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: buzz on May 14, 2014, 07:17:10 PM
Title: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: buzz on May 14, 2014, 07:17:10 PM
What evidence is there of abduction?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 14, 2014, 07:19:04 PM
there is evidence of abduction if you understand what evidence means..Sy would not investigate abduction if there were no evidence...there is no proof of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 14, 2014, 07:21:09 PM
there is evidence of abduction if you understand what evidence means..Sy would not investigate abduction if there were no evidence...there is no proof of abduction
Please detail the evidence of abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 14, 2014, 07:22:19 PM
the very fact that maddie is missing is evidence of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 14, 2014, 07:26:03 PM
For the best part of 5 years there appeared to be no physical evidence whatsoever that Claudia Lawrence had been abducted. Now it appears there is evidence. So - all the while there was no physical evidence of abduction did those who like to doubt these things doubt she'd been abducted?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 14, 2014, 07:29:08 PM
I don't understand how the continued absence of a child is evidence of abduction.
davel, would you be kind enough to explain it to me please?
Never mentioned the word continued...but the absence of Maddie is evidence of abduction. Evidence is a fact that supports a theory. If I go into town..park my car and when I return its gone...that's evidence of theft. The problem here is that many don't understand what the word evidence means and that they are so biased they don't want to accept the truth
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 07:29:06 AM
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Theres a definition of evidence...the fact that Maddie is missing is evidence of abduction...its obviously not proof..but evidence none the less
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 15, 2014, 07:34:33 AM
Never mentioned the word continued...but the absence of Maddie is evidence of abduction. Evidence is a fact that supports a theory. If I go into town..park my car and when I return its gone...that's evidence of theft. The problem here is that many don't understand what the word evidence means and that they are so biased they don't want to accept the truth
The absence of Madeleine is a prerequisite to many theories, abduction being but one of them. It is not evidence of the abduction theory.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 07:56:57 AM
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Theres a definition of evidence...the fact that Maddie is missing is evidence of abduction...its obviously not proof..but evidence none the less
By that note, is her disappearance is also evidence she died in the apartment ?
Don't you agree ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 15, 2014, 09:11:19 AM
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 09:37:35 AM
what you have to do is take ALL the evidence and assess it as a whole...the point I am making is that the disappearance of Maddie is evidence of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 09:39:31 AM
It is evidence of removal of your car by persons other than you. There are at least 5 reasons why an authorised body may legitimately remove your car that do not constitute theft.
Then by a process of elimination the correct answer could be ascertained.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 15, 2014, 11:03:05 AM
#I can quote what Grime says verbatim and that is what he says..
lets see what Grime says if he answers questions from this forum...I guarantee there will be huge disappointment
Evidence is more than just some legally restricted definition. It is any information that points to a certain course of events. I shall look forward to your disappointment.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Moderator on May 15, 2014, 11:46:15 AM
Given that this question has arisen previously I felt it appropriate to give it its own thread.
Davel is correct when he points out that evidence and proof are not the same thing and are often confused. Basically anything which is connected to a potential crime is evidence. The same evidence can point to guilt or innocence depending on what other evidence is collected.
Madeleine's disappearance is evidence of something dreadful happening to her, nothing more and nothing less.
The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known. Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 12:09:05 PM
It is evidence of removal of your car by persons other than you. There are at least 5 reasons why an authorised body may legitimately remove your car that do not constitute theft.
then it is evidence of a possible abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 12:10:13 PM
Evidence is more than just some legally restricted definition. It is any information that points to a certain course of events. I shall look forward to your disappointment.
not certain but possible
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 12:12:29 PM
Given that this question has arisen previously I felt it appropriate to give it its own thread.
Davel is correct when he points out that evidence and proof are not the same thing and are often confused. Basically anything which is connected to a potential crime is evidence. The same evidence can point to guilt or innocence depending on what other evidence is collected.
Madeleine's disappearance is evidence of something dreadful happening to her, nothing more and nothing less.
The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known. Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value.
The key word is certainly value...with evidential being the adjective to describe value...so Grime effectively said the alerts, by themselves, had no value
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 15, 2014, 12:14:27 PM
The key word is certainly value...with evidential being the adjective to describe value...so Grime effectively said the alerts, by themselves, had no value
Yes, no value but they still are evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Lace on May 15, 2014, 12:19:49 PM
There could have been evidence of abduction, the abductor could have left something on Madeleine's bed, the bed ding wasn't sent off for forensic investigation. Even if the abductor had worn gloves, there could have been fibres from clothes he/she was wearing.
I don't understand Amaral's logic, he says almost straight away he suspected the McCann's yet 5a wasn't made a crime scene.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 12:23:42 PM
It is evidence of removal of your car by persons other than you. There are at least 5 reasons why an authorised body may legitimately remove your car that do not constitute theft.
so the police confirm that your car has not been removed by any authorised body...all that is left is theft...the absence of the car then becomes evidence of theft
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Gildas on May 15, 2014, 01:06:10 PM
Given that this question has arisen previously I felt it appropriate to give it its own thread.
Davel is correct when he points out that evidence and proof are not the same thing and are often confused. Basically anything which is connected to a potential crime is evidence. The same evidence can point to guilt or innocence depending on what other evidence is collected.
Madeleine's disappearance is evidence of something dreadful happening to her, nothing more and nothing less.
The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known. Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value.
Mr Moderator, You post that;
"The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known. Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value."
If the key word is "value", could you please, provide a link to where Mr Grimes stated that the alerts were of no evidential value on their own.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 15, 2014, 01:55:18 PM
There could have been evidence of abduction, the abductor could have left something on Madeleine's bed, the bed ding wasn't sent off for forensic investigation. Even if the abductor had worn gloves, there could have been fibres from clothes he/she was wearing.
I don't understand Amaral's logic, he says almost straight away he suspected the McCann's yet 5a wasn't made a crime scene.
Abductor ???
Not proven I would say.
What do you think ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Lace on May 15, 2014, 02:12:26 PM
"The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known. Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value."
If the key word is "value", could you please, provide a link to where Mr Grimes stated that the alerts were of no evidential value on their own.
It is in the final Report, he stated that the dog alerts had no evidential value unless corroborated by forensics. In this case the forensics were inconclusive thus meaningless. Consequently, the dog alerts are evidence without a value. They are not proof.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 15, 2014, 07:27:06 PM
it is and I am right...you are confusing evidence with proof
Madeleine being missing is neither proof nor evidence that she was abducted ... the distinction is, therefore, irrelevant
I really don't understand why you can't understand the simple fact that Madeleine being missing is evidence of nothing more than the fact that she is 'missing'
'Missing' does not equate with 'Abducted'. Saying "Madeleine is missing, therefore she was abducted" ( which is what you are saying ) is not just wrong, it is nonsense
You now have the opportunity to present what evidence exists to support the proposition that Madeleine is missing because she was abducted
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 15, 2014, 07:30:25 PM
I guess then that when Claudia Lawrence went missing it was not evidence of abduction either? What other evidence was there in the first few years of the investigation into her disappearance was there of abduction? Nothing physical or tangible, so why have the police always treated her disappearance as an abduction?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on May 15, 2014, 07:34:21 PM
Abduction? If a child is removed from her residence against her will, what is the description of this action, by persons not yet named ?
Do you think that it was possible that She walked out of the apartment of her free will?... that would not be abduction, until she was taken from the streets against her will, which then, would be abduction.
If she died in the apartment and was removed, obviously against her will, Is that abduction too?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 15, 2014, 07:36:10 PM
Abduction? If a child is removed from her residence against her will, what is the description of this action, by persons not yet named ?
Do you think that it was possible that She walked out of the apartment of her free will?... that would not be abduction, until she was taken from the streets against her will, which then, would be abduction.
If she died in the apartment and was removed, obviously against her will, Is that abduction too?
'If she died in the apartment and was removed, obviously against her will, Is that abduction too?'
how would she know if she's dead ???
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on May 15, 2014, 07:39:03 PM
I guess then that when Claudia Lawrence went missing it was not evidence of abduction either? What other evidence was there in the first few years of the investigation into her disappearance was there of abduction? Nothing physical or tangible, so why have the police always treated her disappearance as an abduction?
This thread asks what evidence exists that supports the theory that Madeleine was abducted
As far as I can see, there isn't any
The open window might be presented as 'potentially' being evidence of abduction, I think, but it is weak evidence in a much as it can equally be presented as potential evidence of a 'staged' abduction
Can you think of anything else ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 15, 2014, 07:50:44 PM
You CANNOT abduct a dead body.
You can steal it, but abduction requires a live victim.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 15, 2014, 07:57:45 PM
Madeleine being missing is neither proof nor evidence that she was abducted ... the distinction is, therefore, irrelevant
The distinction is important....the fact that madeleine is missing is evidence but not proof of abduction...you just don't understand what evidence is
I really don't understand why you can't understand the simple fact that Madeleine being missing is evidence of nothing more than the fact that she is 'missing'
the fact that she is missing means tah one of several things ahave happened and hence is evidence to support all these possibilities
'Missing' does not equate with 'Abducted'. Saying "Madeleine is missing, therefore she was abducted" ( which is what you are saying ) is not just wrong, it is nonsense
I haven't said missing equates with abduction
You now have the opportunity to present what evidence exists to support the proposition that Madeleine is missing because she was abducted
Finally as was pointed out re the missing car...the fact that the car is missing is evidence of several possibilities. If you discard the possibilities that are not true and are left with only one...then the fact that the car is missing is evidence to support the final outcome
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 15, 2014, 08:22:34 PM
This thread asks what evidence exists that supports the theory that Madeleine was abducted
As far as I can see, there isn't any
The open window might be presented as 'potentially' being evidence of abduction, I think, but it is weak evidence in a much as it can equally be presented as potential evidence of a 'staged' abduction
Can you think of anything else ?
Yes the absence of the child is evidence, same as the absence of Claudia Lawrence is evidence that she too has been abducted.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 15, 2014, 08:24:15 PM
The absence of the child is evidence of ABSENCE OF THE CHILD.
Nothing more.
what is the absence of Claudia Lawrence then? Why was her disappearance treated as an abduction pretty much from day one despite the lack of any other evidence? Do you not see the parallels? No physical or tangible evidence of abduction, yet abduction has been the only plausible, logical theory, which is what the police have been working on for the last x years and are now, at last, pulling together some actual, tangible evidence in the hopes of securing a charge and conviction and finally an answer to what happened to her.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on May 15, 2014, 08:37:56 PM
what is the absence of Claudia Lawrence then? Why was her disappearance treated as an abduction pretty much from day one despite the lack of any other evidence? Do you not see the parallels? No physical or tangible evidence of abduction, yet abduction has been the only plausible, logical theory, which is what the police have been working on for the last x years and are now, at last, pulling together some actual, tangible evidence in the hopes of securing a charge and conviction and finally an answer to what happened to her.
No, I do not see any "parallels".
Claudia was an adult, which means she walked out of her own apartment voluntarily and met her fate thereafter.
Madeleine is thought to have died in 5a, which means she couldn't have walked anywhere.
Claudia had an active personal life, raising the possibilities of suspects, yet Madeleine should have been the SAFEST CHILD IN THE WORLD, statistically speaking.
Indeed, she would have been safe (allegedly) if her parents had actually looked after her.
How is a child dying in a foreign apartment and being hidden, remotely connected or comparable to a single woman being taken by a mystery man on her way to work?
8-)(--)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 15, 2014, 08:56:31 PM
You are spectacularly missing the point Silkywhiskers. Claudia could have moved to another part of the country and assumed a new identity. She could have committed suicide. She could have eloped with a secret lover. These were all possibilities but all eventually discounted in favour of the theory that she had been abducted and murdered, despite the complete absence of any other supporting evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 15, 2014, 08:57:47 PM
You are spectacularly missing the point Silkywhiskers. Claudia could have moved to another part of the country and assumed a new identity. She could have committed suicide. She could have eloped with a secret lover. These were all possibilities but all eventually discounted in favour of the theory that she had been abducted and murdered, despite the complete absence of any other supporting evidence.
I no longer know what your "point" is.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on May 15, 2014, 09:53:53 PM
What everyone is forgetting is the psychological side of what happened.
No way would parents that had hurt their child want to keep the spotlight on them
No way would they keep pushing for Justice and keep the case alive
No way would they involve SYard. reputedly the most expert investigators in the world to delve into each tiny bit, in case SY found someting out about them
No way. They are innocent alright.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 15, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
EVIDENCE : something which shows that something else exists or is true : a visible sign of something : material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something : an outward sign : indication : something that furnishes proof
PROOF Is that which validates the evidence.
I suggest I am not the one who is confused.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on May 16, 2014, 06:04:58 AM
The dogs alerts remain the only indications so far in this case.
There are none for abduction.
there is evidence of abduction...that's what this thread has shown
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on May 16, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
It may be more useful to divide what is known into "intel", "evidence" and a sub group within that cattagory : "admissible evidence", just using the word evidence leads to much confusion as can be seen by this thread. To suggest that the fact that she is missing is evidence of an abduction I am afraid is way off the mark. You could say the same thing about being taken away my aliens. All of these catagories have to have the prefix of "known to us" as obviously we have only seen a fraction of what the police have access to. Broadly speaking - evidence proves a fact. Enough pieces of evidence prove enough facts to turn a theory into what actually happened. Admissibility is obviously crucial as there is little point in gaining evidence that cannot be used in court. Spain and the UK have different legal systems so we have the potential for 2 different sub groups with the "admissible evidence group". Intel is information that points you towards a possible source of evidence. (the dogs provide intel only, for example you are never going to convict someone for carrying a bomb purely because a dog has identified you. It is the intel provided by the dog that enables the police to search the bomber and find the evidence - namely the bomb)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 09:57:14 AM
It may be more useful to divide what is known into "intel", "evidence" and a sub group within that cattagory : "admissible evidence", just using the word evidence leads to much confusion as can be seen by this thread. To suggest that the fact that she is missing is evidence of an abduction I am afraid is way off the mark. You could say the same thing about being taken away my aliens. All of these catagories have to have the prefix of "known to us" as obviously we have only seen a fraction of what the police have access to. Broadly speaking - evidence proves a fact. Enough pieces of evidence prove enough facts to turn a theory into what actually happened. Admissibility is obviously crucial as there is little point in gaining evidence that cannot be used in court. Spain and the UK have different legal systems so we have the potential for 2 different sub groups with the "admissible evidence group". Intel is information that points you towards a possible source of evidence. (the dogs provide intel only, for example you are never going to convict someone for carrying a bomb purely because a dog has identified you. It is the intel provided by the dog that enables the police to search the bomber and find the evidence - namely the bomb)
who are you to say I'm way off the mark..you are way off the mark with a poor understanding of what evidence is....evidence does not prove a fact necessarily........there was enough evidence to take colin stagg to court and he was innocent.....
absence is evidence of abduction...we need more evidence to make a stronger case and this no doubt is what SY have done
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on May 16, 2014, 10:02:36 AM
It may be more useful to divide what is known into "intel", "evidence" and a sub group within that cattagory : "admissible evidence", just using the word evidence leads to much confusion as can be seen by this thread. To suggest that the fact that she is missing is evidence of an abduction I am afraid is way off the mark. You could say the same thing about being taken away my aliens. All of these catagories have to have the prefix of "known to us" as obviously we have only seen a fraction of what the police have access to. Broadly speaking - evidence proves a fact. Enough pieces of evidence prove enough facts to turn a theory into what actually happened. Admissibility is obviously crucial as there is little point in gaining evidence that cannot be used in court. Spain and the UK have different legal systems so we have the potential for 2 different sub groups with the "admissible evidence group". Intel is information that points you towards a possible source of evidence. (the dogs provide intel only, for example you are never going to convict someone for carrying a bomb purely because a dog has identified you. It is the intel provided by the dog that enables the police to search the bomber and find the evidence - namely the bomb)
Sounds like a reasonable post. Am I right in thinking you are saying that instead of Madeleine's absence being 'evidence' or 'proof' of abduction, we should be saying Madeleine's absence is intel which 'points towards abduction'?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on May 16, 2014, 10:15:20 AM
OK, let me try again to explain as the thread and the forum is going to go in all directions if we cant agree what evidence is. Firstly, if evidence does not prove a fact, then I am at a loss to know what exactly it is (that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. - first dictionary definition I found on the web) To give another example of the misuse of proof, I once challenged a "bible basher" on my doorstep to give me any proof that god existed. She bent down and picked a daisy from my lawn and gave it to me. In her eyes, the very existence of the daisy was proof of God. She had ignored the issue of causation which is pretty essential. I don't think anyone questions the fact that she has disappeared in the same way that I could not argue the fact that the daisy existed. I don't think that the police as struggling to prove that, it's taken for granted by everyone. The theory of abduction is the theory concerning why she has disappeared. So proof of abduction needs to prove the how and the why of her disappearance. In the same way that the lady on my doorstep needs to prove the origin of the daisy and not that existence of the daisy.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 10:49:31 AM
OK, let me try again to explain as the thread and the forum is going to go in all directions if we cant agree what evidence is. Firstly, if evidence does not prove a fact, then I am at a loss to know what exactly it is (that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. - first dictionary definition I found on the web) To give another example of the misuse of proof, I once challenged a "bible basher" on my doorstep to give me any proof that god existed. She bent down and picked a daisy from my lawn and gave it to me. In her eyes, the very existence of the daisy was proof of God. She had ignored the issue of causation which is pretty essential. I don't think anyone questions the fact that she has disappeared in the same way that I could not argue the fact that the daisy existed. I don't think that the police as struggling to prove that, it's taken for granted by everyone. The theory of abduction is the theory concerning why she has disappeared. So proof of abduction needs to prove the how and the why of her disappearance. In the same way that the lady on my doorstep needs to prove the origin of the daisy and not that existence of the daisy.
you have found a definition which describes evidence as proof...so that's wrong for a start....you then continue the post talking about proof.
one piece of evidence may prove nothing..agreed...
several pieces of evidence together my prove something..again they may not
evidence and proof are not the same
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on May 16, 2014, 10:52:36 AM
I give up..anyone else want to try?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Victoria on May 16, 2014, 11:06:40 AM
It does not mean the mccanns did not commit a crime.
where is your "insufficient "quote from
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 01:10:14 PM
the Portuguese archiving report does not mention insufficient evidence ..it says...
