann arguidos at this point when it might have afforded them the full protection of the law without prejudice.
Doing it at a later date when everything else had failed and based on misinterpretation of forensics caused a media frenzy and unwarranted suspicion which has lasted to the present day.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 16, 2014, 06:25:48 PM
I think that you have been persuaded by propaganda and you are being naive.
That is unless you are one of the originators of the propaganda, myths and false informatiion put out against The Doctors Mccann .... and to be fair to you, I doubt that.
IMHO, The web of deceit is so wide and so deep that I suspect a team have developed it and taken a great deal of care to spread it to unsuspecting posters .. ordinary folk.
Ordinary folk who have been cleverly whipped up into anger ... people believing that given out propaganda / disinformation are now propogating it.
Very clever. THe whole thing is very clever imo. It allows the ordinary people who have been DUPED to do much of the dirty work, whilst the originators quietly slide away, out of sight. ............ Only my opinion, but the pointers are there..
Such is the power of propaganda, along with the internet and the Media. And Fascism.
It is not looking good for future Justice, is it?
I apologise to Sadie for quoting this earlier and altering "against" to "for" to show that the arguments used by the different sides can be so similar that the alteration of one word can make the statement applicable to either.
I had assumed that the context would have made it clear that this was the case.
In no way was I suggesting that this was Sadie's view.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 06:38:15 PM
Let us be clear that there was no evidence found (in the opinion of a bureaucrat) to implicate the McCann's in an INCOMPLETE investigation.
Why was that investigation incomplete? Because the McCann's lawyers (helpfully admitted by Clarence Mitchell) blocked them and the group from going back to perform a reconstitution which was required by the Portuguese in order to further the investigation, because the Portuguese police quite rightly required clarification of the events of that night in order to satisfy themselves that the parents and the group were not involved, to then open up the investigation into other areas.
As a result of this the case is a big box of loose ends. But that box was created and left there by the McCann's and their friends.
There is a huge difference between saying no evidence was found against the parents at the end of an investigation as opposed to no evidence found in an incomplete one.
Now McCann supporters state that they were right not to go back because they suspected they were being fitted up.
However an even more plausible explanation (given the fact that Portugal is not North Korea and could "fit up" the parents of the most famous missing girl in the world) is that the parents deliberately did not want to perform the reconstitution because they did not want to have to explain the discrepancies to the police.
This is not evidence against the McCann's but it is an "indication" that something is amiss and needs further investigating. In much the same way that the dog alerts were an "indication".
Indications and hypotheses are what police forces work on, which develop or change as more evidence is uncovered.
The ability to uncover more evidence was stopped by the decisions of the McCann's friends in halting the investigation.
Good, another person who admits that there is no evidence which shows that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.
There may well be indications, suggestions or other such and these can be discussed in another thread which I have suggested Icabodcrane should start as they are a separate issue. This thread has shown without doubt that there is no actual evidence against the McCanns.
And just to refer to your comment about the incompleteness of the case.
Let's not forget that the comment by SY that neither the McCanns, nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest was made after SY had done a complete review of the case and had done a partial further investigation of the case which may even have included re-interviewing relevant witnesses.
It was not a statement made in jest as is the wont of certain posters here, but it was a serious statement made in public which indicated the clear direction, based on review and further investigation which experienced police officers were taking.
It is also perfectly clear that the PJ in their further investigation are not chasing shadows regarding the McCanns and are concentrating on other issues.
None of this if proof that the McCanns are not guilty of a crime but it is suggestive of such and might make a good future thread.
The fact remains that after a lengthy police investigation, after a full SY review, after a full PJ review, after a partial re-investigation by the PJ and after a partial re-investigation by SY, there is not a shred of known evidence which shows the McCanns guilty of any crime.
That has been demonstrated on this thread where people have attempted to offer such evidence and failed.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 06:39:47 PM
Good, another person who admits that there is no evidence which shows that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.
There may well be indications, suggestions or other such and these can be discussed in another thread which I have suggested Icabodcrane should start as they are a separate issue. This thread has shown without doubt that there is no actual evidence against the McCanns.
And just to refer to your comment about the incompleteness of the case.
Let's not forget that the comment by SY that neither the McCanns, nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest was made after SY had done a complete review of the case and had done a partial further investigation of the case which may even have included re-interviewing relevant witnesses.
It was not a statement made in jest as is the wont of certain posters here, but it was a serious statement made in public which indicated the clear direction, based on review and further investigation which experienced police officers were taking.
It is also perfectly clear that the PJ in their further investigation are not chasing shadows regarding the McCanns and are concentrating on other issues.
None of this if proof that the McCanns are not guilty of a crime but it is suggestive of such and might make a good future thread.
The fact remains that after a lengthy police investigation, after a full SY review, after a full PJ review, after a partial re-investigation by the PJ and after a partial re-investigation by SY, there is not a shred of known evidence which shows the McCanns guilty of any crime.
That has been demonstrated on this thread where people have attempted to offer such evidence and failed.
When?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 06:43:13 PM
Let us be clear that there was no evidence found (in the opinion of a bureaucrat) to implicate the McCann's in an INCOMPLETE investigation.
Why was that investigation incomplete? Because the McCann's lawyers (helpfully admitted by Clarence Mitchell) blocked them and the group from going back to perform a reconstitution which was required by the Portuguese in order to further the investigation, because the Portuguese police quite rightly required clarification of the events of that night in order to satisfy themselves that the parents and the group were not involved, to then open up the investigation into other areas.
As a result of this the case is a big box of loose ends. But that box was created and left there by the McCann's and their friends.
There is a huge difference between saying no evidence was found against the parents at the end of an investigation as opposed to no evidence found in an incomplete one.
Now McCann supporters state that they were right not to go back because they suspected they were being fitted up.
However an even more plausible explanation (given the fact that Portugal is not North Korea and could "fit up" the parents of the most famous missing girl in the world) is that the parents deliberately did not want to perform the reconstitution because they did not want to have to explain the discrepancies to the police.
This is not evidence against the McCann's but it is an "indication" that something is amiss and needs further investigating. In much the same way that the dog alerts were an "indication".
Indications and hypotheses are what police forces work on, which develop or change as more evidence is uncovered.
The ability to uncover more evidence was stopped by the decisions of the McCann's friends in halting the investigation.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: gilet on April 16, 2014, 06:48:25 PM
I believe that this thread has served its purpose.
Every contributor when dealing with the question posed has admitted that there is absolutely no evidence which shows the McCanns guilty of any crime whatsoever.
And equally, there is no evidence of abduction.
Anyone who claims to know for certain what happened in PDL or who claims the McCanns are definitely guilty of any crime is simply fooling him or her self and relying on indicators or suggestions rather than actual evidence.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 06:52:17 PM
Your mantra may be truthful or not. It does not in any way further the discussion on this thread. Your disruption of every thread with that same mantra is quite pathetic and indicates an obsession.
Please open a thread to discuss the matter.
This thread has demonstrated that there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.
Can you contribute to the topic of this thread or will you continue with your off-topic mantra?
For goodness sake gilet, this forum is not about your ego and your vain attempts to dominate the conversations and the issues being discussed.
As to MANTRA, don't try that old cliche, it's become exceedingly boring.
What the mccanns failed to do is obvious, as is your defense of the indefensible.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: ferryman on April 16, 2014, 07:04:59 PM
When push comes to shove, there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns, there is no theory which can possibly explain the involvement of the parents of Madeleine in any crime. Being a very minor adviser to a government-set-up quango is not a crime.
And there is no explanation for the actions of those people on the internet and in real life who wish to pursue the McCanns for possible crimes without any evidence, without any logical theory as to how they are involved, other than the bizarre response that these people "see things clearer than others".
Is the ability to "see things clearer than others" a way of saying that they don't give a damm about the law, the need for evidence or any of the other niceties of civilised society and prefer just to find the justice they see from behind their blinkers or what exactly do you mean by that phrase?
Certainly, for anything Amaral proposes to have the slightest chance of being correct, there would have to be evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at some point between their (joint) arrival and Kate's alert at around 2200.
There isn't!
On that rock, all except theories so extreme and far-fetched even Amaral rejects them, founder ...
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Cariad on April 16, 2014, 07:41:36 PM
I believe that this thread has served its purpose.
Every contributor when dealing with the question posed has admitted that there is absolutely no evidence which shows the McCanns guilty of any crime whatsoever.
And equally, there is no evidence of abduction.
Anyone who claims to know for certain what happened in PDL or who claims the McCanns are definitely guilty of any crime is simply fooling him or her self and relying on indicators or suggestions rather than actual evidence.
Obviously anyone claiming that the Mccanns are definitely not guilty are equally mistaken then?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: ferryman on April 16, 2014, 07:49:01 PM
Obviously anyone claiming that the Mccanns are definitely not guilty are equally mistaken then?
You can never rule out the (technical) possibility of something at present unknown coming to light which might implicate any or all of the (original) 3 arguidos.
Vastly different from saying that there is (now!) anything to implicate any of those 3.
There isn't ...
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2014, 07:51:37 PM
You can never rule out the (technical) possibility of something at present unknown coming to light which might implicate any or all of the (original) 3 arguidos.
Vastly different from saying that there is (now!) anything to implicate any of those 3.
There isn't ...
...and you have proof of that ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Cariad on April 16, 2014, 07:56:00 PM
You can never rule out the (technical) possibility of something at present unknown coming to light which might implicate any or all of the (original) 3 arguidos.
Vastly different from saying that there is (now!) anything to implicate any of those 3.
There isn't ...
I never said there was did I?
One of the annoying things about this case is that you aren't (one isn't) allowed to be a fence sitter. The second you dare question whether the Mccanns might have had some involvement, you're immediately an evil anti attacking the parents of a missing child.
I've been posting here for a while now and it's more or less a year since I read the files and got interested. My husband will see me on this forum and every few weeks will say "made up you mind yet?" referring to the involvement of the Mccanns.
My answer is still "nope".
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Albertini on April 16, 2014, 07:56:17 PM
Good, another person who admits that there is no evidence which shows that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.
There may well be indications, suggestions or other such and these can be discussed in another thread which I have suggested Icabodcrane should start as they are a separate issue. This thread has shown without doubt that there is no actual evidence against the McCanns.
And just to refer to your comment about the incompleteness of the case.
Let's not forget that the comment by SY that neither the McCanns, nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest was made after SY had done a complete review of the case and had done a partial further investigation of the case which may even have included re-interviewing relevant witnesses.
It was not a statement made in jest as is the wont of certain posters here, but it was a serious statement made in public which indicated the clear direction, based on review and further investigation which experienced police officers were taking.
It is also perfectly clear that the PJ in their further investigation are not chasing shadows regarding the McCanns and are concentrating on other issues.
None of this if proof that the McCanns are not guilty of a crime but it is suggestive of such and might make a good future thread.
The fact remains that after a lengthy police investigation, after a full SY review, after a full PJ review, after a partial re-investigation by the PJ and after a partial re-investigation by SY, there is not a shred of known evidence which shows the McCanns guilty of any crime.
That has been demonstrated on this thread where people have attempted to offer such evidence and failed.
The point you are conveniently missing or dismissing is that the investigation was incomplete . It was curtailed at the point of the PJ wanting to test the veracity of the witnesses oral statements and was stopped by those very witnesses, which in itself is hugely suggestive.
Had the group taken part and been unable to explain the discrepancies more evidence could have been uncovered as a consequence.
I'm not and have never said they are guilty. I'm saying the original investigation needed to be completed and that they need to answer questions and be tested as to the veracity of their original statements.
I'm saying they should be treated as suspects as the last people and only witnesses to the event and being the people, I believe, are statistically more likely to have been involved than a stranger, up to and until clear definitive and independently corroborated evidence comes to light which backs up their version of events. Which is not just to be applied to the McCann's but any other person in any other crime investigated by the police and a cornerstone of investigation good practice.
This is not about a witch hunt against the MCCann's, it's about them being treated and investigated in the same way anyone else would be in a similar situation. It's about witnesses not being able to corrupt and frustrate official investigations into a small child's disappearance for their own unknown motives.
I'm sure that is the position of most McCann sceptics.
That does not mean however we cannot come up with our own hypotheses based on the evidence we have before us.
In relation to the SY announcement made months ago it's starting to get tedious. Let's be clear given the reopening of the case Andy Redwood had no choice but to say they were not suspects even if this was not true. He could not say anything else.
For him to say they were suspects when his investigation was just starting would have been both unprofessional and prejudicial to any future court case. How many investigations start by naming suspects? SY have to build their own case against their suspects from their own evidence gathered not by reviewing another country's police force and saying " well the PJ didn't gain enough evidence to take to a court so let's announce to the world the McCann's are suspects based on that same evidence".
To announce that would have increased the media interest in the case making it incredibly difficult for the investigation to function.
Let's also be clear we have not seen any files on the SY investigation or the PJ re-investigation so we cannot make assumptions until we see evidence brought to a court or released files. We have no evidence whatsoever of any relevant witnesses being reinterviewed either.
We have media briefings to the effect of the McCann's not being suspects which could or could not be true, and which also could be revised later as the investigation progresses.
The media stated direction of the investigation does not necessarily encompass all the Yard's thinking and it is entirely possible that the investigation is looking at multiple theories and suspects. In fact didn't Recwood admit as much in his recent statement about Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive?
Certainly the yard will need at some point to resolve the issues in the statements if they want to bring a third party suspect to court. A defence lawyer could say for example, "how did my client get into the apartment when Rachel Oldfield said in her statement the shutter was down on the patio window."
In order to convict an abductor these issues will need to be ironed out before they go to court.
So I think the more nuanced approach is to keep ones powder dry about Redwood's proclamation until such time as a suspect is brought before a court.