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
NO INDICATIONS OF THE PRACTICE OF ANY CRIME....
That's pretty clear and was the opinion of the Portuguese judicial system...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 01:11:13 PM
Not admissible in court? Are you absolutely 100% positive about that?
where have you been for the past seven years...even grime says that they have NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on May 16, 2014, 01:16:16 PM
Evidence is a pointer that might indicate guilt but is not conclusive.
Proof is an irrefutable indicator of guilt.
Sometimes, several pieces of evidence, none of them on their own conclusive, can collectively amount to proof.
The conviction of Peter Voisey is a classic example.
There was no, smoking-gun proof of his guilt. But several pieces of evidence.
He was on the sex-offenders' register and therefore capable of the crime. That fact wasn't presented to the jury, but will no doubt have influenced the police and CPS in pressing charges.
His mobile phone placed him the "right" area at the time of the crime. There was a weak DNA correlation, although DNA might have conclusively ruled him out.
A footprint recovered from the wet bathroom floor precisely matched the pattern of a pair of shoes he owned.
The little girl was an excellent witness, although her evidence was never released. Maybe she was able to describe details of the interior of his car, or items of clothing he possessed (we can only guess).
There was an entry in his diary: it's finished. He claimed that referred to Christmas (the crime was just after Christams).
None of that, on its own, would have been sufficient to convict.
Collectively, it all amounted to a compelling case.
For me, proof of the innocence of the McCanns is the absence of evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at any point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert at 2200.
Collaboration would have been required to pull off a crime such as that of which they were accused.
Without collaboration, mission impossible ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on May 16, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
The case was archived pending better evidence. The archiving dispatch appears to have said this. It seems they were not even prepared to say what crime if any had been committed. Clearly they had no strong evidence of abduction or they would have said so.
<<<<SNIP>>>>
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship. <<<SNIP>>>
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records. The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless …. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order: … b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 01:48:51 PM
The case was archived pending better evidence. The archiving dispatch appears to have said this. It seems they were not even prepared to say what crime if any had been committed. Clearly they had no strong evidence of abduction or they would have said so.
<<<<SNIP>>>>
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship. <<<SNIP>>>
This is totally untrue as ferryman points out...the archiving report says no evidence against the mccanns...
unfortunately posters still believe untruths which in my mind accounts for those who disbelieve the mccanns
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on May 16, 2014, 02:02:50 PM
the Portuguese archiving report does not mention insufficient evidence ..it says...
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
NO INDICATIONS OF THE PRACTICE OF ANY CRIME....
That's pretty clear and was the opinion of the Portuguese judicial system...
That is indeed very clear but saying that there is no indications of the practise of any crime doesn't mean there aren't any as yet undiscovered.
Patb made a good point earlier when he mentioned admissible evidence but this thread does not limit itself to just admissible evidence. Evidence and even admissible evidence can be a twin edged sword as I unfortunately found out to my own cost.
Another point worth clarifying is that the dog handler (the expert) can give evidence in court.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on May 16, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
This is totally untrue as ferryman points out...the archiving report says no evidence against the mccanns...
unfortunately posters still believe untruths which in my mind accounts for those who disbelieve the mccanns
I think there is a total disregard for the 'presumption of innocence' in Madeleine McCann's case. I cannot comprehend why people continue to accuse her parents of a heinous crime when there has never been any suggestion there is evidence to charge them.
For example, should there be an organised internet campaign against the man released from police custody in the Claudia Lawrence case ... I imagine the legal repercussions would be immediate.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on May 16, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
I agree Brietta, Chris Jeffries was treated appallingly by Sky News and others after the murder of Joanne Yeates and rightly successfully sued many of them for defamation. Now they are doing the same with Michael Snelling plastering his photo everywhere.
The presumption of innocence doesn't seem to apply to the British press regardless of Leveson.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on May 16, 2014, 02:50:23 PM
still lots of confusion re the legal terms being used. As I mentioned before, evidence proves something. If it proves something relavant, it forms part of the case, if it proves something not relevant, then its not part of the case. If it does not meet required standards, it cant be introduced within the legal environment, if it doesn't prove anything, then it's either not evidence in the first place or subject to cross examination which then undermines it (this would normally be expert matter of opinion rather than fact). One piece of evidence, that is accepted by the judge or jury proves a fact. In most occasions, one piece of evidence does not prove guilt as it normally takes a set of proven facts to turn a theory (ie the allegation) into something that the court accepts as proven reality (beyond reasonable doubt), sometimes there is so much evidence that even if some is excluded through procedure or undermined by the defence, there is still enough evidence to prove the case. there seems to be confusion between evidence proving a fact and evidence proving guilt. So much emotion on these threads that its hard to keep to cold, rational legal concepts.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on May 16, 2014, 02:53:44 PM
It is yet to be determined whether or not they have evidential value.
It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
Grime was stating the law. Uncorroborated dog alerts are inadmissible as evidence.
That's correct, the key/operative word being uncorroborated. However, should new evidence be discovered which corroborates the dog alerts then we are into a completely different ball game.
For the benefit of all posters, this thread relates to all evidence and does not limit itself to admissible or corroborated evidence.
So what is the evidence for abduction?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 03:23:31 PM
still lots of confusion re the legal terms being used. As I mentioned before, evidence proves something. If it proves something relavant, it forms part of the case, if it proves something not relevant, then its not part of the case. If it does not meet required standards, it cant be introduced within the legal environment, if it doesn't prove anything, then it's either not evidence in the first place or subject to cross examination which then undermines it (this would normally be expert matter of opinion rather than fact). One piece of evidence, that is accepted by the judge or jury proves a fact. In most occasions, one piece of evidence does not prove guilt as it normally takes a set of proven facts to turn a theory (ie the allegation) into something that the court accepts as proven reality (beyond reasonable doubt), sometimes there is so much evidence that even if some is excluded through procedure or undermined by the defence, there is still enough evidence to prove the case. there seems to be confusion between evidence proving a fact and evidence proving guilt. So much emotion on these threads that its hard to keep to cold, rational legal concepts.
sorry Pat..evidence doesn't always prove something...I'm afraid you are wrong again...take dna...thats pretty good evidence.....its admissable...what does its presence prove...sometimes nothing...you keep on saying the same thing that evidence proves something...it does sometimes...sometimes it doesn't...
identification evidence...accepted in court...does it prove anything...no...its unreliable
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on May 16, 2014, 03:31:12 PM
Correct Dave, evidence can point to two or more completely different conclusions.
The dog alert evidence could be because the dog...
* detected cadaver scent.
* detected dried human blood.
* detected pork.
* detected body ash.
* was accidentally queued.
Have I missed anything?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on May 16, 2014, 03:35:24 PM
Correct Dave, evidence can point to two or more completely different conclusions.
The dog alert evidence could be because the dog...
* detected cadaver scent.
* detected dried human blood.
* detected pork.
* detected body ash.
* was accidentally queued.
Have I missed anything?
Yes.
Was miffed because someone took his toy away ...
Although I suppose that would count as accidental cuing ...
OK ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on May 16, 2014, 03:39:30 PM
Let's see what we have so far. Evidence (not proof) which can point to abduction can include...
* The fact that Madeleine is missing. * The wide open window and raised shutter. * Two men seen afterwards carrying a child in pyjamas.
Nobody knows better than me how evidence can be construed and manipulated to persuade a bored jury that a crime has taken place. Evidence can be a minefield of inconsistencies.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 04:47:07 PM
It is in the final Report, he stated that the dog alerts had no evidential value unless corroborated by forensics. In this case the forensics were inconclusive thus meaningless. Consequently, the dog alerts are evidence without a value. They are not proof.
Mr Moderator,
Thank you for your reply.
When I checked Mr Grimes report, I found that this is what he states about the alerts:
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
In this statement, he uses the word "reliability" not "value".
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 05:33:28 PM
The snip included in my earlier post. The thread title is "So what is the evidence for abduction"? not "Are Drs McCann guilty or innocent of a crime with which they have not been charged" The AG Archiving Dispatch said But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
During the investigation by The Metropolitan Police service since 2011 their website has used the terms "disappearance" "missing" "abduction" and of course there was The Commissioners indiscreet use of the term "murder" and DCI Redwood's suggestion the child may not have left the apartment alive. So the two police forces involved are not stating categorically there was an abduction presumably because they have insufficient evidence of such a crime.
the fact that SY are treating this case as a stranger abduction is extremely relavent to the thread..SYs website talks of a stranger abduction
the archiving report states there is no evidence of any crime committed by the mccanns...thats very clear
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 16, 2014, 05:33:47 PM
Evidence is a pointer that might indicate guilt but is not conclusive.
Proof is an irrefutable indicator of guilt.
Sometimes, several pieces of evidence, none of them on their own conclusive, can collectively amount to proof.
The conviction of Peter Voisey is a classic example.
There was no, smoking-gun proof of his guilt. But several pieces of evidence.
He was on the sex-offenders' register and therefore capable of the crime. That fact wasn't presented to the jury, but will no doubt have influenced the police and CPS in pressing charges.
His mobile phone placed him the "right" area at the time of the crime. There was a weak DNA correlation, although DNA might have conclusively ruled him out.
A footprint recovered from the wet bathroom floor precisely matched the pattern of a pair of shoes he owned.
The little girl was an excellent witness, although her evidence was never released. Maybe she was able to describe details of the interior of his car, or items of clothing he possessed (we can only guess).
There was an entry in his diary: it's finished. He claimed that referred to Christmas (the crime was just after Christams).
None of that, on its own, would have been sufficient to convict.
Collectively, it all amounted to a compelling case.
In a similar vein, those with doubts will view...
Dog Alerts Wiped Cell Phone records Inconsistent Statements Deep Sleeping Twins Refusing to Answer Questions Refusing to do reconstruction Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave Excessive use of Litigation Body Language Unrestricted Fund Smith Sighting Crying in the Night Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
As those bits of evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 05:37:58 PM
Dog Alerts Wiped Cell Phone records Inconsistent Statements Deep Sleeping Twins Refusing to Answer Questions Refusing to do reconstruction Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave Excessive use of Litigation Body Language Unrestricted Fund Smith Sighting Crying in the Night Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
As those bits of evidence.
and those with an open mind wont I suppose...its what SY believe thats important...not suspects
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on May 16, 2014, 05:46:37 PM
When I checked Mr Grimes report, I found that this is what he states about the alerts:
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
In this statement, he uses the word "reliability" not "value".
Usually Mr Grime's reports would not be made public in the way they have been. Would I be right in thinking that dog handlers usually work below the radar in Britain and are seldom called to give evidence in court?
I bet he could not have foreseen his official report being posted on the internet and dissected as it has been.
I think it is a mark of his professionalism that he gave textbook answers covering every point made. I have never seen any criticism or error pointed out in what Mr Grime says in his report ... but I have seen a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
I remain unimpressed by the videos though
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2014, 06:13:02 PM
Do you have a cite which indicates that the MPS are following this line to the exclusion of all others? Or is it just your opinion? Red bit: you keep saying this why? I have not suggested the McCanns are guilty of anything. If the archiving report cannot identify what if any crime has been committed the rest is self evident.
I think you are splitting hairs due to your reluctance to accept facts
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on May 16, 2014, 06:39:04 PM
Usually Mr Grime's reports would not be made public in the way they have been. Would I be right in thinking that dog handlers usually work below the radar in Britain and are seldom called to give evidence in court?
I bet he could not have foreseen his official report being posted on the internet and dissected as it has been.
I think it is a mark of his professionalism that he gave textbook answers covering every point made. I have never seen any criticism or error pointed out in what Mr Grime says in his report ... but I have seen a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
I remain unimpressed by the videos though
His response in his rogatory interview to the question put to him about the apparent alert of Eddie to cuddle-cat was the antithesis of professional, or textbook.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Gildas on May 16, 2014, 07:24:32 PM
Usually Mr Grime's reports would not be made public in the way they have been. Would I be right in thinking that dog handlers usually work below the radar in Britain and are seldom called to give evidence in court?
I bet he could not have foreseen his official report being posted on the internet and dissected as it has been.
I think it is a mark of his professionalism that he gave textbook answers covering every point made. I have never seen any criticism or error pointed out in what Mr Grime says in his report ... but I have seen a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
I remain unimpressed by the videos though
Brietta,
I think you may have missed an early post of mine.
Mr Moderator had posted the following;
"The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known. Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value."
I asked Mr Moderator for a link, but he did not provide one.
As far as I can see, Mr Grimes used the term "evidential reliability" and not "evidential value".
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on May 16, 2014, 07:56:38 PM
His response in his rogatory interview to the question put to him about the apparent alert of Eddie to cuddle-cat was the antithesis of professional, or textbook.
I have missed that, ferryman, I will check it out.
I was totally not impressed by Eddie and CC in the video ... and there are huge gaps in my knowledge, so thank you.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Air Con on May 16, 2014, 10:49:27 PM
When I checked Mr Grimes report, I found that this is what he states about the alerts:
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
In this statement, he uses the word "reliability" not "value".
That's correct, Martin never uses the term 'evidential value' but refers to the dog alerts as having no evidential reliability.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on May 17, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
That's correct, Martin never uses the term 'evidential value' but refers to the dog alerts as having no evidential reliability.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That boils down to "maybe" and "maybe not", doesn't it?
At the time of the 5A inspection, there may have been a possibility that the air-borne scent could have come from a physical presence in, or near, the premises, e.g., attic, cellar, garden. As the footage has been edited, there's no way of knowing whether the question was raised, nor whether such checks had been made or not.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2014, 02:45:12 PM
That's correct, Martin never uses the term 'evidential value' but refers to the dog alerts as having no evidential reliability.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Does it make any difference...the meaning is clear although somw will not accept it
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Fern on May 17, 2014, 04:38:00 PM
"Child abduction or child theft is the unauthorized removal of a minor (a child under the age of legal adulthood) from the custody of the child's natural parents or legally appointed guardians."
The OP requests 'evidence of an abduction', not an 'abductor' but the actual physical act of an 'abduction'.
In general, what possible evidence does the physical act of an abduction leave apart from the fact that a child is missing ?
Remember, the OP is asking for evidence of an 'abduction' and not of an 'abductor'.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: a.baker on May 17, 2014, 04:44:29 PM
Archiving report states 'No evidence of any crime' As 'abduction' is obviously a crime,it has been confirmed that there is NO 'evidence' of it. Its really not that hard to understand!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Gildas on May 17, 2014, 05:02:03 PM
Does it make any difference...the meaning is clear although somw will not accept it
Does it make a difference, Davel? Well, you seem to think so. This is what you said about it:
"The key word is certainly value...with evidential being the adjective to describe value...so Grime effectively said the alerts, by themselves, had no value."