To simply keep repeating "but Andy says they're not suspects" is tedious and intellectually flatulant if one is to apply a bit of thought and logic to what was said and why it was said.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: ferryman on April 16, 2014, 09:15:55 PM
He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing in his mouth, an untrained and deleterious act for any dog attending a crime scene (but I mustn't get distracted).
For a moment, indulge Amaral's fantasy. Kate has just found the body of her daughter.
Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.
Kate pulls herself together, returns to the restaurant and breaks traumatic news to Gerry without anyone else noticing.
They hatch a plan (without anyone else noticing)
Gerry takes his leave of the restaurant, gathers up the remains of his daughter, whisks them past the noses of the Smiths to hide (Amaral's exact word) them on the beach.
In the meanwhile, Kate takes her leave the restaurant, then returns to raise a fake "alarm", at almost exactly the time that Gerry is whisking Madeleine's remains past the noses of the Smiths.
Where, in the files, is there commentary on what efforts were made to find to Gerry and tell him what happened after Kate's alert, including where he was when found and who found him, if, in fact, Gerry was anywhere other than in the restaurant?
Non-existent!
That can surely only be because Joao Carlos (who wrote the final PJ report) called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Albertini on April 16, 2014, 09:24:19 PM
"The deponent, had had the wrong idea that Mathew had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21.30 and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21.30 and 22.00, but now he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21.05 and Mathew's visit at 21.30."
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 16, 2014, 09:29:19 PM
"The deponent, had had the wrong idea that Mathew had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21.30 and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21.30 and 22.00, but now he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21.05 and Mathew's visit at 21.30."
Amazing insight Mr McCann has.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: peter claridge on April 16, 2014, 09:53:42 PM
"The deponent, had had the wrong idea that Mathew had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21.30 and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21.30 and 22.00, but now he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21.05 and Mathew's visit at 21.30."
But that is just Gerry having to correct one of the many errors in his first statement. Tannerman, to give the invented abductor his first name was nailed into the fabricated timelines from the off (otherwise known as the Smith sighting) the problem being the 40/45 minute delay between Tannerman (fabricated) and Smithman (real) which has necessitated the removal of Tannerman. Smithman will never be identified
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 16, 2014, 10:16:06 PM
He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing in his mouth, an untrained and deleterious act for any dog attending a crime scene (but I mustn't get distracted).
For a moment, indulge Amaral's fantasy. Kate has just found the body of her daughter.
Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.
Kate pulls herself together, returns to the restaurant and breaks traumatic news to Gerry without anyone else noticing.
They hatch a plan (without anyone else noticing)
Gerry takes his leave of the restaurant, gathers up the remains of his daughter, whisks them past the noses of the Smiths to hide (Amaral's exact word) them on the beach.
In the meanwhile, Kate takes her leave the restaurant, then returns to raise a fake "alarm", at almost exactly the time that Gerry is whisking Madeleine's remains past the noses of the Smiths.
Where, in the files, is there commentary on what efforts were made to find to Gerry and tell him what happened after Kate's alert, including where he was when found and who found him, if, in fact, Gerry was anywhere other than in the restaurant?
Non-existent!
That can surely only be because Joao Carlos (who wrote the final PJ report) called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert.
If any traumatic breaking news happened it would've been when Gerry returned from tennis.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 16, 2014, 10:32:09 PM
Well put it this way - if the McCann friends are not covering up for Kate and Gerry then their witness statements should be taken as true accounts of events as they recall them. Do you accept this?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 08:19:26 AM
The point you are conveniently missing or dismissing is that the investigation was incomplete . It was curtailed at the point of the PJ wanting to test the veracity of the witnesses oral statements and was stopped by those very witnesses, which in itself is hugely suggestive.
Had the group taken part and been unable to explain the discrepancies more evidence could have been uncovered as a consequence.
I'm not and have never said they are guilty. I'm saying the original investigation needed to be completed and that they need to answer questions and be tested as to the veracity of their original statements.
I'm saying they should be treated as suspects as the last people and only witnesses to the event and being the people, I believe, are statistically more likely to have been involved than a stranger, up to and until clear definitive and independently corroborated evidence comes to light which backs up their version of events. Which is not just to be applied to the McCann's but any other person in any other crime investigated by the police and a cornerstone of investigation good practice.
This is not about a witch hunt against the MCCann's, it's about them being treated and investigated in the same way anyone else would be in a similar situation. It's about witnesses not being able to corrupt and frustrate official investigations into a small child's disappearance for their own unknown motives.
I'm sure that is the position of most McCann sceptics.
That does not mean however we cannot come up with our own hypotheses based on the evidence we have before us.
In relation to the SY announcement made months ago it's starting to get tedious. Let's be clear given the reopening of the case Andy Redwood had no choice but to say they were not suspects even if this was not true. He could not say anything else.
For him to say they were suspects when his investigation was just starting would have been both unprofessional and prejudicial to any future court case. How many investigations start by naming suspects? SY have to build their own case against their suspects from their own evidence gathered not by reviewing another country's police force and saying " well the PJ didn't gain enough evidence to take to a court so let's announce to the world the McCann's are suspects based on that same evidence".
To announce that would have increased the media interest in the case making it incredibly difficult for the investigation to function.
Let's also be clear we have not seen any files on the SY investigation or the PJ re-investigation so we cannot make assumptions until we see evidence brought to a court or released files. We have no evidence whatsoever of any relevant witnesses being reinterviewed either.
We have media briefings to the effect of the McCann's not being suspects which could or could not be true, and which also could be revised later as the investigation progresses.
The media stated direction of the investigation does not necessarily encompass all the Yard's thinking and it is entirely possible that the investigation is looking at multiple theories and suspects. In fact didn't Recwood admit as much in his recent statement about Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive?
Certainly the yard will need at some point to resolve the issues in the statements if they want to bring a third party suspect to court. A defence lawyer could say for example, "how did my client get into the apartment when Rachel Oldfield said in her statement the shutter was down on the patio window."
In order to convict an abductor these issues will need to be ironed out before they go to court.
So I think the more nuanced approach is to keep ones powder dry about Redwood's proclamation until such time as a suspect is brought before a court.
To simply keep repeating "but Andy says they're not suspects" is tedious and intellectually flatulant if one is to apply a bit of thought and logic to what was said and why it was said.
Once again you dress up your opinion as fact. Why did Redwood say they were not suspects...the most obvious reason is that they are not suspects. Portugal has also said the same thing. you just can't accept this and want to make up a reason to pretend it isn't true. Who is your very long post supposed to convince? Redwood didn't even have to say anything if he didn't want to.
Redwood has said the McCanns are not suspects..that's a fact.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2014, 08:27:24 AM
Once again you dress up your opinion as fact. Why did Redwood say they were not suspects...the most obvious reason is that they are not suspects. Portugal has also said the same thing. you just can't accept this and want to make up a reason to pretend it isn't true. Who is your very long post supposed to convince? Redwood didn't even have to say anything if he didn't want to.