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Fern on May 17, 2014, 05:11:27 PM
Archiving report states 'No evidence of any crime' As 'abduction' is obviously a crime,it has been confirmed that there is NO 'evidence' of it. Its really not that hard to understand!
Are you referring to this ? If so, lets look at what the archiving report says and then refer back to your comment;
'Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08'
Having read the above extract from the archiving file, is it not evident to you that the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhães e Menezes, is referring to the former 'arguidos' ie Rob Murat and McCanns rather than an 'abduction' ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 21, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
"Child abduction or child theft is the unauthorized removal of a minor (a child under the age of legal adulthood) from the custody of the child's natural parents or legally appointed guardians."
The OP requests 'evidence of an abduction', not an 'abductor' but the actual physical act of an 'abduction'.
In general, what possible evidence does the physical act of an abduction leave apart from the fact that a child is missing ?
Remember, the OP is asking for evidence of an 'abduction' and not of an 'abductor'.
I would have thought that technically, a child could be missing without being abducted. There might be no evidence pointing to indicate the cause.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 21, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
we have been over this several times and its all on this thread...best just read back..the important thing is to understand the difference between evidence and proof
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on May 29, 2014, 02:53:41 PM
Possibly not the right thread as I can't find the post on the burglar issue. From memory, it was that a seasoned burglar would wear gloves and, therefore, even in the event of an accidental death due to stopping her shouting, the burglar did not have to worry about DNA and so the idea of removing a body is not logical.
I see a problem with that idea.
Burglars wear gloves to avoid leaving identifiable fingerprints. Why wouldn't there be DNA on the gloves?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 29, 2014, 03:26:52 PM
Possibly not the right thread as I can't find the post on the burglar issue. From memory, it was that a seasoned burglar would wear gloves and, therefore, even in the event of an accidental death due to stopping her shouting, the burglar did not have to worry about DNA and so the idea of removing a body is not logical.
I see a problem with that idea.
Burglars wear gloves to avoid leaving identifiable fingerprints. Why wouldn't there be DNA on the gloves?
I imagine there would be, which would mean that if Madeleine's body was found, traces of DNA of the 'abductor' , as the last person to touch Madeleine ,should be present.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Martina on May 29, 2014, 05:47:10 PM
Possibly not the right thread as I can't find the post on the burglar issue. From memory, it was that a seasoned burglar would wear gloves and, therefore, even in the event of an accidental death due to stopping her shouting, the burglar did not have to worry about DNA and so the idea of removing a body is not logical.
I see a problem with that idea.
Burglars wear gloves to avoid leaving identifiable fingerprints. Why wouldn't there be DNA on the gloves?
No traceable amounts of DNA, I said. That's not exactly the same as "no DNA". Of course the burglar would shed some skin cells onto the gloves when putting them on, but it would be a minuscule amount of DNA. It would be transferred to the Maddie's skin or clothes in even smaller quantities, so it would be hard to find that DNA on her, let alone isolate from the other genetic material she would inevitably carry on her body and clothes. DNA from her parents, siblings, etc, etc. I cannot remember even a single case in which a gloved perp would be arrested and sentenced for murder or assault, basing on DNA left by touch.
So if it was just an accidental strangulation by the byrglar, trying to silence Maddie, the perp would have no reason to take her body with him. None. Sorry.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 29, 2014, 05:50:23 PM
No traceable amounts of DNA, I said. That's not exactly the same as "no DNA". Of course the burglar would shed some skin cells onto the gloves when putting them on, but it would be a minuscule amount of DNA. It would be transferred to the Maddie's skin or clothes in even smaller quantities, so it would be hard to find that DNA on her, let alone isolate from the other genetic material she would inevitably carry on her body and clothes. DNA from her parents, siblings, etc, etc. I cannot remember even a single case in which a gloved perp would be arrested and sentenced for murder or assault, basing on DNA left by touch.
So if it was just an accidental strangulation by the byrglar, trying to silence Maddie, the perp would have no reason to take her body with him. None. Sorry.
These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA. The lack of stranger DNA will raise questions, though I'm sure that a totally innocent explanation would be instantly forthcoming.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Victoria on May 29, 2014, 05:53:56 PM
These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA. The lack of stranger DNA will raise questions, though I'm sure that a totally innocent explanation would be instantly forthcoming.
The fact that the local forensics squad weren't even bothering to wears gloves tells you all you need to know about the chances of meaningful forensic evidence being recovered from the crime scene.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Martina on May 29, 2014, 05:55:17 PM
These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA.
But still there is a limit for it, especially when DNA is mixed. Show me one case, where the perpetrator was wearing gloves yet left enough of the DNA behind to get caught. I cannot recall any.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 29, 2014, 05:56:31 PM
The fact that the local forensics squad weren't even bothering to wears gloves tells you all you need to know about the chances of meaningful forensic evidence being recovered from the crime scene.
Agreed, but this time it will be different. There is a UK team of forensic scientists, who will ensure that things are done correctly.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on May 29, 2014, 06:38:15 PM
These days, one only need miniscule amounts of DNA. The lack of stranger DNA will raise questions, though I'm sure that a totally innocent explanation would be instantly forthcoming.
There are still unidentified hairs from the apartment, if they've been kept. Six which have disappeared from the bed without a trace unless anyone finds what the PJ did with them, but also others. At the time, most of them could only be analysed for mtDNA. If they've been kept and IFFF a lab can try to extract nuclear DNA from whatever may have been kept, then perhaps that could be helpful.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 29, 2014, 08:42:04 PM
But still there is a limit for it, especially when DNA is mixed. Show me one case, where the perpetrator was wearing gloves yet left enough of the DNA behind to get caught. I cannot recall any.
Precious.
You know that DNA can come from hair follicles nowdays?
Sweat?
His hands may have been covered but that doesn't mean he didn't leave DNA!
Indeed, climbing OUT of a small window with a corpse sounds fairly sweaty work. I would expect that window frame to have SOMETHING, even skin cells where he scraped against the sill with his dead weight in his arms, trying to force it through an open window when the door he just entered through was standing open....
Yeah. All very unlikely isn't it?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Martina on May 29, 2014, 09:08:19 PM
You know that DNA can come from hair follicles nowdays?
Sweat?
His hands may have been covered but that doesn't mean he didn't leave DNA!
Indeed, climbing OUT of a small window with a corpse sounds fairly sweaty work. I would expect that window frame to have SOMETHING, even skin cells where he scraped against the sill with his dead weight in his arms, trying to force it through an open window when the door he just entered through was standing open....
Yeah. All very unlikely isn't it?
Silky, hold your horses for a moment, ok? I'm talking here about a hypothetical situation in which a gloved burglar accidentally suffocates Maddie, trying to silence her and then decides to take her body with him, in fear that, read that carefully, please, in the process of murdering Maddie he might leave a significant amount of DNA on her. How much DNA can be transferred from the gloved hands to the skin or clothes of the victim? Not much, certainly. Not enough for the perp to decide he should increase the risk by taking the body away. That's why I don't actually believe in the murdered-and-taken-by-a burglar theory.
Now, I also don't believe that anyone used the window as the point of entry or exit that night, as, I do agree with you, that would have to leave some traces behind and there were none. And yes I do generally agree that if there was any intruder, he should leave some forensic evidence behind. I'm just trying to explain, that a hypothetical burglar, killing Maddie by accident would not leave much of said evidence on her. Comprende? 8)--))
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 29, 2014, 09:10:29 PM
Silky, hold your horses for a moment, ok? I'm talking here about a hypothetical situation in which a gloved burglar accidentally suffocates Maddie, trying to silence her and then decides to take her body with him, in fear that, read that carefully, please, in the process of murdering Maddie he might leave a significant amount of DNA on her. How much DNA can be transferred from the gloved hands to the skin or clothes of the victim? Not much, certainly. Not enough for the perp to decide he should increase the risk by taking the body away. That's why I don't actually believe in the murdered-and-taken-by-a burglar theory.
Now, I also don't believe that anyone used the window as the point of entry or exit that night, as, I do agree with you, that would have to leave some traces behind and there were none. And yes I do generally agree that if there was any intruder, he should leave some forensic evidence behind. I'm just trying to explain, that a hypothetical burglar, killing Maddie by accident would not leave much of said evidence on her. Comprende? 8)--))
What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.
This is false.
DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.
But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on May 29, 2014, 09:15:52 PM
Silky, hold your horses for a moment, ok? I'm talking here about a hypothetical situation in which a gloved burglar accidentally suffocates Maddie, trying to silence her and then decides to take her body with him, in fear that, read that carefully, please, in the process of murdering Maddie he might leave a significant amount of DNA on her. How much DNA can be transferred from the gloved hands to the skin or clothes of the victim? Not much, certainly. Not enough for the perp to decide he should increase the risk by taking the body away. That's why I don't actually believe in the murdered-and-taken-by-a burglar theory.
Now, I also don't believe that anyone used the window as the point of entry or exit that night, as, I do agree with you, that would have to leave some traces behind and there were none. And yes I do generally agree that if there was any intruder, he should leave some forensic evidence behind. I'm just trying to explain, that a hypothetical burglar, killing Maddie by accident would not leave much of said evidence on her. Comprende? 8)--))
Martina, latched doors can be opened with just a key, no hands on the door.. Leave the door open and out again quickly, pulling it to with the key = NO fingerprints
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Martina on May 29, 2014, 09:18:22 PM
What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.
This is false.
DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.
But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......
Silky, concentrate, please. A burglar, murdering accidentally, while wearing gloves, that's the situation I'm talking about. We were discussing here the motive for said burglar to take Maddie's body with him, so I was talking about DNA he could leave on her body, when suffocating her with gloved hands. In this hypothetical situations there is no place for semen and possible DNA left anywhere outside from Maddie's body is irrelevant. Get it?
And yes, I will repeat this again, I do believe that the intruder, if he really existed, would leave the forensic traces, DNA included, in the apartment.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 29, 2014, 09:18:30 PM
What I comprehend, is that someone stated there would be no DNA if the intruder wore gloves.
This is false.
DNA also comes in semen, if the "abductor" got his rocks off strangling small children you can expect some semen based DNA.
But no....HE WAS WEARING GLOVES....whoever "he" is.......
It would be impossible to put gloves on without leaving DNA on the outside. How much might transfer is debatable, but forensic science is pushing back the boundaries all the time, so may well be able to detect such traces.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Martina on May 29, 2014, 09:22:01 PM
Martina, latched doors can be opened with just a key, no hands on the door.. Leave the door open and out again quickly, pulling it to with the key = NO fingerprints
Forensic traces are not only the fingerprints, Sadie.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on May 29, 2014, 09:29:53 PM
I understand that Martina, but nobody bothered to preserve the scene forensically until it was too late. What a disgrace!
The sheets were even washed weren't they?
It was already too late when the Police came. The crowds, invited into the flat by the McCanns trampled everything.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 29, 2014, 09:45:40 PM
10 - When the first police officers arrived at the scene several people were inside the apartment. Gonçalo Amaral says that mistakes were made because the scene should have been recorded (pictures or footage) with the people who were there so important aspects like the way those people were dressed was recorded. The twins were sleeping and did not wake up with the commotion. And the bed sheets on the twins' cots were not there. First 72 hours are extremely important in these cases.
18 - The apartment is checked for finger and hand prints, hair, fibres, blood and other biological evidence. Mistakes were made and Amaral underlines the person on the outside without a full suit on. No signs of break in and no prints of other people other than the ones who were supposed to have been at the apartment. No glove marks found either. A hand-print is found and also fingerprints on the window from where Madeleine was taken according to her parents. The hand-print belonged to one of the first GNR officers who arrived at the scene.
19 - The roadworks being done in the streets of PDL were checked by workmen, police officers and sniffer dogs. The Tapas are formally questioned in Portimão (it's still the morning of the 4th of May). First contradictions are detected. Jane Tanner 'saw' the abductor. Gerry and Jeremy were very close and did not see Jane or the abductor. The need for translation doesn't help because there is more time to think about what people should say. Kate and Gerry have no doubt that it is a kidnapping. Contradictions regarding the door and the window and shutters. (Open, closed, locked, unlocked, etc.)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on May 29, 2014, 09:51:39 PM
10 - When the first police officers arrived at the scene several people were inside the apartment. Gonçalo Amaral says that mistakes were made because the scene should have been recorded (pictures or footage) with the people who were there so important aspects like the way those people were dressed was recorded. The twins were sleeping and did not wake up with the commotion. And the bed sheets on the twins' cots were not there. First 72 hours are extremely important in these cases.
18 - The apartment is checked for finger and hand prints, hair, fibres, blood and other biological evidence. Mistakes were made and Amaral underlines the person on the outside without a full suit on. No signs of break in and no prints of other people other than the ones who were supposed to have been at the apartment. No glove marks found either. A hand-print is found and also fingerprints on the window from where Madeleine was taken according to her parents. The hand-print belonged to one of the first GNR officers who arrived at the scene.
What are you quoting?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 29, 2014, 10:10:28 PM
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Albertini on May 29, 2014, 10:26:21 PM
And not forgetting Gerry McCann's desecration of the one, rock solid forensic lead, the shutters. The one where he rushed outside to test the shutters.
That's assuming the shutters were actually discovered open.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 31, 2014, 05:59:56 PM
If there was evidence that Madeleine had been abducted ... actual, honest-to-goodness evidence ... then the Metropolitan police would not have said that she may have died in the apartment ( nor would they be looking for her body metres from the apartment )
If they had even a shred of evidence that she was abducted then they would not even be considering that she died in the apartment and is buried close by
So, in answer to the thread question, it would appear there IS no evidence for abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 06:16:38 PM
What strange reasoning. What would constitute evidence of abduction rather than murder by a stranger in the apartment, that they might have uncovered - apart from, say, a ransom note or a confession?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 31, 2014, 06:37:53 PM
What strange reasoning. What would constitute evidence of abduction rather than murder by a stranger in the apartment, that they might have uncovered - apart from, say, a ransom note or a confession?
If there was any evidence ... any evidence at all ... that Madeleine was abducted, then the Met would not be considering the possibility that she died in the apartment
Why would they ? .... if they had evidence that she was abducted then they would know that she hadn't died in the apartment
Therefore, there is no evidence of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Martina on May 31, 2014, 06:39:18 PM
What strange reasoning. What would constitute evidence of abduction rather than murder by a stranger in the apartment, that they might have uncovered - apart from, say, a ransom note or a confession?
Traces of a forced entry. Any forensic evidence (fibers, fingerprints, DNA) that a stranger actually entered the apartment. Any reliable sighting of Madeleine (after the 3rd May, of course).
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 06:41:55 PM
Traces of a forced entry. Any forensic evidence (fibers, fingerprints, DNA) that a stranger actually entered the apartment. Any reliable sighting of Madeleine (after the 3rd May, of course).
Wouldn't all that information (bar the last) also hold true for murder by a stranger in the apartment?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 06:44:53 PM
If there was any evidence ... any evidence at all ... that Madeleine was abducted, then the Met would not be considering the possibility that she died in the apartment
Why would they ? .... if they had evidence that she was abducted then they would know that she hadn't died in the apartment
Therefore, there is no evidence of abduction
Once again I ask you - what sort of evidence do you think would convince them she wasn't murdered in the apartment by a stranger? What evidence is there that she WAS murdered in the apartment?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2014, 06:46:41 PM
Once again I ask you - what sort of evidence do you think would convince them she wasn't murdered in the apartment by a stranger? What evidence is there that she WAS murdered in the apartment?
Are you equating murder to death ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 06:52:37 PM
No. The inference by some on here is that The Met are obviously pursuing a line of enquiry that Madeleine died in the Apartment to the exclusion of all other theories ie: that the McCanns are their chief suspects. They have arrived at this conclusion based on the fact that the Met have announced that Madeleine may have died in the apartment and are preparing to dig certain locations in PdL. I am asking what evidence of abduction SY would need to convince them that she hadn't been murdered in the Apartment. I hope that's clear...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 31, 2014, 06:54:27 PM
Once again I ask you - what sort of evidence do you think would convince them she wasn't murdered in the apartment by a stranger? What evidence is there that she WAS murdered in the apartment?
Alfred, there is another thread that is discussing the evidence for murder in the apartment
This thread asks what evidence there is for 'abduction'
I suggest that there isn't any at all ... because if there was evidence of abduction then the police would not be considering death in the apartment ( murder by a burglar included )
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2014, 06:55:09 PM
No. The inference by some on here is that The Met are obviously pursuing a line of enquiry that Madeleine died in the Apartment to the exclusion of all other theories ie: that the McCanns are their chief suspects. They have arrived at this conclusion based on the fact that the Met have announced that Madeleine may have died in the apartment and are preparing to dig certain locations in PdL. I am asking what evidence of abduction SY would need to convince them that she hadn't been murdered in the Apartment. I hope that's clear...