Redwood has said the McCanns are not suspects..that's a fact.
It is also a fact that arguido status can be reactivated for up to 20 years after the initial period.
It is also a fact that the type of crime is undetermined.
It is also a fact that SY have no power to act in Portugal.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 08:35:21 AM
Well put it this way - if the McCann friends are not covering up for Kate and Gerry then their witness statements should be taken as true accounts of events as they recall them. Do you accept this?
The statement about the 'kid being dumped' made no mention as to the perpetrator. Why, therefore, are you assuming that Smithman was known to the Tapas group?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Benice on April 17, 2014, 08:48:42 AM
Once again you dress up your opinion as fact. Why did Redwood say they were not suspects...the most obvious reason is that they are not suspects. Portugal has also said the same thing. you just can't accept this and want to make up a reason to pretend it isn't true. Who is your very long post supposed to convince? Redwood didn't even have to say anything if he didn't want to.
Redwood has said the McCanns are not suspects..that's a fact.
Exactly. Added to that - IIRC we have also been told the McCanns are being kept updated on the investigation and that they have met up with the PJ investigating team in Portugal. The chances of either of those two things happening if the McCanns were still suspects are zero IMO.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
Al true ...as is the fact that the McCanns are not suspects...but albertini wants to ignore it
Actually all we have from the police is what they give in interviews both here an in Portugal and they don't always state or say, what is actually taking place.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 09:11:22 AM
Actually all we have from the police is what they give in interviews both here an in Portugal and they don't always state or say, what is actually taking place.
but they HAVE sad the parents are not suspects....are the police telling lies too
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2014, 09:13:20 AM
Sorry davel, I did here what he said. Sorry to disappoint.
As to what goes on behind the scenes is another matter ?
Have you asked any members of the police their opinion on the case ?
It doesn't matter what you believe...Redwood said they are not suspects...and yes I know several police officers and none think the mccanns are involved
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: John on April 17, 2014, 10:31:53 AM
As it stands there are no real suspects, an unknown crime and very few leads even now nearly 7 years on. But lets be clear, this will very quickly change if a body is found. Being declared not a suspect is irrelevant in a live investigation, all this does is shift the focus elsewhere which suits investigators. Redwood is nobody's fool and knows exactly what he is doing.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 10:38:37 AM
As it stands there are no real suspects, an unknown crime and very few leads even now nearly 7 years on. But lets be clear, this will very quickly change if a body is found. Being declared not a suspect is irrelevant in a live investigation, all this does is shift the focus elsewhere which suits investigators. Redwood is nobody's fool and knows exactly what he is doing.
It is relevant at the moment...and I can't see Redwood saying it if he wasn't very very sure. the doubters want to dismiss anything that points towards the mccanns non involvement...and theres a lot. redwood IMO has analysed the case and cant see anyway the parents were involved...have you ever known anyone else to be declared not suspects and subsequently charged....I can't
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
As it stands there are no real suspects, an unknown crime and very few leads even now nearly 7 years on. But lets be clear, this will very quickly change if a body is found. Being declared not a suspect is irrelevant in a live investigation, all this does is shift the focus elsewhere which suits investigators. Redwood is nobody's fool and knows exactly what he is doing.
I'm sure he does 8(>((
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 10:49:48 AM
It is relevant at the moment...and I can't see Redwood saying it if he wasn't very very sure. the doubters want to dismiss anything that points towards the mccanns non involvement...and theres a lot. redwood IMO has analysed the case and cant see anyway the parents were involved...have you ever known anyone else to be declared not suspects and subsequently charged....I can't
"Police remarks 'hearten' McCanns BBC News
Last Updated: Sunday, 12 August 2007, 09:01 GMT 10:01 UK
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.
He told the BBC the parents were "victims" who had lost their child and also witnesses in the case.
He also acknowledged for the first time that the four-year-old may be dead. "
We have heard it before, though.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 10:53:11 AM
Last Updated: Sunday, 12 August 2007, 09:01 GMT 10:01 UK
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.
He told the BBC the parents were "victims" who had lost their child and also witnesses in the case.
He also acknowledged for the first time that the four-year-old may be dead. "
We have heard it before, though.
So they were then made suspects without any evidence and none found in the following seven years...grasping at straws
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 17, 2014, 10:54:07 AM
As it stands there are no real suspects, an unknown crime and very few leads even now nearly 7 years on. But lets be clear, this will very quickly change if a body is found. Being declared not a suspect is irrelevant in a live investigation, all this does is shift the focus elsewhere which suits investigators. Redwood is nobody's fool and knows exactly what he is doing.
And * IF * a body is found, what then John?
Amaral has said he KNOWS Madeleine is dead. How does he know that? Will he be a suspect?
I just wish someone would dig up that damned drive. Would stop all the speculation ... and get The Murats a new drive.
PS I actually am fairly convinced that Madeleine was still alive a couple of years ago. If she had been kept alive for five years, then it is unlikely anyone would murder her at this late stage, two years later ... unless it would save their skin, of course. But it takes a special sort of person to finish off a child they have become fond of. By fond, I am not saying sexually necessarily.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Carew on April 17, 2014, 10:57:20 AM
I trust him...I just hope he is allowed to follow his leads in portugal
Yes, so do I, so that they can be got out of the way, once and for all. Elimination seems to be the name of the game, so the sooner these people of interest are eliminated from enquiries, the better.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 11:17:01 AM
Yes, so do I, so that they can be got out of the way, once and for all. Elimination seems to be the name of the game, so the sooner these people of interest are eliminated from enquiries, the better.
I would agree...but I think he has eliminated the parents...taht's standard police procedure
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2014, 11:25:44 AM
Amaral has said he KNOWS Madeleine is dead. How does he know that? Will he be a suspect?
I just wish someone would dig up that damned drive. Would stop all the speculation ... and get The Murats a new drive.
PS I actually am fairly convinced that Madeleine was still alive a couple of years ago. If she had been kept alive for five years, then it is unlikely anyone would murder her at this late stage, two years later ... unless it would save their skin, of course. But it takes a special sort of person to finish off a child they have become fond of. By fond, I am not saying sexually necessarily.
I just wish someone would dig up that damned drive. Would stop all the speculation ... and get The Murats a new drive.
Mr Birch could be proven right, Maddie could have a decent burial, Mr & Mrs McCann could have some closure & the Murat's could have a nice new driveway.
Everyones a winner.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: John on April 17, 2014, 11:30:09 AM
It is relevant at the moment...and I can't see Redwood saying it if he wasn't very very sure. the doubters want to dismiss anything that points towards the mccanns non involvement...and theres a lot. redwood IMO has analysed the case and cant see anyway the parents were involved...have you ever known anyone else to be declared not suspects and subsequently charged....I can't
Is there a precedent to this case? NO
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: John on April 17, 2014, 11:33:06 AM
I trust him...I just hope he is allowed to follow his leads in portugal
I bet Barry Geiorge said exactly the same thing about the Met before he was stitched up. And to think some people have the audacity to criticise the PJ.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: John on April 17, 2014, 11:37:09 AM
I bet Barry Geiorge said exactly the same thing about the Met before he was stitched up. And to think some people have the audacity to criticise the PJ.
Fortunately, with the eyes of the (media) world on this case, and the current reputation of the Met, a stitch-up is extremely unlikely.
It is much more likely, that after extensive investigations and countless millions spent, the case will be declared as unsolvable.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 11:50:12 AM
I bet Barry Geiorge said exactly the same thing about the Met before he was stitched up. And to think some people have the audacity to criticise the PJ.
the thread you removed had M W Thomas criticising the pj...on video..no mistake
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 17, 2014, 11:51:13 AM
I bet Barry Geiorge said exactly the same thing about the Met before he was stitched up. And to think some people have the audacity to criticise the PJ.
Only certain elements John.
Little doubt about it, the PJ generally were diligent. Their "superiors " (some) let them down.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 11:52:25 AM
Yes, so do I, so that they can be got out of the way, once and for all. Elimination seems to be the name of the game, so the sooner these people of interest are eliminated from enquiries, the better.
Agreed
I just hope that the peeps involved are not sooooo important in PT that they are protected by the PJ and authorities ?8)@)-)
Untouchables
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: John on April 17, 2014, 12:14:28 PM
Once again you dress up your opinion as fact. Why did Redwood say they were not suspects...the most obvious reason is that they are not suspects. Portugal has also said the same thing. you just can't accept this and want to make up a reason to pretend it isn't true. Who is your very long post supposed to convince? Redwood didn't even have to say anything if he didn't want to.
Redwood has said the McCanns are not suspects..that's a fact.
To quote Edward Gibbons "I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect."
However I will make an exception here for you Dave.
This is the second post of mine you have stated i have used my opinion as fact. The first time you said this i asked you to tell me to back up your sweeping assertion with evidence. You did not and now you say the same about my second post in this thread.
Are you stalking me and my posts?
For the records we know that it is a fact Redwood stated some time ago they were not suspects. We do not know it is a fact that they are not suspects.
Are you able to see and understand the difference?
I have explained in my post why i believe Redwood cannot say they are suspects even if they are. Why can't you respond to my reasoning behind that rather than simply clinging to the "he said they are not suspects" mantra which you always fall back on when you get in a pickle when your rabid desire to respond to my posts overtakes your thinking power.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2014, 01:50:25 PM
To quote Edward Gibbons "I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect."
However I will make an exception here for you Dave.
This is the second post of mine you have stated i have used my opinion as fact. The first time you said this i asked you to tell me to back up your sweeping assertion with evidence. You did not and now you say the same about my second post in this thread.
Are you stalking me and my posts?
For the records we know that it is a fact Redwood stated some time ago they were not suspects. We do not know it is a fact that they are not suspects.
Are you able to see and understand the difference?
I have explained in my post why i believe Redwood cannot say they are suspects even if they are. Why can't you respond to my reasoning behind that rather than simply clinging to the "he said they are not suspects" mantra which you always fall back on when you get in a pickle when your rabid desire to respond to my posts overtakes your thinking power.
I haven't been spending so much time on here but happy to support my statement that you are posting your opinion as fact...I will look back now and provide the evidence
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 17, 2014, 07:09:48 PM
The statement about the 'kid being dumped' made no mention as to the perpetrator. Why, therefore, are you assuming that Smithman was known to the Tapas group?
Well if he wasn't one of the Tapas group then he wasn't Gerry McCann. And if it wasn't Gerry, and the child had had a fatal accident sometime earlier that evening and the alarm was raised at 10pm then when does one suppose the "kid" was "dumped"?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2014, 07:13:59 PM
I haven't been spending so much time on here but happy to support my statement that you are posting your opinion as fact...I will look back now and provide the evidence
Albertini wrote...
"The point you are conveniently missing or dismissing is that the investigation was incomplete . It was curtailed at the point of the PJ wanting to test the veracity of the witnesses oral statements and was stopped by those very witnesses, which in itself is hugely suggestive.
Had the group taken part and been unable to explain the discrepancies more evidence could have been uncovered as a consequence.
I'm not and have never said they are guilty. I'm saying the original investigation needed to be completed and that they need to answer questions and be tested as to the veracity of their original statements.
I'm saying they should be treated as suspects as the last people and only witnesses to the event and being the people, I believe, are statistically more likely to have been involved than a stranger, up to and until clear definitive and independently corroborated evidence comes to light which backs up their version of events. Which is not just to be applied to the McCann's but any other person in any other crime investigated by the police and a cornerstone of investigation good practice.
This is not about a witch hunt against the MCCann's, it's about them being treated and investigated in the same way anyone else would be in a similar situation. It's about witnesses not being able to corrupt and frustrate official investigations into a small child's disappearance for their own unknown motives.
I'm sure that is the position of most McCann sceptics.
That does not mean however we cannot come up with our own hypotheses based on the evidence we have before us.
In relation to the SY announcement made months ago it's starting to get tedious. Let's be clear given the reopening of the case Andy Redwood had no choice but to say they were not suspects even if this was not true. He could not say anything else.
For him to say they were suspects when his investigation was just starting would have been both unprofessional and prejudicial to any future court case. How many investigations start by naming suspects? SY have to build their own case against their suspects from their own evidence gathered not by reviewing another country's police force and saying " well the PJ didn't gain enough evidence to take to a court so let's announce to the world the McCann's are suspects based on that same evidence".
To announce that would have increased the media interest in the case making it incredibly difficult for the investigation to function.
Let's also be clear we have not seen any files on the SY investigation or the PJ re-investigation so we cannot make assumptions until we see evidence brought to a court or released files. We have no evidence whatsoever of any relevant witnesses being reinterviewed either.
We have media briefings to the effect of the McCann's not being suspects which could or could not be true, and which also could be revised later as the investigation progresses.
The media stated direction of the investigation does not necessarily encompass all the Yard's thinking and it is entirely possible that the investigation is looking at multiple theories and suspects. In fact didn't Recwood admit as much in his recent statement about Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive?
Certainly the yard will need at some point to resolve the issues in the statements if they want to bring a third party suspect to court. A defence lawyer could say for example, "how did my client get into the apartment when Rachel Oldfield said in her statement the shutter was down on the patio window."
In order to convict an abductor these issues will need to be ironed out before they go to court.
So I think the more nuanced approach is to keep ones powder dry about Redwood's proclamation until such time as a suspect is brought before a court. "
Statement in red is your opinion not fact...point proved
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2014, 07:31:36 PM
Well if he wasn't one of the Tapas group then he wasn't Gerry McCann. And if it wasn't Gerry, and the child had had a fatal accident sometime earlier that evening and the alarm was raised at 10pm then when does one suppose the "kid" was "dumped"?