Yes, thanks.
I just wonder who is saying that Madeleine was murdered? Most posters (who are commenting) seem to favour accidental, or at least non-intentional death.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 06:58:55 PM
Alfred, there is another thread that is discussing the evidence for murder in the apartment
This thread asks what evidence there is for 'abduction'
I suggest that there isn't any at all ... because if there was evidence of abduction then the police would not be considering death in the apartment ( murder by a burglar included )
Once again you have dodged the question. What evidence of abduction would be required to absolutely eliminate the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 07:15:51 PM
If, for example, the Met had found a strange Size 13 footprint in the wardrobe that had previously been overlooked, would that be considered "a shred of evidence of abduction" or not? And would such evidence then mean it unlikely Madeleine had been killed in the apartment?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2014, 07:19:27 PM
Not if there was a perfectly innocent explanation for why there should be a size 13 footprint in the wardrobe.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: icabodcrane on May 31, 2014, 07:22:49 PM
If, for example, the Met had found a strange Size 13 footprint in the wardrobe that had previously been overlooked, would that be considered "a shred of evidence of abduction" or not? And would such evidence then mean it unlikely Madeleine had been killed in the apartment?
You are asking what constitutes evidence of abduction ?
I don't know
The Metropolitan police would though ... and they clearly havn't found any
If they had any evidence at all that Madeleine was abducted then they would not be wasting time investigating her death in the apartment ( or digging for her body )
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 31, 2014, 11:50:00 PM
You are asking what constitutes evidence of abduction ?
I don't know
The Metropolitan police would though ... and they clearly havn't found any
If they had any evidence at all that Madeleine was abducted then they would not be wasting time investigating her death in the apartment ( or digging for her body )
Did you know that people can be abducted by strangers and then murdered? Sad but true. This sometimes results in them being buried, occasionally not far from where there were killed. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such horrid news, I hope it hasn't come as a shock. I sincerely hope this isn't the fate that befell Madeleine but it's one that needs to be seriously considered, and that presumably is why the Met are conducting searches in PdL.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on June 01, 2014, 08:03:52 AM
Did you know that people can be abducted by strangers and then murdered? Sad but true. This sometimes results in them being buried, occasionally not far from where there were killed. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such horrid news, I hope it hasn't come as a shock. I sincerely hope this isn't the fate that befell Madeleine but it's one that needs to be seriously considered, and that presumably is why the Met are conducting searches in PdL.
This is true. This is what paedophiles normally do. They abduct children, abuse them, murder them, and then abandon or bury them. Scotland Yard knows this as they have dealt with many such cases in the past. This is why they are searching scrub land. They do this in Britain, and have even been known to drag rivers. They don't always find anything.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 01, 2014, 10:57:10 AM
Alfred, there is another thread that is discussing the evidence for murder in the apartment
This thread asks what evidence there is for 'abduction'
I suggest that there isn't any at all ... because if there was evidence of abduction then the police would not be considering death in the apartment ( murder by a burglar included )
there is evidence of abduction but not proof....you are confusing the two words
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 01, 2014, 11:05:43 AM
By saying "other than"....you are accepting that the child missing is evidence of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on June 01, 2014, 11:15:35 AM
Madeleine being missing is just evidence of - well, Madeleine being missing, nothing more. Now, if it could be proved that Smithman was actually carrying Madeleine, then we could be in another ball game altogether.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 01, 2014, 11:17:33 AM
For the umpteenth time, 'a missing child' is not evidence of abduction.
All it shows, is that there is a missing child, cause unknown.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 01, 2014, 11:31:06 AM
Madeleine being missing is just evidence of - well, Madeleine being missing, nothing more. Now, if it could be proved that Smithman was actually carrying Madeleine, then we could be in another ball game altogether.
perhaps you don't understand what Les posted,,,,I'm awaiting his response
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 01, 2014, 11:47:00 AM
Madeleine being missing is just evidence of - well, Madeleine being missing, nothing more. Now, if it could be proved that Smithman was actually carrying Madeleine, then we could be in another ball game altogether.
Nothing is proved until the case reaches court...first the evidence is collected...you are quite wrong and les is right...madeleine missing IS evidence of abduction...just one small piece...however just because you have evidence of something...doesn't make it true....it gets a little boring but you confuse eveidence and proof
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 01, 2014, 11:48:58 AM
Nothing is proved until the case reaches court...first the evidence is collected...you are quite wrong and les is right...madeleine missing IS evidence of abduction...just one small piece...however just because you have evidence of something...doesn't make it true....it gets a little boring but you confuse eveidence and proof
I suppose if she were still around it would be proof she wasn't abducted. True but stupid.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on June 01, 2014, 11:53:01 AM
I suppose that would depend on where she was found and who she was with.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on June 01, 2014, 12:03:19 PM
Nothing is proved until the case reaches court...first the evidence is collected...you are quite wrong and les is right...madeleine missing IS evidence of abduction...just one small piece...however just because you have evidence of something...doesn't make it true....it gets a little boring but you confuse eveidence and proof
The Smith sighting is evidence of abduction, strengthened by the fact that Martin has changed his mind about the man being Gerry.
Absence of evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at any point on May 3rd is evidence of abduction (it precludes the necessary collusion for a plot of the type postulated by Amaral).
The McCanns' normal and relaxed behaviour on May 3rd (up to the point of Kate's alert) is evidence of abduction.
People who actually know how to read body-language say the McCanns' body-language on May 3rd (and following) say the McCanns' spell innocent!
That is evidence of abduction ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 01, 2014, 03:02:08 PM
Sorry I have been busy at my proper work of leading peasants astray in the woods and hiding axes from the woodcutters. Madeleine McCann being missing may, under the strictest definition of the word, be considered evidence of her abduction. Her being missing could also be evidence of her having been murdered, gone on a shopping trip or being taken by a Leshy. If you are familiar with pretty basic mathematics you will understand that this piece of evidence on its own is about as useful as having the axes (not the ones I have been hiding from the woodcutters) and a single point of a graph. So this piece of evidence available for her abduction is particularly weak. What other evidence of abduction is is there?
I fear we are running into the realms of lexicography which whilst interesting could be construed as hair splitting in this context.
I agree with what you say apart from the hairsplitting. To say that there is no evidence of abduction is untrue.
As this is only fairly weak evidence of abduction then we look at what other evidence we have...to support this evidence or not
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 01, 2014, 04:19:33 PM
Indeed. Then applying the normal contracting convention of last document in the heap rules the last official document from the authority with primacy stated there was no evidence of what if any crime had been committed. Had there been we would not be having this discussion now. The latest investigations may turn up something.
but there is evidence to support a crime...so IF the document says that then it is wrong or the translation is wrong...there is more than enough evidence to support the fact that a crime has been committed although not proof
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on June 02, 2014, 02:27:28 AM
The Smith sighting is evidence of abduction, strengthened by the fact that Martin has changed his mind about the man being Gerry.
Absence of evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at any point on May 3rd is evidence of abduction (it precludes the necessary collusion for a plot of the type postulated by Amaral).
The McCanns' normal and relaxed behaviour on May 3rd (up to the point of Kate's alert) is evidence of abduction.
People who actually know how to read body-language say the McCanns' body-language on May 3rd (and following) say the McCanns' spell innocent!
That is evidence of abduction ...
The same evidence can support many theories but unless corroborated it remains neutral and consequently incapable of providing support to one side or the other.
To take your example above, you state that, "The Smith sighting is evidence of abduction, strengthened by the fact that Martin has changed his mind about the man being Gerry."
The Smith sighting can evidence two things, namely, an innocent man carrying a child or an abductor carrying a child. The non identification of Gerry is irrelevant.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on June 02, 2014, 10:38:22 AM
with hindsight, a better title for the thread would have been "what admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)". So for example, the fact she is missing or a witness saw a man carrying a child are not answers to this question as they are not specific and do not exclude other theories. IMHO, that is a more exact question and avoids some of the fuzziness we have seen in this thread. Anyone want to have a go at that question?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 11:00:11 AM
with hindsight, a better title for the thread would have been "what admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)". So for example, the fact she is missing or a witness saw a man carrying a child are not answers to this question as they are not specific and do not exclude other theories. IMHO, that is a more exact question and avoids some of the fuzziness we have seen in this thread. Anyone want to have a go at that question?
The whole point of the thread is to show that there is evidence for abduction..its quite an important point to make for several reasons...the only fuzziness is because posters don't realise what "evidence" means
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 02, 2014, 11:28:50 AM
The whole point of the thread is to show that there is evidence for abduction..its quite an important point to make for several reasons...the only fuzziness is because posters don't realise what "evidence" means
I could say the window was open and the child had disappeared. That doesn't mean she was abducted but she had disappeared. Homicide are investigating The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 11:45:00 AM
I could say the window was open and the child had disappeared. That doesn't mean she was abducted but she had disappeared. Homicide are investigating The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
evidence of abduction does not necessarily prove abduction...sy are treating the case as an abduction at the moment
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 02, 2014, 12:01:17 PM
Abduction is a possibility so is the child leaving on her own accord and so is staging.
Not according to Kate & Gerry it ain't.
'you know, she was tucked up in bed, errm... and there's no way she... she could have got out on her own.' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rw4S5o2KPY&feature=player_embedded
I wonder how they could be so certain that 'There's no way she could have got out on her own'
Was she unable to move.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 02, 2014, 12:23:02 PM
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 02, 2014, 01:05:56 PM
I'm not lying about that @)(++(*
?{)(**
"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."
"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."
Yes there's many things not possible in this case - moving doors, no screaming heard, raising noisy shutters and opening a window that was not used and was in full view of anybody present in the car park.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on June 02, 2014, 05:26:10 PM
There are people on this forum who have a much better background knowledge on this to mine. But if we add the word "independent" to my earlier question ie "what independent admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)", I am not aware of any. That, of course, does not mean it didn't happen. Is there any? I am open on all theories but I have seen many many articles, threads etc that simply have assumed an abduction (and therefore excluded all other theories) and, on this basis, I ask the question.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on June 02, 2014, 05:56:27 PM
There are people on this forum who have a much better background knowledge on this to mine. But if we add the word "independent" to my earlier question ie "what independent admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)", I am not aware of any. That, of course, does not mean it didn't happen. Is there any? I am open on all theories but I have seen many many articles, threads etc that simply have assumed an abduction (and therefore excluded all other theories) and, on this basis, I ask the question.
You are correct Pat, there is no specific evidence which can lead one to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted. Likewise the woke and wandered and the accidental death hypotheses are also similarly lacking any specific credible evidence. This is why the mystery has endured for seven years so far.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 06:07:02 PM
There are people on this forum who have a much better background knowledge on this to mine. But if we add the word "independent" to my earlier question ie "what independent admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)", I am not aware of any. That, of course, does not mean it didn't happen. Is there any? I am open on all theories but I have seen many many articles, threads etc that simply have assumed an abduction (and therefore excluded all other theories) and, on this basis, I ask the question.
3 possibilities..
stranger abduction maddie walked out parents involved
Taking all the evidence into account I would say stranger abduction is almost certainly what happened...Im not sure maddie could open that heavy sliding patio door...
fatal accident ...off the scale unlikely then cover up...same...then fraudulent fund...then begging for case to be re opened etc...parents not involved...imo
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: patb on June 02, 2014, 06:36:33 PM
so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards it?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on June 02, 2014, 06:52:16 PM
so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards it?
Hi Path, welcome to the forum.
I was in the process of answering your last post ~ but you were too fast for me. I think you are right to point out that we can't really be certain about anything to do with Madeleine's case and some of us do hold very entrenched views on both sides of the argument.
There is so much misinformation about that it is probably quite difficult for those of us without ‘insider’ information to reach a conclusion.
However those who do have access to all the information on Madeleine’s disappearance don’t have that inhibition.
There was sufficient ‘new’ evidence for the PJ to reopen the case at the end of 2013. Which followed on the Met decision that there was a raft of information that merited further investigation leading to their reopening of the case.
Neither the PJ nor the Met considered the Drs McCann to be persons of interest and are keeping them informed about developments.
That confirms ~ IMO ~ that both law enforcement agencies are working on stranger abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 06:55:43 PM
so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards it?
It isn't important to me what other posters think...many people think the world is six thousand years old...what's more important surely is what SY think...and they are investigating a stranger abduction with the parents declared not suspects
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on June 02, 2014, 07:00:14 PM
so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards it?
IMO 'no specific evidence was found' is a more accurate description. That doesn't mean none ever existed. Surely it can't be ignored that evidence which may have been present was destroyed because of the amount of traffic in 5A before it was cordonned off - and also because of the the shortcomings admitted by Amaral himself in the recovery of forensics.
And what happened to the hairs found which IIRC according to Carana were not mentioned again after they were sent off to the lab? I believe there were also unidentified partial fingerprints.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 02, 2014, 07:21:56 PM
It isn't important to me what other posters think...many people think the world is six thousand years old...what's more important surely is what SY think...and they are investigating a stranger abduction with the parents declared not suspects
The police work in the art of deception.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 07:24:19 PM
so when amaral said they were involved...he meant they were not involved...dreamer
Maybe they read the Art of War.
37. By altering his arrangements and changing his plans, he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge. By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes, he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Victoria on June 02, 2014, 07:25:40 PM
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 02, 2014, 07:41:11 PM
So here's one for the mccann supporters.
Why on the news broadcasts won't they tell the viewers that the mccanns left their children in unlocked accommodation, whilst they went out to wine and dine for several successive nights ?
Surely you all want the truth to be told ? 8)-)))
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: a.baker on June 02, 2014, 08:02:44 PM
Sorry,but IF abduction,why does it have to have been carried out by a stranger?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 08:04:05 PM
Sorry,but IF abduction,why does it have to have been carried out by a stranger?
who else would do it
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 02, 2014, 08:11:36 PM
We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
clipped from a guardian article
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Silkywhiskers on June 02, 2014, 08:23:30 PM
We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
clipped from a guardian article
Conveniently neglecting to add the DATE of Andy's little speech, which was at the BEGINNING of Operation Grange, when officially, no one knew anything.
Cute isnt it, when LE tell you what they expect to find before they even begin.
Except,as we now know, the "abductor" theory seems to have been blown totally out of the water by the digs, no matter WHAT Andy said at the beginning. O
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 03, 2014, 08:36:34 AM
How can you rule out Madeleine's death in the apartment ?
How can you 'believe' in abduction when there is no evidence to support it, let alone forensics ?
For the record, and as has been said before, a child being carried in someone's arms is not evidence of abduction.
Every possibility will have been looked at....I do rule out death in the apt covered up by the parents for reasons I have previously given...it is pointless going over the same ground again....maddie may have died in the apt at the hands of an intruder...SY agree with my conclusions..
As evidence for abduction...try reading the posts about the car theft where it is well explained
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 09, 2014, 01:35:36 AM
Every possibility will have been looked at....I do rule out death in the apt covered up by the parents for reasons I have previously given...
I.e. You don't believe it.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on September 22, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
Now that Summers and Swan have produced their book which Amazon heralds as the most definitive account possible and which supports the parents claim of stranger abduction, a claim which I hasten to add hasn't even been made by Scotland Yard...
So what is the evidence for abduction?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 22, 2014, 05:21:50 PM
Now that Summers and Swan have produced their book which Amazon heralds as the most definitive account possible and which supports the parents claim of stranger abduction, a claim which I hasten to add even Scotland Yard hasn't made...
So what is the evidence for abduction?
First we should decide what the possibilities are...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 22, 2014, 05:25:12 PM
Now that Summers and Swan have produced their book which Amazon heralds as the most definitive account possible and which supports the parents claim of stranger abduction, a claim which I hasten to add hasn't even been made by Scotland Yard...
So what is the evidence for abduction?
Based on all the information we know about the events in PdL in May 2007, stranger abduction is the only logical theory, unless you care to put forward a plausible alternative scenario, in which case do present it for us to examine!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 22, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Now that Summers and Swan have produced their book which Amazon heralds as the most definitive account possible and which supports the parents claim of stranger abduction, a claim which I hasten to add hasn't even been made by Scotland Yard...
So what is the evidence for abduction?
I'm interested to know, also (but I ain't gonna buy it & I can't be bothered to read it) how the book has demonstrated that....
'speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, is unfounded'
Someone here must have read it by now, maybe they could fill us in with a quick summary of how it definitely wasn't the McCann's wot dunnit.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on September 22, 2014, 05:33:59 PM
No, I think it's your lot that should be posting that abduction evidence stuff, however, there doesn't appear to much, if any, getting posted at the moment.
There's a reason for that.
It's cos there ain't none.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on September 22, 2014, 06:15:23 PM
No, I think it's your lot that should be posting that abduction evidence stuff, however, there doesn't appear to much, if any, getting posted at the moment.
There's a reason for that.
It's cos there ain't none.
The strongest evidence for abduction is the absense of evidence for anything else.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 22, 2014, 06:18:47 PM
There is a young girl in West London who has gone missing. Police are treating her disappearance as an abduction / murder. There is however NO tangible evidence that she has either been abducted OR murdered, however abduction and / or murder seems to be the most logical explanation for her disappearance when looking at all the known facts. Do our resident "sceptics" have a problem with the police's theory about this girl's fate because there is no actual physical evidence? Surely they must, as they DO have a problem with the Met's theory about Madeleine McCann also being a case of stranger abduction and / or murder despite the lack of physical evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 22, 2014, 06:27:36 PM
Nah evidence of abduction just like in the Prout case. Eddie alerted there and more times in this case.Do you think Prout was no longer a suspect by the police because he was a nice man and they believed his truthful police statements? Or does it prove that no longer being suspects in a case doesn't mean shit and what is going on behind the scenes is totally different. You never let the suspects know that you are on to them. You play them Alfie just like in the film.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 22, 2014, 06:29:22 PM
Nah evidence of abduction just like in the Prout case. Eddie alerted there and more times in this case.Do you think Prout was no longer a suspect by the police because he was a nice man and they believed his truthful police statements? Or does it prove that no longer being suspects in a case doesn't mean shit and what is going on behind the scenes is totally different. You never let the suspects know that you are on to them. You play them Alfie just like the film.
They let them know when Tannerman bit the dust, PF.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on September 22, 2014, 06:41:38 PM
No, I think it's your lot that should be posting that abduction evidence stuff, however, there doesn't appear to much, if any, getting posted at the moment.
There's a reason for that.
It's cos there ain't none.
How can one know what happened to MM without any evidence to support it. Saying you know what happened to her, is rubbish and untruthful. I prefer to stick with evidence and fact and would never say, as some do "that I know" because that is impossible, in the real world, unless you happen to be or are involved with whoever was responsible for MMs disappearance of course.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 22, 2014, 10:51:05 PM
Sometimes there are pointers that something may be amiss that when looked at in retrospect immediately fall into place.
There certainly seems to have been something unique about apartment 5a when witness accounts are looked at; I doubt it was usual for all apartments to be scrutinised in the way that particular apartment was over what appeared to be an extended period.
I don't think it could have been staked out for the purpose of burglary; there are no reports of a burglary taking place there despite the targeting of other apartments in the block.
A Mark Warner nanny was shocked to encounter a man lurking in the darkness at the front of the apartment block; this frightening incident was reported to her employers who apparently did not think it important enough to inform the police about it.
They also took good care not to inform guests about intrusions at the resort.
“ … six months before the incident with Maddie there could have been an abduction attempt from the same apartment that was let to the McCann family”.
“ … she was working as a babysitter in the same apartment that the girl was abducted from. She confirms that the events occurred on a Thursday night. Thursday nights were known as the "tennis nights" and on that night the girl's parents were out playing tennis.”
“She left by the front door and in the darkness, by the movement sensitive lights, she saw something move and thought its was a rat. To her surprise, when she examined it closely, she saw that it was a brown shoe of a man who was watching the dark zone outside the apartments. She shouted and the man came out of the darkness, the lights were activated at which point he came towards her and said "No, no".
She said the man was aged between 25 - 35 years, with a Mediterranean aspect with tight black curly hair. She is certain that he had a Mediterranean accent, surely Portuguese. From the only two words he said. He wore light coloured trousers and a blue checked shirt.
After this she returned to the apartment in a state of shock, it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment.”
Sometimes there are pointers that something may be amiss that when looked at in retrospect immediately fall into place.
There certainly seems to have been something unique about apartment 5a when witness accounts are looked at; I doubt it was usual for all apartments to be scrutinised in the way that particular apartment was over what appeared to be an extended period.
I don't think it could have been staked out for the purpose of burglary; there are no reports of a burglary taking place there despite the targeting of other apartments in the block.
A Mark Warner nanny was shocked to encounter a man lurking in the darkness at the front of the apartment block; this frightening incident was reported to her employers who apparently did not think it important enough to inform the police about it.
They also took good care not to inform guests about intrusions at the resort.
“ … six months before the incident with Maddie there could have been an abduction attempt from the same apartment that was let to the McCann family”.
“ … she was working as a babysitter in the same apartment that the girl was abducted from. She confirms that the events occurred on a Thursday night. Thursday nights were known as the "tennis nights" and on that night the girl's parents were out playing tennis.”
“She left by the front door and in the darkness, by the movement sensitive lights, she saw something move and thought its was a rat. To her surprise, when she examined it closely, she saw that it was a brown shoe of a man who was watching the dark zone outside the apartments. She shouted and the man came out of the darkness, the lights were activated at which point he came towards her and said "No, no".
She said the man was aged between 25 - 35 years, with a Mediterranean aspect with tight black curly hair. She is certain that he had a Mediterranean accent, surely Portuguese. From the only two words he said. He wore light coloured trousers and a blue checked shirt.
After this she returned to the apartment in a state of shock, it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment.”
Read it in the past few days, but cant remember where. The front door light was hanging from its cable and broken. I wonder if it had been deliberately broken?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2014, 01:05:35 AM
Read it in the past few days, but cant remember where. The front door light was hanging from its cable and broken. I wonder if it had been deliberately broken?
I think it was mentioned in the files, Sadie, I don't recall if it was a pre-McCann guest or someone who rented the flat after them. But I think I read that it was reported to maintenance that the security light was out - I seem to recall that it was fixed.
Margaret Hall provided details to make an efit ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2014, 07:26:36 AM
Apparently the evidence of the abduction is the absence of a car outside ones house. There are many reasons why the car may not still be there having been left overnight. The insurance company will not pay out (what do we know about insurance companies?) and the police will not take too much notice until all other the possibilities have been eliminated leaving only theft as the reason.
precisely...and this is exactly what has happened in the McCann case
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 10:21:07 AM
precisely...and this is exactly what has happened in the McCann case
I don't think you really mean that in the context of my post. Similar to in principle maybe but not exactly the same as; always provided that DCI Redwood's comment about "may not have left the apartment alive" and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe's use of the "M" word are ignored for convenience as we say. Not to mention any other lines of inquiry two police forces may be following which we are not being told about.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
Guest "buzz" who started this thread seems to have omitted a salient point or two. It is a few pages late but how about some definitions in time honoured legal, contract and specification fashion? Using the OED, you know the one that has a magnifying glass on little legs rather than the one that goes in ones handbag or pocket, we have:- Abduction = the carrying off or kidnapping a person illegally or by force or deception. Evidence = the available facts, circumstances etc supporting or otherwise a belief proposition etc or indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid. OR at Law = information given personally or drawn from a document tending to prove a fact or proposition. OR at law again = statements or proofs admissible in court as testimony. It seems that using these definitions evidence of abduction is minimal to zero. Unless of course one wishes to adopt the John Bird/George Mparrbe approach...."what you has to understand is in da context of dis case de OED don't count for nothing, evidence and abduction mean what I say they does".
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 23, 2014, 10:52:45 AM
Wonder if you would care to explain what is ludicrous about
* A man lurking in the darkness in bushes anxious not to be seen * A man hiding in the darkness in a place he had no right to be * A man hiding in a place to which he had to go considerably out of his way if ‘caught short’ * A man hiding in the darkness outside an apartment from which a child later disappears * The witness not being asked to provide details to enable the authorities to produce an efit * The only efit of the man being produced by a tabloid newspaper
You are in denial that Madeleine may have been abducted; Margaret hall was a credible witness who had information worth investigating to be ruled in or out; so it probably was ludicrous that it took a tabloid newspaper to do the investigation and produce an efit that looks as if it had been drawn up by a child.
If eye witness statements are not investigated thoroughly, in a crime of abduction where often no clues are left, there will be 'no evidence of abduction' nor will there be any chance of cracking the case (and Margaret's sighting is a case in point although there are others who had difficulty in being taken seriously and were ignored, some we know about others we may not). "Ridiculous" and "ludicrous" does tend to sum that situation up.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 11:04:37 AM
Am I the only one with a bent enough mind to think this: With all the dodgy geezers, ne'er do wells, chuggers, spotty herberts etc hanging about outside apartment 5A why were the GNR not called out for crowd control duties?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on September 23, 2014, 11:50:01 AM
Am I the only one with a bent enough mind to think this: With all the dodgy geezers, ne'er do wells, chuggers, spotty herberts etc hanging about outside apartment 5A why were the GNR not called out for crowd control duties?
Simples. I am surprised that a man of your intellect hadn't realised it.
There was nothing collective about it. They were all individual people who spotted the ne'er do wells and they didn't even realise that others had seen the same.
Would you ring the Police [especially the PT police ! .. and language probs] cos in your opinion someone was watching something that was nothing to do with you? I bet you wouldn't.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on September 23, 2014, 12:05:23 PM
Back On Topic, please. Evidence of Abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2014, 03:39:56 PM
I don't think you really mean that in the context of my post. Similar to in principle maybe but not exactly the same as; always provided that DCI Redwood's comment about "may not have left the apartment alive" and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe's use of the "M" word are ignored for convenience as we say. Not to mention any other lines of inquiry two police forces may be following which we are not being told about.
The statement that maddie may not have left the apartment alive, or the M word does not have the significance you think it does. Redwood has made it clear that The McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. Redwood may not have checked his dictionary to see whether abduction applies only to a living person. As you will remember from your latin...it is derived from the word "abducare" which simply means to take away
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 04:56:18 PM
The statement that maddie may not have left the apartment alive, or the M word does not have the significance you think it does. Redwood has made it clear that The McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. Redwood may not have checked his dictionary to see whether abduction applies only to a living person. As you will remember from your latin...it is derived from the word "abducare" which simply means to take away
I regret Latin is all Greek to me as it were, dear sir. You seem to be struggling here if I may say, your basic premise is erroneous; like Moses you supposes erroneously. I was merely pointing out what has been said vis a vis lines of investigation that have been owned up to so to speak and the fact that there are likely others that have not been owned up to. The Portuguese who it must be said have primacy in this case are revealing very little. Believe it or not I will not cheer should the McCanns ever be found guilty of anything. I do however find all the haraz the case generates quite bizarre and disproportionate considering the number of children who will have been abused, murdered , shot, starved to death and blown to bits quite unremarked since 3rd May 2007.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on September 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
I regret Latin is all Greek to me as it were, dear sir. You seem to be struggling here if I may say, your basic premise is erroneous; like Moses you supposes erroneously. I was merely pointing out what has been said vis a vis lines of investigation that have been owned up to so to speak and the fact that there are likely others that have not been owned up to. The Portuguese who it must be said have primacy in this case are revealing very little. Believe it or not I will not cheer should the McCanns ever be found guilty of anything. I do however find all the haraz the case generates quite bizarre and disproportionate considering the number of children who will have been abused, murdered , shot, starved to death and blown to bits quite unremarked since 3rd May 2007.
Bully for you. Which of those do you think happened to Madeleine?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2014, 05:58:04 PM
I regret Latin is all Greek to me as it were, dear sir. You seem to be struggling here if I may say, your basic premise is erroneous; like Moses you supposes erroneously. I was merely pointing out what has been said vis a vis lines of investigation that have been owned up to so to speak and the fact that there are likely others that have not been owned up to. The Portuguese who it must be said have primacy in this case are revealing very little. Believe it or not I will not cheer should the McCanns ever be found guilty of anything. I do however find all the haraz the case generates quite bizarre and disproportionate considering the number of children who will have been abused, murdered , shot, starved to death and blown to bits quite unremarked since 3rd May 2007.
The fact that Redwood has said that the McCannns are not suspects leads me to believe they are not,,,it is you who is fantasising that they may be...you find the attention the case generates bizarre but you actively post and are therefore part of that bizarre behaviour...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on September 23, 2014, 06:02:02 PM
The fact that Redwood has said that the McCannns are not suspects leads me to believe they are not,,,it is you who is fantasising that they may be...you find the attention the case generates bizarre but you actively post and are therefore part of that bizarre behaviour...
nail on head!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: xtina on September 23, 2014, 06:42:16 PM
You've listed 6 points there, and NOT even 1 proof there is any link to MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE.
Now as to denial........................
How do you know Madeleine did not die in the apartment ?
If you intend to burgle a property or kidnap a child it is a good idea to familiarise yourself with the comings and goings around the property you wish to enter. To that end an observation post can be quite a handy thing from which to 'case the joint'.
It was reported that a holidaymaker made the police aware of cigarette butts on the balcony immediately opposite apartment 5a. He later told the press, "Those butts could have provided the breakthrough in the case, but I couldn't get the police to listen to me," http://www.courier.co.uk/Mayfield-director-s-Madeleine-McCann-evidence/story-17002971-detail/story.html
Who knows the significance of these discarded cigarette ends, could have been something, could have been nothing. Nobody bothered to check if there was DNA on them which could have helped the inquiry at some stage into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance: is it any wonder there was no evidence pointing to anything in her case, if there was a culture of ignoring the obvious.
-SNIPPED - On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings. http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 07:27:44 PM
The fact that Redwood has said that the McCannns are not suspects leads me to believe they are not,,,it is you who is fantasising that they may be...you find the attention the case generates bizarre but you actively post and are therefore part of that bizarre behaviour...
I am merely pointing out the game ain't over til the last putt is sunk. The last putt hasn't been sunk yet......whichever camp you may perceive yourself to be in. Fantasy cometh not into it whatever you may prefer to think. I admit to being part of the bizarre behaviour having chosen this site as the basis of a thesis on irrational behaviour 8(>((
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on September 23, 2014, 07:31:41 PM
I am merely pointing out the game ain't over til the last putt is sunk. The last putt hasn't been sunk yet......whichever camp you may perceive yourself to be in. Fantasy cometh not into it whatever you may prefer to think. I admit to being part of the bizarre behaviour having chosen this site as the basis of a thesis on irrational behaviour 8(>((
You stick with that, our kid. There isn't anywhere else.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2014, 07:33:02 PM
I am merely pointing out the game ain't over til the last putt is sunk. The last putt hasn't been sunk yet......whichever camp you may perceive yourself to be in. Fantasy cometh not into it whatever you may prefer to think. I admit to being part of the bizarre behaviour having chosen this site as the basis of a thesis on irrational behaviour 8(>((
It might not be over for you....but I was round the course and in the clubhouse a long time ago whilst you were still looking for lost balls...The McCanns are not implicated
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 23, 2014, 07:47:31 PM
I think it was mentioned in the files, Sadie, I don't recall if it was a pre-McCann guest or someone who rented the flat after them. But I think I read that it was reported to maintenance that the security light was out - I seem to recall that it was fixed.
Margaret Hall provided details to make an efit ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
This chap looks quite nice and friendly....My Aunt recons this is Benny from Cross roads!
"Am I the only one with a bent enough mind to think this: With all the dodgy geezers, ne'er do wells, chuggers, spotty herberts etc hanging about outside apartment 5A why were the GNR not called out for crowd control duties?"
Not to mention the comings and goings of the Tapas baby listeners! it was indeed a busy little street that night, perhaps the locals thought it was a new wave MARDI gras. It is a wonder that all the abductors NEVER got fed up all that waiting around...
Snip Alice "The Portuguese who it must be said have primacy in this case are revealing very little. Believe it or not I will not cheer should the McCanns ever be found guilty of anything. I do however find all the haraz the case generates quite bizarre and disproportionate considering the number of children who will have been abused, murdered , shot, starved to death and blown to bits quite unremarked since 3rd May 2007."
My sentiments exactly!
We must have motive-opportunity and means for the abduction...Nothing yet!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Moderator on September 23, 2014, 10:14:11 PM
On topic posts if you please.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 10:20:07 PM
It might not be over for you....but I was round the course and in the clubhouse a long time ago whilst you were still looking for lost balls...The McCanns are not implicated
Oh gosh! you read it here first folks. By implication of his statement Officer Dibble Davel has solved the case and two police forces are now wasting their time.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 23, 2014, 10:21:30 PM
Oh gosh! you read it here first folks. By implication of his statement Officer Dibble Davel has solved the case and two police forces are now wasting their time.
you're still thrashing in the long grass
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on September 23, 2014, 10:24:17 PM
I think it was mentioned in the files, Sadie, I don't recall if it was a pre-McCann guest or someone who rented the flat after them. But I think I read that it was reported to maintenance that the security light was out - I seem to recall that it was fixed.