I suppose it depends on whether you believe Smithman was carrying Madeleine, which would tie the time in pretty accurately.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Carana on April 17, 2014, 07:41:16 PM
The point you are conveniently missing or dismissing is that the investigation was incomplete . It was curtailed at the point of the PJ wanting to test the veracity of the witnesses oral statements and was stopped by those very witnesses, which in itself is hugely suggestive.
Had the group taken part and been unable to explain the discrepancies more evidence could have been uncovered as a consequence.
I'm not and have never said they are guilty. I'm saying the original investigation needed to be completed and that they need to answer questions and be tested as to the veracity of their original statements.
I'm saying they should be treated as suspects as the last people and only witnesses to the event and being the people, I believe, are statistically more likely to have been involved than a stranger, up to and until clear definitive and independently corroborated evidence comes to light which backs up their version of events. Which is not just to be applied to the McCann's but any other person in any other crime investigated by the police and a cornerstone of investigation good practice.
This is not about a witch hunt against the MCCann's, it's about them being treated and investigated in the same way anyone else would be in a similar situation. It's about witnesses not being able to corrupt and frustrate official investigations into a small child's disappearance for their own unknown motives.
I'm sure that is the position of most McCann sceptics.
That does not mean however we cannot come up with our own hypotheses based on the evidence we have before us.
In relation to the SY announcement made months ago it's starting to get tedious. Let's be clear given the reopening of the case Andy Redwood had no choice but to say they were not suspects even if this was not true. He could not say anything else.
For him to say they were suspects when his investigation was just starting would have been both unprofessional and prejudicial to any future court case. How many investigations start by naming suspects? SY have to build their own case against their suspects from their own evidence gathered not by reviewing another country's police force and saying " well the PJ didn't gain enough evidence to take to a court so let's announce to the world the McCann's are suspects based on that same evidence".
To announce that would have increased the media interest in the case making it incredibly difficult for the investigation to function.
Let's also be clear we have not seen any files on the SY investigation or the PJ re-investigation so we cannot make assumptions until we see evidence brought to a court or released files. We have no evidence whatsoever of any relevant witnesses being reinterviewed either.
We have media briefings to the effect of the McCann's not being suspects which could or could not be true, and which also could be revised later as the investigation progresses.
The media stated direction of the investigation does not necessarily encompass all the Yard's thinking and it is entirely possible that the investigation is looking at multiple theories and suspects. In fact didn't Recwood admit as much in his recent statement about Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive?
Certainly the yard will need at some point to resolve the issues in the statements if they want to bring a third party suspect to court. A defence lawyer could say for example, "how did my client get into the apartment when Rachel Oldfield said in her statement the shutter was down on the patio window."
In order to convict an abductor these issues will need to be ironed out before they go to court.
So I think the more nuanced approach is to keep ones powder dry about Redwood's proclamation until such time as a suspect is brought before a court.
To simply keep repeating "but Andy says they're not suspects" is tedious and intellectually flatulant if one is to apply a bit of thought and logic to what was said and why it was said.
I disagree.
The police are quite capable of being vague when someone may still be a suspect: e…g, "All possibilities are still under investigation...".
In the Jo Yeates case, the police stated that the boyfriend was not a suspect - they had somehow eliminated him.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Albertini on April 17, 2014, 07:45:23 PM
"The point you are conveniently missing or dismissing is that the investigation was incomplete . It was curtailed at the point of the PJ wanting to test the veracity of the witnesses oral statements and was stopped by those very witnesses, which in itself is hugely suggestive.
Had the group taken part and been unable to explain the discrepancies more evidence could have been uncovered as a consequence.
I'm not and have never said they are guilty. I'm saying the original investigation needed to be completed and that they need to answer questions and be tested as to the veracity of their original statements.
I'm saying they should be treated as suspects as the last people and only witnesses to the event and being the people, I believe, are statistically more likely to have been involved than a stranger, up to and until clear definitive and independently corroborated evidence comes to light which backs up their version of events. Which is not just to be applied to the McCann's but any other person in any other crime investigated by the police and a cornerstone of investigation good practice.
This is not about a witch hunt against the MCCann's, it's about them being treated and investigated in the same way anyone else would be in a similar situation. It's about witnesses not being able to corrupt and frustrate official investigations into a small child's disappearance for their own unknown motives.
I'm sure that is the position of most McCann sceptics.
That does not mean however we cannot come up with our own hypotheses based on the evidence we have before us.
In relation to the SY announcement made months ago it's starting to get tedious. Let's be clear given the reopening of the case Andy Redwood had no choice but to say they were not suspects even if this was not true. He could not say anything else.
For him to say they were suspects when his investigation was just starting would have been both unprofessional and prejudicial to any future court case. How many investigations start by naming suspects? SY have to build their own case against their suspects from their own evidence gathered not by reviewing another country's police force and saying " well the PJ didn't gain enough evidence to take to a court so let's announce to the world the McCann's are suspects based on that same evidence".
To announce that would have increased the media interest in the case making it incredibly difficult for the investigation to function.
Let's also be clear we have not seen any files on the SY investigation or the PJ re-investigation so we cannot make assumptions until we see evidence brought to a court or released files. We have no evidence whatsoever of any relevant witnesses being reinterviewed either.
We have media briefings to the effect of the McCann's not being suspects which could or could not be true, and which also could be revised later as the investigation progresses.
The media stated direction of the investigation does not necessarily encompass all the Yard's thinking and it is entirely possible that the investigation is looking at multiple theories and suspects. In fact didn't Recwood admit as much in his recent statement about Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive?
Certainly the yard will need at some point to resolve the issues in the statements if they want to bring a third party suspect to court. A defence lawyer could say for example, "how did my client get into the apartment when Rachel Oldfield said in her statement the shutter was down on the patio window."
In order to convict an abductor these issues will need to be ironed out before they go to court.
So I think the more nuanced approach is to keep ones powder dry about Redwood's proclamation until such time as a suspect is brought before a court. "
Statement in red is your opinion not fact...point proved
I never said it was a fact, of course it is an opinion. Where do I state something as a fact which is actually an opinion?
You said the same about my previous post but didn't comment on that post.
So point not proved as usual.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2014, 07:45:40 PM
I suppose it depends on whether you believe Smithman was carrying Madeleine, which would tie the time in pretty accurately.
I feel we're straying off the point. My original point was that for the McCanns to have been complicit in the disapearance of their child it would mean that most if not all of the people they went on holiday with must also be involved in a cover-up - whether or not Smithman was carrying Madeleine is moot. Please explain how it could be any other way?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
I think that in his case, he did have a very solid alibi - witnesses and CCTV footage of his journey north.
Yes, I agree, but that's not my point about the McCann case which is that they could have come out with some police waffle that all options were still under investigation if the McCanns (or Jo's boyfriend) were still considered suspects.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2014, 08:43:47 PM
OK, perhaps you could answer my question to you concerning the McCanns' friends' statements - do you accept that they are truthful accounts of events as they remembered them?
A true test of their statements would be in a court of law.
Don't you agree ?