Margaret Hall provided details to make an efit ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
Thanks Brietta.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 24, 2014, 07:13:13 AM
Notice the complete absence of abduction evidence here, dave, Alfred?
Notice that?
I was right the first time I said it & the thousand or so other times I have since repeated it adnauseam.
There ain't none..... because she wasn't abducted.
That's the truth.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on September 24, 2014, 08:10:55 AM
Notice the complete absence of abduction evidence here, dave, Alfred?
Notice that?
I was right the first time I said it & the thousand or so other times I have since repeated it adnauseam.
There ain't none..... because she wasn't abducted.
That's the truth.
I know that, you know that, Stevo knows that but davel knows she was abducted and SY agree with him. Not he agrees with SY you understand but SY agree with him. Now that should tell us all we need to know. As for Fredo he is in a trance cos he appears to have the hots for Faithlilly. Or maybe she is the only one left to talk to cos the rest of us scutters are on his ignore list. Hey ho same old rubbish different day, and it's pissing with rain here Judith.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on September 24, 2014, 11:31:41 AM
Notice the complete absence of abduction evidence here, dave, Alfred?
Notice that?
I was right the first time I said it & the thousand or so other times I have since repeated it adnauseam.
There ain't none..... because she wasn't abducted.
That's the truth.
I have posted a similar list to this before. Has it been whooshed? … or was it perchance on a different thread? …………………..Hmm?
Ok a few pointers to abduction by a stranger.
1) Cuddlecat was left behind. Madeleines favourite toy that at bedtime was always with her,
2) Her favourite blanket was still there. Please correct me if I am wrong on this
3) The statements of 9 sensible and honourable people point in the direction of an abduction. None of the Police Forces believe what you guys are trying to say. But then they are based upon nothing more than wishful thinking and the word of a man, Goncalo Amaral, who is a criminal and a Court proven LIAR, twice over Also backing up statements by Jeronimo and Jez, maybe others that escape me in my tired state.
4) If they were guilty, they would have quietly faded out of the limelight, so that the whole thing became forgotten with time.
5) The way that Kate and Gerry have pushed, pushed, pushed for SY to take over. Is that the way that guilty people would behave? Of course not, If Kate and Gerry were guilty, they would not want the Worlds best investigative police force looking at them.
7) The Jane Tanner sighting. This does not fit with Crechman in several ways. It begs the question, was Crechman a red herring? There have been a number of red herrings in this case … as verified personally to me at SY.
8) The Watchers These were noted by a series of different people.
9) The pile of cigarette butts on a balcony overlooking the scene, indicatring someone had been in that spot for an extended period …. Watching ? ….and coordinating ?
10} The faith that SY have shown in Kate and Gerry and the Tapas group. They will have third degreed them and know many things that we don’t know.
11) The window and shutter were open
There are probably more but atm my brain is dead and I going back to bed. Can anyone add to it please. Soz, but was up several times in the night
Admin. Please do not remove this list. Thank you
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 12:17:10 PM
I have posted a similar list to this before. Has it been whooshed? … or was it perchance on a different thread? …………………..Hmm?
Ok a few pointers to abduction by a stranger.
1) Cuddlecat was left behind. Madeleines favourite toy that at bedtime was always with her,
2) Her favourite blanket was still there. Please correct me if I am wrong on this
3) The statements of 9 sensible and honourable people point in the direction of an abduction. None of the Police Forces believe what you guys are trying to say. But then they are based upon nothing more than wishful thinking and the word of a man, Goncalo Amaral, who is a criminal and a Court proven LIAR, twice over Also backing up statements by Jeronimo and Jez, maybe others that escape me in my tired state.
4) If they were guilty, they would have quietly faded out of the limelight, so that the whole thing became forgotten with time.
5) The way that Kate and Gerry have pushed, pushed, pushed for SY to take over. Is that the way that guilty people would behave? Of course not, If Kate and Gerry were guilty, they would not want the Worlds best investigative police force looking at them.
7) The Jane Tanner sighting. This does not fit with Crechman in several ways. It begs the question, was Crechman a red herring? There have been a number of red herrings in this case … as verified personally to me at SY.
8) The Watchers These were noted by a series of different people.
9) The pile of cigarette butts on a balcony overlooking the scene, indicatring someone had been in that spot for an extended period …. Watching ? ….and coordinating ?
10} The faith that SY have shown in Kate and Gerry and the Tapas group. They will have third degreed them and know many things that we don’t know.
11) The window and shutter were open
There are probably more but atm my brain is dead and I going back to bed. Can anyone add to it please. Soz, but was up several times in the night
Admin. Please do not remove this list. Thank you
The list is compelling and certainly gives more indications of stranger abduction than convoluted and contrived theories put forward for ‘staged abduction’.
Unless witness statements are no longer to be considered as such there is plenty of evidence that Madeleine was abducted laid out in this post.
Madeleine McCann’s case was marred by the initial forensics harvested at the scene all proving useless; witnesses to strange behaviour in the vicinity of the apartment in many cases struggled to have their statements taken and some had to be very insistent over a period of time – some may have given up in the face of such ineptitude and important information lost.
Perhaps the most elementary fault of all was in the attempt to make the evidence fit the theory instead of developing the theory from the evidence; a practice which continues even now.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on September 24, 2014, 12:21:32 PM
The list is compelling and certainly gives more indications of stranger abduction than convoluted and contrived theories put forward for ‘staged abduction’.
Unless witness statements are no longer to be considered as such there is plenty of evidence that Madeleine was abducted laid out in this post.
Madeleine McCann’s case was marred by the initial forensics harvested at the scene all proving useless; witnesses to strange behaviour in the vicinity of the apartment in many cases struggled to have their statements taken and some had to be very insistent over a period of time – some may have given up in the face of such ineptitude and important information lost.
Perhaps the most elementary fault of all was in the attempt to make the evidence fit the theory instead of developing the theory from the evidence; a practice which continues even now.
'The statements of 9 sensible and honourable people point in the direction of an abduction.'
Pull the other one.
You do not know any of them told the truth, partially or fully .
There is nothing found that can prove abduction or burglary.
FACT.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 12:24:11 PM
There is a substantial case that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.
It would appear that the PJ and the Met think so too or they would not be bothering to look for a perpetrator.
Don't you think it is about time you took on board that any notion that Madeleine's parents had any involvement in her disappearance has been discarded by law enforcement agencies ... I note that we do not see so many 'catchee monkee' posts on the internet of late as the realisation sinks home.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
'The statements of 9 sensible and honourable people point in the direction of an abduction.'
Pull the other one.
You do not know any of them told the truth, partially or fully .
There is nothing found that can prove abduction or burglary.
FACT.
There are many independent witnesses who are on record as observing behaviour round about 5a at relevant times which gave them cause for concern not only in retrospect but at the time.
If you do not give proper weight to witnesses statements to collate those which may be of value and eliminate those which have checked out, you will get nowhere in the case of a missing child.
You will certainly ensure that any hard evidence will be irretreviably lost.
The phone pings seem to have given the Met something to get their teeth into; pity concentration on the calls of Madeleine’s parents and their friends seems to have distracted the original investigation from the line of investigation now followed by the Met which had the potential of finding out what happened to Madeleine at the time.
How the perp/s must have chortled at ineptitude on ineptitude in the conduct of the investigation.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 12:46:45 PM
I see no actual proof at the moment that Portuguese officials are co-operating; we have no idea what is going on re. the letters of request, but we have been told to expect the long haul.
You have absolutely no idea what the Met have or have not found ... stupid of you to bang on about it.
If there is evidence of staged abduction involving Madeleine's parents and their friends ... why aren't they in jail? Quite simply ... there is none.
But there sure is evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted ... which is why the PJ and the Met are looking for the perp/s ... and IMO they probably know exactly who it is they would like to help them with their inquiries ... and it ain't the Drs McCann.
But I think most sensible folk have worked that out already.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on September 24, 2014, 01:07:23 PM
There are many independent witnesses who are on record as observing behaviour round about 5a at relevant times which gave them cause for concern not only in retrospect but at the time.
If you do not give proper weight to witnesses statements to collate those which may be of value and eliminate those which have checked out, you will get nowhere in the case of a missing child.
You will certainly ensure that any hard evidence will be irretreviably lost.
The phone pings seem to have given the Met something to get their teeth into; pity concentration on the calls of Madeleine’s parents and their friends seems to have distracted the original investigation from the line of investigation now followed by the Met which had the potential of finding out what happened to Madeleine at the time.
How the perp/s must have chortled at ineptitude on ineptitude in the conduct of the investigation.
How many people saw others hanging around other apartments /buildings in PDL ?
Phone activity proves diddly squat unless you have corroborating evidence of entrance to the apartment.
There is NONE.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on September 24, 2014, 01:10:36 PM
Just catching up on things and not having read all the posts in this thread, what is the proof evidence of abduction other than an open window and a raised shutter with a 3-year-old missing?
I honestly believe the Portuguese are sick to the back teeth of this case and the damage it has done to the area both in terms of reputations and to commerce.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 24, 2014, 01:13:43 PM
Just catching up on things and not having read all the posts in this thread, what is the proof evidence of abduction other than an open window and a raised shutter with a 3-year-old missing?
I honestly believe the Portuguese are sick to the back teeth of this case and the damage it has done to the area both in terms of reputations and to commerce.
Just catching up on things and not having read all the posts in this thread, what is the proof evidence of abduction other than an open window and a raised shutter with a 3-year-old missing?
I honestly believe the Portuguese are sick to the back teeth of this case and the damage it has done to the area both in terms of reputations and to commerce.
'open window and a raised shutter with a 3-year-old missing?'
The first two only on the word of kate mccann.
Madeleine missing, TRUE.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 02:25:05 PM
How many people saw others hanging around other apartments /buildings in PDL ?
Phone activity proves diddly squat unless you have corroborating evidence of entrance to the apartment.
There is NONE.
You obviously have not read the files if you need to ask that question, there are many instances there.
If the phone records prove 'diddly squat' why did the original investigators spend so much time on the Drs' McCann and their friends' calls which they and internet 'investigators' have spent an inordinate amount of time analysing. They missed the connections Heri (without recourse to their resources)and the Met spotted.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest apartment 5a was under surveillance before and during the McCann family occupancy. Whether this was for the purposes of burglary or other nefarious activity such as entering the property as in the cases highlighted by the Met where children were assaulted, could only be known if they had been properly investigated.
Where is the proof burglaries were rife in the environs of PDL and the complex itself? it was being denied until fairly recently. Where is the proof children were assaulted in their beds? that too was denied
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on September 24, 2014, 02:26:44 PM
I see no actual proof at the moment that Portuguese officials are co-operating; we have no idea what is going on re. the letters of request, but we have been told to expect the long haul.
You have absolutely no idea what the Met have or have not found ... stupid of you to bang on about it.
If there is evidence of staged abduction involving Madeleine's parents and their friends ... why aren't they in jail? Quite simply ... there is none.
But there sure is evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted ... which is why the PJ and the Met are looking for the perp/s ... and IMO they probably know exactly who it is they would like to help them with their inquiries ... and it ain't the Drs McCann.
But I think most sensible folk have worked that out already.
8@??)( Good sound post Brietta.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on September 24, 2014, 02:28:52 PM
You obviously have not read the files if you need to ask that question, there are many instances there.
If the phone records prove 'diddly squat' why did the original investigators spend so much time on the Drs' McCann and their friends' calls which they and internet 'investigators' have spent an inordinate amount of time analysing. They missed the connections Heri (without recourse to their resources)and the Met spotted.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest apartment 5a was under surveillance before and during the McCann family occupancy. Whether this was for the purposes of burglary or other nefarious activity such as entering the property as in the cases highlighted by the Met where children were assaulted, could only be known if they had been properly investigated.
Where is the proof burglaries were rife in the environs of PDL and the complex itself? it was being denied until fairly recently. Where is the proof children were assaulted in their beds? that too was denied
Another good sound post, but then yours always are.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on September 24, 2014, 03:03:25 PM
2 blanket missing? Cig butts is hardly evidence. Tourists going out for a smoke. If a watcher was clever he wouldn't be leaving cig butts with his DNA on @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on September 24, 2014, 03:34:26 PM
2 blanket missing? Cig butts is hardly evidence. Tourists going out for a smoke. If a watcher was clever he wouldn't be leaving cig butts with his DNA on @)(++(*
Thanks Pfinder, I accidentally left this phrase off number 2 when I posted the extended list **Please correct me if I am wrong on this **. Post now amended.
The PJ missed the cigarette butts it appears. So no forensic evidence even tried for as far as we are aware.
Pity 8(8-))
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on September 24, 2014, 04:18:44 PM
Anna, we know you are sadie, who d'ya think you are kidding.
BWahahahaha
*&*%£
Spammy, at least you are always good for a laugh.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 05:37:03 PM
I agree with the misnomer of the thread … we know there is totally no evidence providing proof of 'nuttin' … except the fact that Madeleine has vanished.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on September 24, 2014, 06:00:32 PM
I agree with the misnomer of the thread … we know there is totally no evidence providing proof of 'nuttin' … except the fact that Madeleine has vanished.
We would simply be going over the same stuff already discussed, regarding suspicious watchers as in witness statements, burglaries, people getting in and out of windows which has occurred (mrs Fenns), some very rude, untidy and careless holidaymaker throwing his fag-ends on the balcony floor(would you believe it), phone calls pings, children sexually assaulted in their own beds. sexual offenders in the area, the abduction sightings, the missing keyes and the scream from Brancos....Just to mention a few.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on September 24, 2014, 06:27:33 PM
Please Wonderfulspam, desist from causing any further board disruption.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on September 24, 2014, 06:30:50 PM
They are only of value dave if they are in relation to someone entering the apartment.
Otherwise the logic of your position is simple, anyone standing outside a residence at looking at it is there to abduct children and/or commit a burglary, and that is just plain ridiculous.
Rather like the notion of an adult carrying a child in their arms is evidence of abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on September 24, 2014, 07:55:13 PM
They are only of value dave if they are in relation to someone entering the apartment.
Otherwise the logic of your position is simple, anyone standing outside a residence at looking at it is there to abduct children and/or commit a burglary, and that is just plain ridiculous.
Rather like the notion of an adult carrying a child in their arms is evidence of abduction.
Why would any rational person think that someone walking along the street carrying a television had stolen it ... unless it was later discovered that someone had entered an apartment and stolen a television?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on September 24, 2014, 08:02:19 PM
Why would any rational person think that someone walking along the street carrying a television had stolen it ... unless it was later discovered that someone had entered an apartment and stolen a television?
What a stupid response.
There is no evidence or proof, anyone entered the apartment.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2014, 08:13:18 PM
They are only of value dave if they are in relation to someone entering the apartment.
Otherwise the logic of your position is simple, anyone standing outside a residence at looking at it is there to abduct children and/or commit a burglary, and that is just plain ridiculous.
Rather like the notion of an adult carrying a child in their arms is evidence of abduction.
Absolute rubbish..witness testimony is evidence.....that is a basic fact
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on September 24, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
I haven't followed all of this thread, but I come back to the title.
What evidence of abduction would one expect to have been found?
Well Carana, if any charges could be brought, sufficient evidence to indicate that abduction occurred in the first place.
Motive, means, no alibi, etc.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on September 26, 2014, 11:48:30 PM
Come on Alice, use your brains. oh oops we don't have any. but to be fair and I hate and loath to admit this we have something in common with the 'pro's
NONE OF US CAN SHOW PROOF OR EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION. tee hee.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 02, 2015, 12:17:05 AM
the official UK government line is there is NO EVIDENCE of an abduction
SEE LAST SENTENCE on second link (this trumps all those posters who say there is)
The same sentence also states there is no evidence so support Madeleine or Ben NOT being abducted.
Quote
''were or were not abducted'.
IOW there is no evidence either way in both cases.
I did read the whole sentence, the point was, that contrary to what several people here post day in, day out, there is no evidence, and that is official
How that squares with DI Redwoods alledged claim that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger I have no idea (but he never actually said that exactly)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
I did read the whole sentence, the point was, that contrary to what several people here post day in, day out, there is no evidence, and that is official
How that squares with DI Redwoods alledged claim that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger I have no idea (but he never actually said that exactly)
Yes he did.