On here it is a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 17, 2014, 08:47:51 PM
OK, perhaps you could answer my question to you concerning the McCanns' friends' statements - do you accept that they are truthful accounts of events as they remembered them?
Do you believe an accurate timeline being produced by a group of friends relaxing, having a good time and not really keeping a eye on the time?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 17, 2014, 08:59:06 PM
Do you believe an accurate timeline being produced by a group of friends relaxing, having a good time and not really keeping a eye on the time?
I' m not sure I really understand your question. I don't believe the timeline was fabricated if that's what you mean. I do believe if you were to sit down with 8 other people after an eventful night and hurriedly attempt to write down a timeline you could come up with a consensus version of events albeit maybe after a couple of attempts.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2014, 09:05:26 PM
The bottom line remains Mr. Jones, it has yet to be tested whether they have told the truth or not.
Don't you agree ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
They could easily be fooled into believing they were getting their story straight for one reason, whilst in reality it was being done for something entirely different.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 17, 2014, 09:11:19 PM
I' m not sure I really understand your question. I don't believe the timeline was fabricated if that's what you mean. I do believe if you were to sit down with 8 other people after an eventful night and hurriedly attempt to write down a timeline you could come up with a consensus version of events albeit maybe after a couple of attempts.
You would have no difficulty in remembering the events directly related to yourself, something that the writer of the timelines Russell O'Brien seemed to have a problem with. They had three attempts at a timeline, it still doesn't work to this day.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2014, 09:31:27 PM
Calls to mind the discussion on a current thread regarding the manner in which the PJ files were released and the questions regarding the 'journalist' responsible for putting them in the public domain and whether or not he 'doctored' some statements for his own ends. Particular comment was made regarding a delay in releasing the 'Tapas' interviews.
I recall there was no suspicion the friends had altered their own statements, but doubt was expressed about Levy's role.
I knew nothing about this man's role in releasing the files and only had concerns that innocent mistakes might have been made in translation, as happens when a nuance can matter and mean different things to different people. Now I have serious doubts about the files as a resource, particularly when recalling Joanne Morais warning about him, and would not call the friends to task on their basis.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2014, 09:33:48 PM
Calls to mind the discussion on a current thread regarding the manner in which the PJ files were released and the questions regarding the 'journalist' responsible for putting them in the public domain and whether or not he 'doctored' some statements for his own ends. Particular comment was made regarding a delay in releasing the 'Tapas' interviews.
I recall there was no suspicion the friends had altered their own statements, but doubt was expressed about Levy's role.
I knew nothing about this man's role in releasing the files and only had concerns that innocent mistakes might have been made in translation, as happens when a nuance can matter and mean different things to different people. Now I have serious doubts about the files as a resource, particularly when recalling Joanne Morais warning about him, and would not call the friends to task on their basis.
I'm sure they will be very gratified @)(++(*
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2014, 09:41:58 PM
Not at all - a conspiracy is a deliberate act between conspirators, not a gentle massaging of details amongst friends
"A gentle massaging of details" basically means if I understand you correctly jointly agreeing to tell lies to the police in the hopes that your friends don't get charged with covering up their daughter's death. That equates to a conspiracy.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2014, 10:24:25 PM
Smithman needed a good alibi before moving the child in case he was seen. Can't be in two places at once deception. That's the reason he was spotted at that time. Smithman wouldn't want anyone to know about it. That's a secret you take to your grave not confide to your family and friends.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 17, 2014, 10:28:52 PM
Smithman needed a good alibi before moving the child in case he was seen. Can't be in two places at once deception. That's the reason he was spotted at that time. Smithman wouldn't want anyone to know about it. That's a secret you take to your grave not confide to your family and friends.
Not quite sure what you're saying but this doesn't sound very simple to me. It sounds complex, convoluted, conspiratorial.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 17, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
You are the one talking about conspiracies? 8-)(--)
I'm asking you if you think there was a conspiracy, why are you asking me if I think there was one? I can give a simple, straight forward answer without using goading and insulting smileys. Can you? My answer is 'no' by the way.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 17, 2014, 11:53:10 PM
So you believe the McCanns' friends told truthful accounts of the events as they remember them then?
Why this insistance on the tapas group being some kind of single entity ... where they are ALL involved ... or they are ALL innocent of involvement ?
Isn't it possible that some were, and remain entirely uninvolved ... some who became aware later that they had been unwittingly involved in a cover-up of some sort ... and some who were directly involved in a cover up of some sort from the start ?
That's possible isn't it ?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 17, 2014, 11:58:20 PM
Why this insistance on the tapas group being some kind of single entity ... where they are ALL involved ... or they are ALL innocent of involvement ?
Isn't it possible that some were, and remain entirely uninvolved ... some who became aware later that they had been unwittingly involved in a cover-up of some sort ... and some who were directly involved in a cover up of some sort from the start ?
That's possible isn't it ?
As I've said before anything is possible, but looking at the known facts is it likely? I would say not. To have all 7 friends broadly singing from the same hymn sheet right from the start either indicates they are all telling the truth or that they are all lying. In my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 18, 2014, 06:39:36 AM
I'm asking you if you think there was a conspiracy, why are you asking me if I think there was one? I can give a simple, straight forward answer without using goading and insulting smileys. Can you? My answer is 'no' by the way.
Stop trying to put dangerous words into people's mouths then.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Albertini on April 18, 2014, 08:12:26 AM
I disagree in this case. To be vague would further fuel media speculation that they were still suspects. To be vague would be taken as guilty.
If charges are ever brought against them the Yard can say well they weren't suspects at the time but subsequent evidence has put them in the frame.
If the McCanns are still suspects - would SY be keeping them up to date with proceedings and would they have been introduced to the Oporto team? Not a chance IMO.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 18, 2014, 08:54:50 AM
If the McCanns are still suspects - would SY be keeping them up to date with proceedings and would they have been introduced to the Oporto team? Not a chance IMO.
Then there is nothing to worry about or post that on here, is there. 8)-)))
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Carew on April 18, 2014, 09:37:50 AM
If the McCanns are still suspects - would SY be keeping them up to date with proceedings and would they have been introduced to the Oporto team? Not a chance IMO.
You really have no idea whether or what proceedings SY or any other "team" are keeping the McCanns "up to date" with.............or otherwise.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 18, 2014, 01:02:20 PM
You do not know what`s going on within the entire investigation........and I bet the McCanns don`t either.
The fact that Scotland Yard dismissed the Jane Tanner sighting whilst the McCanns continue to promote the sighting as significant is a sign that they and Scotland are not 'on the same page' right now
Like you, I think it is unlikely that the McCanns are being 'up-dated' by the Yard in anything other than in the broadest terms ... not in a detailed way, and certainly not on operational matters
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 18, 2014, 01:06:25 PM
You do not know what`s going on within the entire investigation........and I bet the McCanns don`t either.
we have seen pretty well all the evidence..we have seen the climbdown by the Portuguese at the archiving report...we have seen Redwood say they are not suspects....I'm confident the mccanns are not involved...no way
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: ferryman on April 18, 2014, 01:20:38 PM
You mean (or you should mean!) that we have seen Jane Tanner vindicated after years of being denigrated and maligned ...