Quote from Andy Redwood.
We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive. . (snipped)
.........And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
Click here: Madeleine: DAYBREAK Interview DCI Andy Redwood April 27 2012 - YouTube
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2015, 09:22:12 AM
We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive. . (snipped)
.........And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
Click here: Madeleine: DAYBREAK Interview DCI Andy Redwood April 27 2012 - YouTube
Yet they have found nothing.
What experience did Redwood have of 'abductions' ?
A 'forensic analysis of the timelines' means exactly what in these circumstances ?
Did it include Madeleine walking out of the apartment ?
Did it include other scenarios ?
Or were they told solely to investigate abduction ?
Witnesses were telling the truth ?
Do all witnesses tell the truth ?
As we know, the accounts were inconsistent.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 03, 2015, 10:14:01 AM
It sounds to me like DCI Redwood said (allowing for the Norman Collier bits in the video). "There was an opportunity in time for an abduction to have taken place and if it did it would have been a criminal act by a stranger".
Any road oop DCI Redwood (ret'd) is now yesterday's man. Have there been any advances since April 2012 do we know ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Lace on July 03, 2015, 10:20:57 AM
It sounds to me like DCI Redwood said (allowing for the Norman Collier bits in the video). "There was an opportunity in time for an abduction to have taken place and if it did it would have been a criminal act by a stranger".
Any road oop DCI Redwood (ret'd) is now yesterday's man. Have there been any advances since April 2012 do we know ?
Kate McCann has said they are very happy about how the investigation is going.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 03, 2015, 10:28:25 AM
What experience did Redwood have of 'abductions' ?
A 'forensic analysis of the timelines' means exactly what in these circumstances ?
Did it include Madeleine walking out of the apartment ?
Did it include other scenarios ?
Or were they told solely to investigate abduction ?
Witnesses were telling the truth ?
Do all witnesses tell the truth ?
As we know, the accounts were inconsistent.
You have completely missed the point of my post - which was to show Mercury that his/her claim that DCI Redwood did not actually say that Madeleine's removal from 5A was undertaken by a stranger - was incorrect.
Quote
We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive. . (snipped)
And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
So not only his belief - but that of his team of experienced investigators also.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2015, 10:31:58 AM
You have completely missed the point of my post - which was to show Mercury that his/her claim that DCI Redwood did not actually say that Madeleine's disappearance was undertaken by a stranger - was incorrect.
Quote And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
So not only his belief - but that of his team of experienced investigators also.
Really.
How do you know that ?
On just Redwood's word alone ?
I have spoken to police officers I know, and they are not convinced by the mccanns story.
They also reaffirmed that a full investigation was in order, not a one track one.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 03, 2015, 10:45:31 AM
I have spoken to police officers I know, and they are not convinced by the mccanns story.
They also reaffirmed that a full investigation was in order, not a one track one.
Dear me - I give you a quote straight from the horse's mouth - and also recorded on video - and your response is that we only have Redwood's word for that - and that police officers who are not connected to the case know more about it than he does.
LOL.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 03, 2015, 10:53:06 AM
I did read the whole sentence, the point was, that contrary to what several people here post day in, day out, there is no evidence, and that is official
How that squares with DI Redwoods alledged claim that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger I have no idea (but he never actually said that exactly)
it is not official...it is just a civil servants badly worded view...that is why it doesn't square with Redwood's view. There is certainly evidence but not proof of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 03, 2015, 10:53:50 AM
There often isn't.
A 5-year-old in France appears to have been abducted from her bed in the middle of the night earlier this week and taken / thrown out of the window of her bedroom on the 1st floor. The rest of the family were asleep and didn't wake up.
Luckily, she was able to scream from where she'd been dumped and neighbours woke up, found her and raised the alert. One or more witnesses saw a man running away.
Dear me - I give you a quote straight from the horse's mouth - and also recorded on video - and your response is that we only have Redwood's word for that - and that police officers who are not connected to the case know more about it than he does.
LOL.
and SY have found ????
and do you seriously believe in your wildest imagination all police officers believe the mccanns version of events ?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 03, 2015, 11:02:55 AM
I have spoken to police officers I know, and they are not convinced by the mccanns story.
They also reaffirmed that a full investigation was in order, not a one track one.
It matters not, what anyone thinks, Stephen. Police officers are human beings with the same prejudices, weaknesses and faults as any other human being.
If your friendly police officers(are they detectives?) are connected to the case, they should not be sharing their opinions with a member of the public. that job is reserved for their superiors. If they are not involved in the case, then they know no more than you and I.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Lace on July 03, 2015, 12:11:12 PM
Would you really expect them to say anything different?
This is what she said -
‘Well obviously I can’t give any investigation details out but let’s just say we’re really encouraged. There has been a lot of progress in the last six months plus, last year. The co-operation between the UK and the Portuguese seems to be really good which is really positive for us and I can say there is progress being made.’
It's good to hear that the Portuguese police and SY are working well together now.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2015, 12:12:45 PM
It matters not, what anyone thinks, Stephen. Police officers are human beings with the same prejudices, weaknesses and faults as any other human being.
If your friendly police officers(are they detectives?) are connected to the case, they should not be sharing their opinions with a member of the public. that job is reserved for their superiors. If they are not involved in the case, then they know no more than you and I.
What you say Anna, equally applies to those officers and other staff involved in the SY investigation.
Officers connected to cases do talk to other people, and it would be naive to assume they don't, or that all police follow the 'official line' in this or other cases.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 03, 2015, 12:26:15 PM
Would you really expect them to say anything different?
8((()*/ Yes I'm very pleased we haven't been brought in for questioning. I may even answer some this time if you are nice to me. I will get the red carpet ready for your arrival 8)--))
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 03, 2015, 12:28:47 PM
What you say Anna, equally applies to those officers and other staff involved in the SY investigation.
Officers connected to cases do talk to other people, and it would be naive to assume they don't, or that all police follow the 'official line' in this or other cases.
no one thinks all police follow the official line...but it's the official line that matters
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 03, 2015, 12:30:04 PM
What you say Anna, equally applies to those officers and other staff involved in the SY investigation.
Officers connected to cases do talk to other people, and it would be naive to assume they don't, or that all police follow the 'official line' in this or other cases.
It applies to all officers involved in a case. Stephen. Whether or not they discuss it with friends and family, as you say............Who knows? If the Official line (as you call it). is not followed and it was discovered, they would risk disciplinary action. Rules of the job!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 03, 2015, 12:30:12 PM
if all police talk off the record then as I have pointed out if the mccanns were under investigation some of stephens friends would have told us
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 03, 2015, 12:38:10 PM
Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed on the 3rd May 2007.
She hasn't been seen since.
There is no evidence of parental involvement, despite aggressive investigation of them and their friends.
Therefore the absence of the child, is evidence of abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2015, 12:52:24 PM
Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed on the 3rd May 2007.
She hasn't been seen since.
There is no evidence of parental involvement, despite aggressive investigation of them and their friends.
Therefore the absence of the child, is evidence of abduction.
A lack of evidence, as some often remind on here does not mean you can ignore accidental death, or that she might have left the apartment herself and disappeared.
As to 'aggressive investigation' , who by exactly, SY ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 03, 2015, 12:56:32 PM
It applies to all officers involved in a case. Stephen. Whether or not they discuss it with friends and family, as you say............Who knows? If the Official line (as you call it). is not followed and it was discovered, they would risk disciplinary action. Rules of the job!
Is that like the officers who allegedly colluded in protecting those people in the police, parliament and elsewhere, in paedophile activities ?
Have you watched the interviews with these officers who were told 'to look the other way' or risk losing their jobs, or worse ? (on sky)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 03, 2015, 01:12:03 PM
It sounds to me like DCI Redwood said (allowing for the Norman Collier bits in the video). "There was an opportunity in time for an abduction to have taken place and if it did it would have been a criminal act by a stranger".
Any road oop DCI Redwood (ret'd) is now yesterday's man. Have there been any advances since April 2012 do we know ?
& @ Benice
Exactly Alice. This is the short and tall of it. Of course, preconceptions and assumptions colour understanding, sometimes...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 03, 2015, 08:52:27 PM
it is not official...it is just a civil servants badly worded view...that is why it doesn't square with Redwood's view. There is certainly evidence but not proof of abduction
@)(++(*
Oh, OK, if you say so. You might like to reiterate this "evidence" to save me from reading the whole thread. Bullet points and a very short sentence for each piece are fine.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 04, 2015, 09:47:58 AM
Exactly Alice. This is the short and tall of it. Of course, preconceptions and assumptions colour understanding, sometimes...
Your claim: ''How that squares with DI Redwoods alledged claim that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger I have no idea (but he never actually said that exactly)'' ----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Andy Redwood
We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive. And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
There are no 'ifs' or 'buts' to be seen in the above. It's a clear statement by Andy Redwood which shows that your claim that he never actually said that - is incorrect.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
Your claim: ''How that squares with DI Redwoods alledged claim that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger I have no idea (but he never actually said that exactly)'' ----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Andy Redwood
We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive. And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
There are no 'ifs' or 'buts' to be seen in the above. It's a clear statement by Andy Redwood which shows that your claim that he never actually said that - is incorrect.
Ah! But Andy Redwood was (and probably still is!) "in it" ....
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 04, 2015, 10:39:52 AM
As to being under the influence, they certainly were, mind you they'd barely started on the evening of the 3 rd May 2007.
On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served c ocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order—a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course.
Your claim: ''How that squares with DI Redwoods alledged claim that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger I have no idea (but he never actually said that exactly)'' ----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Andy Redwood
We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive. And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger. Unquote
There are no 'ifs' or 'buts' to be seen in the above. It's a clear statement by Andy Redwood which shows that your claim that he never actually said that - is incorrect.
Nope, you are wrong IMHO You are reading what you want to read. The statement was not clear and direct, that is why he fumbled about.The fact remains that all he said was that there was an ooportunity for an abudction and that this would be a criminal act, pretty silly sounding of him to qualify it in that way as well.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 01:59:35 PM
Nope, you are wrong IMHO You are reading what you want to read. The statement was not clear and direct, that is why he fumbled about.The fact remains that all he said was that there was an ooportunity for an abudction and that this would be a criminal act, pretty silly sounding of him to qualify it in that way as well.
which bit of " And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger" is unclear in your view?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 04, 2015, 02:03:20 PM
which bit of " And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger" is unclear in your view?
It's not unclear, was is unclear is whether he said this is his belief what actually happened to Madeleine. IOW all he said was that there was an opportunity for such an act.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 02:11:32 PM
It's not unclear, was is unclear is whether he said this is his belief what actually happened to Madeleine. IOW all he said was that there was an opportunity for such an act.
So when he says that as an experienced investigator it's his belief that Madeleine was taken from the apartment in a criminal act by a stranger you don't think he actually meant it, is that what you believe? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 04, 2015, 02:13:07 PM
which bit of " And it is our belief as experienced investigators - on the evidence - that that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger" is unclear in your view?
So here we have Redwood talking about a criminal act by a stranger.....based on the EVIDENCE
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 02:13:12 PM
So when he says that as an experienced investigator it's his belief that Madeleine was taken from the apartment in a criminal act by a stranger you don't think he actually meant it, is that what you believe? &%+((£
But he never said that in so many words, did he? Why don't you watch the video again.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 02:14:27 PM
So here we have Redwood talking about a criminal act by a stranger.....based on the EVIDENCE
Nope, wrong again.
Have to go for a few hours, look forward to your "evidence of abduction" post when I return.
8((()*/
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 04, 2015, 02:20:57 PM
DCI Redwood was an experienced investigator. Does anyone have any idea therefore why he made himself look anything but when he explained away Tannerman?
1. How likely is it that the man they found still had exactly the same outfit in his wardrobe (and remembered what he was wearing) 2. How likely is it that they still had the pyjamas their child wore that night (and remembered which ones it was wearing) 3. How likely is it that this man picked up his child dressed only in pyjamas from the night creche on a chiily night and instead of rushing it back to the apartment took it for a walk around the town then headed back towards the creche (where had he been?)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 04, 2015, 02:29:17 PM
DCI Redwood was an experienced investigator. Does anyone have any idea therefore why he made himself look anything but when he explained away Tannerman?
1. How likely is it that the man they found still had exactly the same outfit in his wardrobe (and remembered what he was wearing) 2. How likely is it that they still had the pyjamas their child wore that night (and remembered which ones it was wearing) 3. How likely is it that this man picked up his child dressed only in pyjamas from the night creche on a chiily night and instead of rushing it back to the apartment took it for a walk around the town then headed back towards the creche (where had he been?)
That is a question that has been mulled over many times, G. Was it the person that JT saw on that night, or did she see an abductor? All very strange to say the least!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 04, 2015, 02:33:22 PM
That is a question that has been mulled over many times, G. Was it the person that JT saw on that night, or did she see an abductor? All very strange to say the least!
Redwood seemed quite happy about it not being the abductor and we know that everything he says must be true.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 02:36:17 PM
It must be true, it's always said on sky,the BBC and in the papers.
The mere idea they were drinking before and during the evenings, on the 3 rd May, and before, were mere fabrications by the 'sceptics'.
What do you think dave, was it all made up about the drinking ?
They had one glass of wine before they went out Stephen, you make it sound as though they were drunk. Many people have a glass of wine at home before they go out, then have drinks with their meal. No one reported that they were drunk on any night that week.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Lace on July 04, 2015, 02:51:56 PM
Have to go for a few hours, look forward to your "evidence of abduction" post when I return.
8((()*/
What evidence do you want? A note from the abductor saying 'I woz here' There are MANY cases where there is no finger prints, dna, of the abductor. In Sarah Payne's case if her brother hadn't seen that white van what evidence would there have been? What evidence is there for Ben Needham. The police probably come to their conclusion by elimination that it is unlikely she wandered, not likely she had an accident and so what is left as there is no body to be found is abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 04, 2015, 02:52:19 PM
Redwood seemed quite happy about it not being the abductor and we know that everything he says must be true.
Did he not say something like...We are almost certain that this is the man seen by JT?
I am inclined to agree with G, on this. How can you remember all these details, be in the wrong place and still have the same clothing? I have always found this very difficult to understand. We were given no explanation and there is no statement that we know of, by this holidaymaker. Hopefully an explanation will be given at a later date.....Who knows?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 04, 2015, 03:00:26 PM
He was the lead detective. What he says MUST be true - would he try to mislead everyone?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
He was the lead detective. What he says MUST be true - would he try to mislead everyone?
Without a doubt.
Unless you really believe Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's power's of arrest (having first being contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results) ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 04, 2015, 03:04:18 PM
It's not unclear, was is unclear is whether he said this is his belief what actually happened to Madeleine. IOW all he said was that there was an opportunity for such an act.
Are you actually being serious?
DCI Redwood is talking exclusively about the McCann case and specifically about Madeleine McCann. He was not talking in general terms in any way shape or form.
In fact he could not have been more crystal clear or unambiguous if he'd tried.
The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 04, 2015, 04:28:09 PM
So when he says that as an experienced investigator it's his belief that Madeleine was taken from the apartment in a criminal act by a stranger you don't think he actually meant it, is that what you believe? &%+((£
So where is Redwood now? Gone Gone Gone
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 04, 2015, 04:34:40 PM
Gone but not forgotten @)(++(* Busy writing his memoirs, maybe.
Replaced by the dynamic ? Ms Wall, who hasn't been seen for a while.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 04:37:34 PM
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 04, 2015, 04:40:55 PM
Redwood had no evidence to support an abduction any more than anyone else had. His belief that Tannerman was not carrying Madeleine is based on a possibility.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on July 04, 2015, 05:16:47 PM
DCI Redwood was an experienced investigator. Does anyone have any idea therefore why he made himself look anything but when he explained away Tannerman?
1. How likely is it that the man they found still had exactly the same outfit in his wardrobe (and remembered what he was wearing) 2. How likely is it that they still had the pyjamas their child wore that night (and remembered which ones it was wearing) 3. How likely is it that this man picked up his child dressed only in pyjamas from the night creche on a chiily night and instead of rushing it back to the apartment took it for a walk around the town then headed back towards the creche (where had he been?)
1 and 2 could be explained by holiday snaps, plus look-a-like clothes in place of the originals. 3 Is the sticking point. At some point I'll look for guests accommodated E of the sighting with a 2 year old.
However, this bugged me so much I went back to the programme. He had dismissed the T9, and this dismissed the Tanner sighting.