No
I mean that Scotland Yard and the McCanns seem to be at odds with regard to the importance of Jane Tanner's sighting
The Yard say he was almost certainly an innocent father returning from the creche with his two year old daughter, and do not ask the public for any assistance
The McCanns say it is not possible to be certain, and continue to ask the public for information on the Tanner sghting
That looks like being on a different page to me
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: ferryman on April 18, 2014, 02:14:25 PM
Jane Tanner was vindicated as an honest witness.
But doesn't appear to have seen Madeleine's abductor.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2014, 02:35:27 PM
But doesn't appear to have seen Madeleine's abductor.
Well JT is mistaken. It's impossible for her to brush past 2 people on a quiet street in her flip flops lol without being noticed. Any reconstruction you would see the absurdity of it. It can't be done as she said. Jez said it was impossible for him not to notice her passing.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2014, 02:37:57 PM
I mean that Scotland Yard and the McCanns seem to be at odds with regard to the importance of Jane Tanner's sighting
The Yard say he was almost certainly an innocent father returning from the creche with his two year old daughter, and do not ask the public for any assistance
The McCanns say it is not possible to be certain, and continue to ask the public for information on the Tanner sghting
That looks like being on a different page to me
DCI Redwood said, “We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
I find the use of “almost” to be thought provoking. As already stated on numerous occasions DCI Redwood is a man who chooses his words carefully.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 18, 2014, 02:43:39 PM
I mean that Scotland Yard and the McCanns seem to be at odds with regard to the importance of Jane Tanner's sighting
The Yard say he was almost certainly an innocent father returning from the creche with his two year old daughter, and do not ask the public for any assistance
The McCanns say it is not possible to be certain, and continue to ask the public for information on the Tanner sghting
That looks like being on a different page to me
Doesn't seem a problem to me...when patients have a terminal illness some may explore alternative medicine whilst still carrying on with their normal treatment. Doctors don't mind this...desperate times..desperate measures
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: ferryman on April 18, 2014, 02:50:43 PM
The status of the sightingin terms of its relevance to Madeleine's abduction is a separate issue.
Jane Tanner was/ is vindicated as an honest witness after years of denigration and traducement.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 18, 2014, 02:51:25 PM
Doesn't seem a problem to me...when patients have a terminal illness some may explore alternative medicine whilst still carrying on with their normal treatment. Doctors don't mind this...desperate times..desperate measures
Well I think the McCanns asking the public to pass information to Scotland Yard ... information which Scotland Yard, themselves, did not request ... might be seen as interference in the official investigation
More than that, it gives the impression that the McCanns do not have full confidence in Scotland Yard's ability to run their investigation in the manner they see fit
Shades of McCann V's PJ in that, I think
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 22, 2014, 10:29:41 AM
In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.
"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."
Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber. Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving. End quote
You might ask how on earth someone could get that so very wrong - and yet more than one person did.
This is why I think it's wrong to claim that because there are inconsistencies in description/times etc given in statements by 10 different people (especially at such a stressful time) - it is proof that lies were being told -when quite clearly they are all displaying perfectly normal human behaviour - when it comes to memory recall.
So we have to take everything said by the T9 with a very large pinch of salt. Trouble is, where does that leave us?
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Benice on April 22, 2014, 11:03:09 AM
So we have to take everything said by the T9 with a very large pinch of salt. Trouble is, where does that leave us?
No - but IMO in order to be fair we do have to accept that inconsistencies in statements do not automatically mean that 'someone is lying' which seems to be a claim being made by some people.
If their statements all tallied perfectly - then that would be suspicious IMO - as it would suggest collusion.
In the files - inconsistencies appear in statements made by people who were not part of the Tapas 9 - especially when it comes to their recollection of 'times'. They can't all be right but I don't see any of those people being accused of lying.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: sadie on April 22, 2014, 11:11:26 AM
No - but IMO in order to be fair we do have to accept that inconsistencies in statements do not automatically mean that 'someone is lying' which seems to be a claim being made by some people.
If their statements all tallied perfectly - then that would be suspicious IMO - as it would suggest collusion.
In the files - inconsistencies appear in statements made by people who were not part of the Tapas 9 - especially when it comes to their recollection of 'times'. They can't all be right but I don't see any of those people being accused of lying.
I don't think I accused anyone of lying. I am agreeing with your view of witness statements being unreliable and extrapolating that the "timeline" cannot be used as an alibi by anyone.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2014, 03:56:57 PM
I don't think I accused anyone of lying. I am agreeing with your view of witness statements being unreliable and extrapolating that the "timeline" cannot be used as an alibi by anyone.
what do they need an alibi for.they are not accused of anything
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 22, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
what do they need an alibi for.they are not accused of anything
Surely its having an irrefutable alibi that stops someone being accused.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Luz on April 22, 2014, 04:20:50 PM
A crime has been committed in my apartment and I can't offer a proof where I was at the time of such crime. However, I can say I wasn't there or where I was, substantiated by testimonies, and I had nothing to do with it; conclusion, someone else did: So I am innocent.
Why should anyone question my declarations?! I'm innocent.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2014, 04:24:19 PM
Surely its having an irrefutable alibi that stops someone being accused.
well they are not accused
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Luz on April 22, 2014, 04:27:14 PM
I am sad that some people are so thick that they can't understand that when a CRIME occurs (whatever its nature), everyone in the immediate vicinity is automatically SUSPECT from a criminal investigation point of view.
Otherwise how could criminal investigations be carried on?! Do you start by assuming that everyone close is innocent and only unknowns are possible suspects?!!!!!!!!
Delirious investigation theories might do it.......
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Luz on April 22, 2014, 04:30:56 PM
Not being accused doesn't mean you are not suspect. Unless you provide a foolproof alibi you are a suspect.
In many US documentaries published by TVs you can find cases where 20, 30 year suspects were able to avoid justice...., and also many that were unjustly accused with scarcity of evidence.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Luz on April 22, 2014, 04:36:26 PM
Some people seem perfectly all right with the assumptions of the McMirror article that implied that PT should allow NSY to to the ground and interrogate people as they wished, as if they had any jurisdiction over foreign territory, and as if the individuals had no personal rights, but are okay with invoking "INNOCENCE", as a God given right to the only people that should be the first to be interrogated.
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2014, 04:45:55 PM
Not being accused doesn't mean you are not suspect. Unless you provide a foolproof alibi you are a suspect.
In many US documentaries published by TVs you can find cases where 20, 30 year suspects were able to avoid justice...., and also many that were unjustly accused with scarcity of evidence.
I find it hilarious that you call people thick and then make such post...the mccanns are neither accused nor suspects
Title: Re: No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?
Post by: jassi on April 22, 2014, 04:51:04 PM