He then went on a wide-spectrum trawl, that covered everything (except sex assaults, and he did that elsewhere).
I concluded that he wanted people to look beyond the T9 and Tannerman, and go back to scratch on the rest. Knock out the T9 and Tannerman and get public response to all other alternatives.
I could be wrong of course. I'm trying to make sense of the four arguidos after the Luz dig, and SY seem to be acting pretty oddly on this too.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 05:20:02 PM
1 and 2 could be explained by holiday snaps, plus look-a-like clothes in place of the originals. 3 Is the sticking point. At some point I'll look for guests accommodated E of the sighting with a 2 year old.
However, this bugged me so much I went back to the programme. He had dismissed the T9, and this dismissed the Tanner sighting.
He then went on a wide-spectrum trawl, that covered everything (except sex assaults, and he did that elsewhere).
I concluded that he wanted people to look beyond the T9 and Tannerman, and go back to scratch on the rest. Knock out the T9 and Tannerman and get public response to all other alternatives.
I could be wrong of course. I'm trying to make sense of the four arguidos after the Luz dig, and SY seem to be acting pretty oddly on this too.
He may have had a pic of his outfit, but unless he knew which day he wore it......Would he have a pic of his kid in pyjamas......and remember which day they were worn? I think that's asking too much. Was the guy heading east? Where had he been then? I'm sure he was desperate to get rid of Tannerman, but it was a bad try imo, and did nothing for his credibility.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 05:44:41 PM
I don't want to pull anyone to pieces, but the person under discussion was Redwood - as you well know.
I just didn't understand your comment in response to mine querying why Redwood having retired had any bearing on his views expressed prior to retirement. Oh well, never mind, I guess you were just bored and at a loss for something vaguely interesting to say. 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 05:47:12 PM
He may have had a pic of his outfit, but unless he knew which day he wore it......Would he have a pic of his kid in pyjamas......and remember which day they were worn? I think that's asking too much. Was the guy heading east? Where had he been then? I'm sure he was desperate to get rid of Tannerman, but it was a bad try imo, and did nothing for his credibility.
So, what are you implying? That Crecheman doesn't actually exist?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 04, 2015, 05:58:30 PM
So, what are you implying? That Crecheman doesn't actually exist?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that Redwoods explanation wasn't believable for at least the three reasons I gave. That's why Redwood's other announcements can't be relied on.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 06:09:02 PM
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that Redwoods explanation wasn't believable for at least the three reasons I gave. That's why Redwood's other announcements can't be relied on.
Well what you do seem to be saying is that we shouldn't believe what he told us, aren't you? You are implying something underhand for sure.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 04, 2015, 06:26:24 PM
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that Redwoods explanation wasn't believable for at least the three reasons I gave. That's why Redwood's other announcements can't be relied on.
Redwood was the frontman. I would think that other members of the team had been involved in sorting out whether crecheman could have been Tannerman or not. If the details that he's told them make sense to them and / or have been verified, then that is how they came to their conclusion that it could well have been him.
SY was under no obligation to give more detail than necessary to make the point and, in fact, had a duty to protect the family's privacy.
The fact that his route seems odd could be for any number of reasons: he could have walked back with someone living elsewhere, had a lift part of the way, stopped off somewhere for some reason, had a lousy sense of direction... who knows?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 04, 2015, 07:04:49 PM
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that Redwoods explanation wasn't believable for at least the three reasons I gave. That's why Redwood's other announcements can't be relied on.
in your very biased opinion
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 08:24:42 PM
That is a question that has been mulled over many times, G. Was it the person that JT saw on that night, or did she see an abductor? All very strange to say the least!
And not forgetting that the Leicester police plods sat on this info for years.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 04, 2015, 08:26:14 PM
What evidence do you want? A note from the abductor saying 'I woz here' There are MANY cases where there is no finger prints, dna, of the abductor. In Sarah Payne's case if her brother hadn't seen that white van what evidence would there have been? What evidence is there for Ben Needham. The police probably come to their conclusion by elimination that it is unlikely she wandered, not likely she had an accident and so what is left as there is no body to be found is abduction.
I have never asked for evidence, sometimes there is little or none, I have questioned the fact that many posters say there is plenty of evidence and asking, what is it? I have read posts that state, "someone was calling out for Madeleine" that night, so that is evidence of an abduction. Others say "she is missing" so that is evidence. It isn't. Others say a man was spotted carrying a small child, that isn't either. It might be, but it isn't definitely evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 08:32:26 PM
DCI Redwood is talking exclusively about the McCann case and specifically about Madeleine McCann. He was not talking in general terms in any way shape or form.
In fact he could not have been more crystal clear or unambiguous if he'd tried.
The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
I know he was talking about the case Benice! But what he said was not unambiguous. Either that or he has a problem with plain speaking. All he said was the opportunity was there for a stranger to abduct a child.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 08:47:18 PM
It's like getting blood out of a stone here sometimes.
He may well have been saying what YOU believe he was IMHO he fudged his words and could as well have said nothing of the sort
Why did he have such difficulty stating his stance?All he had to say is we believe Madeleine was abducted. he didn't say that!
I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I enter into a discussion with you. Redwood clearly ("unequivocally" is the word used by the Guardian newspaper when reporting his words) states that as an experienced investigator he believes Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. There can be no dispute about this. It is a fact that her said this even if you refuse to accept it.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 04, 2015, 09:15:00 PM
I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I enter into a discussion with you. Redwood clearly ("unequivocally" is the word used by the Guardian newspaper when reporting his words) states that as an experienced investigator he believes Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. There can be no dispute about this. It is a fact that her said this even if you refuse to accept it.
Redwood has also said she might have died in the apartment.
He also said he believes in an abduction.
So what exactly was his expertise in this type of investigation.
Since clearly he has found nothing of consequence, before his retirement.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 04, 2015, 09:16:02 PM
Redwood said in the video;
There are two key elements. Madeleine is alive or she is dead. Our forensic analysis of the timeline shows there is clearly an opportunity there for her to have been removed from the apartment alive. That is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger.
He doesn't say she is alive. He says there was an opportunity for her to have been removed alive. He then says 'that'(the removal of her alive) is a criminal act by a stranger.
Obviously if she was removed alive it's likely to have been by a stranger who took advantage of an opportunity in the timeline.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 09:16:29 PM
I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I enter into a discussion with you. Redwood clearly ("unequivocally" is the word used by the Guardian newspaper when reporting his words) states that as an experienced investigator he believes Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. There can be no dispute about this. It is a fact that her said this even if you refuse to accept it.
Nope,it's not clear at all and it's very disingenuous of you to make those remarks about all our exchanges, steady on
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Nope,it's not clear at all and it's very disingenuous of you to make those remarks about all our exchanges, steady on
OK, let's ask who else agrees with you then. Anyone? mercury claims, despite the overwhelming recorded evidence, that Andy Redwood did not state he believed Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. So, let's hear some support and justification for her view from others.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 09:20:01 PM
There are two key elements. Madeleine is alive or she is dead. Our forensic analysis of the timeline shows there is clearly an opportunity there for her to have been removed from the apartment alive. That is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger.
He doesn't say she is alive. He says there was an opportunity for her to have been removed alive. He then says 'that'(the removal of her alive) is a criminal act by a stranger.
Obviously if she was removed alive it's likely to have been by a stranger who took advantage of an opportunity in the timeline.
Thank You GU! That is the short and tall of it, he never said SY believes an abduction actually took place
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 04, 2015, 09:20:05 PM
There are two key elements. Madeleine is alive or she is dead. Our forensic analysis of the timeline shows there is clearly an opportunity there for her to have been removed from the apartment alive. That is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger.
He doesn't say she is alive. He says there was an opportunity for her to have been removed alive. He then says 'that'(the removal of her alive) is a criminal act by a stranger.
Obviously if she was removed alive it's likely to have been by a stranger who took advantage of an opportunity in the timeline.
"it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 04, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
Oh dear. I suppose I have to say it again. Redwood didn't make a convincing case for excluding Tannerman, therefore his other conclusions are suspect. If you can show he did make a convincing case for getting rid of Tannerman please explain why you think that. Otherwise your posts contribute nothing.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 04, 2015, 09:25:54 PM
"it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger
Yet what evidence exists of an abductor(s) ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 09:28:04 PM
"it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger
he might have been talking of any evidence in any case there, steady on, don't put words in his mouth,and besides, where IS the evidence?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 09:29:52 PM
In summary the (present) Portuguese/Anglo investigation is investigating that Madeline was abducted in a criminal act by (a) stranger (or possibly more than one stranger)
The shelved enquiry investigated that Kate and/or Gerry, somehow, caused Madeleine's death, covered up the "fact" of her "death" and fabricated an "abduction".
The shelved enquiry found no evidence to support any of that, as reflected in the final PJ report and the prosecutors' archiving dispatch.
It didn't investigate them for launching a fraudulent "fund" but Amaral was clearly of the view that the British should and said so in his book.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 04, 2015, 09:31:50 PM
In summary the (present) Portuguese/Anglo investigation is investigating that Madeline was abducted in a criminal act by (a) stranger (or possibly more than one stranger)
The shelved enquiry investigated that Kate and/or Gerry, somehow, caused Madeleine's death, covered up the "fact" of her "death" and fabricated an "abduction".
The shelved enquiry found no evidence to support any of that, as reflected in the final PJ report and the prosecutors' archiving dispatch.
It didn't investigate them for launching a fraudulent "fund" but Amaral was clearly of the view that the British should and said so in his book.
A and not one jot of evidence of abduction.
Which of course the mccanns claimed as a fact.
So what does that make them ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 04, 2015, 09:32:12 PM
"it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger
They believe it's a criminal act. What is? The taking of Madeleine alive during a gap in the timeline. Who did it? A stranger. He doesn't say they believe it happened.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 09:37:01 PM
In summary the (present) Portuguese/Anglo investigation is investigating that Madeline was abducted in a criminal act by (a) stranger (or possibly more than one stranger)
The shelved enquiry investigated that Kate and/or Gerry, somehow, caused Madeleine's death, covered up the "fact" of her "death" and fabricated an "abduction".
The shelved enquiry found no evidence to support any of that, as reflected in the final PJ report and the prosecutors' archiving dispatch.
It didn't investigate them for launching a fraudulent "fund" but Amaral was clearly of the view that the British should and said so in his book.
Wrong again
The original investigation investigated many abduction leads
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 09:39:44 PM
They believe it's a criminal act. What is? The taking of Madeleine alive during a gap in the timeline. Who did it? A stranger. He doesn't say they believe it happened.
Exactamundo
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Did you reread my post my chuckling friend? I await your apology for calling me dishonest. Unless you prefer me to report you?
I give you credit for acknowledging the possibility that the McCanns are innocent.
As for Andy Redwood, he said
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
The words in speech marks are obviously verbatim and what he actually said
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 09:54:33 PM
I give you credit for acknowledging the possibility that the McCanns are innocent.
As for Andy Redwood, he said
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
The words in speech marks are obviously verbatim and what he actually sad
Nope, try again
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 04, 2015, 09:57:07 PM
he might have been talking of any evidence in any case there, steady on, don't put words in his mouth,and besides, where IS the evidence?
I only quoted him verbatim, not a worded added, nor removed. The Met clearly believes there is evidence to support their view, that you don't is your problem.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 10:05:08 PM
I only quoted him verbatim, not a worded added, nor removed. The Met clearly believes there is evidence to support their view, that you don't is your problem.
So wrong again, sigh
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 10:06:16 PM
Please could you provide a link for that quote? He didn't say that on the video we saw. I'm still waiting for an apology re your accusation that I'm dishonest;
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 09:32:12 PM They believe it's a criminal act. What is? The taking of Madeleine alive during a gap in the timeline. Who did it? A stranger. He doesn't say they believe it happened.
How characteristically dishonest of you to omit the word stranger, used by Andy Redwood
"it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 04, 2015, 10:07:22 PM
Please could you provide a link for that quote? He didn't say that on the video we saw. I'm still waiting for an apology re your accusation that I'm dishonest;
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 09:32:12 PM They believe it's a criminal act. What is? The taking of Madeleine alive during a gap in the timeline. Who did it? A stranger. He doesn't say they believe it happened.
How characteristically dishonest of you to omit the word stranger, used by Andy Redwood
Scotland Yard is calling for the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance to be reopened, as detectives revealed there is evidence to suggest she might be alive.
Senior detectives within the Metropolitan police have been reviewing the Portuguese inquiry into the girl's disappearance for a year. On Wednesday – as the fifth anniversary of her disappearance approaches – police released an age-enhanced image of what she might look like now.
Madeleine, whose ninth birthday is on 12 May, disappeared from a Portuguese resort on 3 May 2007.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said he believed she was abducted by a stranger, adding that there were 195 "investigative opportunities".
Redwood said he "genuinely" believed Madeleine could be alive, though the team is following an equal line of inquiry that she might now be dead.
The officer is leading a team of 37 detectives dedicated solely to carrying out an active investigative review of all the evidence in the case.
They are sifting through 40,000 pieces of material, and within them Redwood said officers have identified 195 historic investigative opportunities.
He said the team was developing new information about what happened to Madeleine five years ago, when she disappeared from her parents' holiday villa in Praia de Luz.
"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.
He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.
Advertisement
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
He appealed directly to anyone who might know where Madeleine was to contact the police.
The Met team is working with a Portuguese review team in Oporto, which is separate from the original inquiry and, said Redwood, was as committed as Scotland Yard to getting to the bottom of what happened to Madeleine.
"The Metropolitan police service wants the investigation reopened," he said. But he added that the decision had to be made by the Portuguese.
The Yard team is passing its information directly to the Portuguese review team. Redwood has visited Portugal seven times in the past year.
The review was set up last year on the fourth anniversary of the child's disappearance after Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, appealed to the prime minister, David Cameron, for Scotland Yard to look at the case.
Redwood said: "We have approached the material with a completely open mind. We have sought to put Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do."
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 04, 2015, 10:09:13 PM
Topic Please, without insults or personal comments, if you please. Thank you
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 10:09:37 PM
"it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger
Better said in TOTAL context don't you thnk?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 04, 2015, 10:16:43 PM
In my opinion there is a bit of an infantile WUM campaign ongoing. It lends nothing to the debate because it is not designed to do so. It lends nothing to the forum because it is designed not to.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 10:21:01 PM
In my opinion there is a bit of an infantile WUM campaign ongoing. It lends nothing to the debate because it is not designed to do so. It lends nothing to the forum because it is designed not to.
care to explain in straightforward English? ta!
In your own time of course
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 10:48:49 PM
English language has subjects objects, verbs etc. They believe. Who do? The experienced investigators. What do they believe? That 'that' is a criminal act undertaken by stranger. What is 'that'? It's the removal of Madeleine alive from the apartment in a gap in the timeline. They believe it's a criminal act, not they believe it happened.
@)(++(* So they don't believe stranger abduction happened now? And you got that from what Redwood said?! O lawdy!!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 10:51:59 PM
In my opinion there is a bit of an infantile WUM campaign ongoing. It lends nothing to the debate because it is not designed to do so. It lends nothing to the forum because it is designed not to.
I've never known such absurd twisting of the facts, it's utterly desperate and pathetically sad.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 11:04:05 PM
the fact remains.. redwood didn't say he believed Madeleine was abducted by a stranger,get over it
He most certainly did. By your interpretation Could you kindly explain why you think it was necessary for Redwood to point out that a stranger removing Madeleine from the apartment would constitute a criminal act?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 11:07:34 PM
He most certainly did. By your interpretation Could you kindly explain why you think it was necessary for Redwood to point out that a stranger removing Madeleine from the apartment would constitute a criminal act?
Well, that's the question , and he didn't mention Madeleine..plus all he talked about was possibilities
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 11:09:31 PM
Well, that's the question , and he didn't mention Madeleine..plus all he talked about was possibilities
Here's another question for you: if he didn't believe Madeleine was removed in a criminal act by a stranger and that she may be alive why did he release an age progression picture of her?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2015, 11:13:11 PM
Here's another question for you: if he didn't believe Madeleine was removed in a criminal act by a stranger and that she may be alive why did he release an age progression picture of her?
Don't be so naive Alfie
SY have no leads They (he) bleated they did they didn't An age progression pic is a PR exercise AR is now retired in a handsome pension Pity he didn't really get to the bottom of it let's see if Wall does anything
Have you not heard about the Mccanncurse!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 11:13:31 PM
Here's another question: why did all the UK papers reach the same conclusion about the meaning of Redwood's words as me, Ferryman, Brietta, etc?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 11:14:46 PM
SY have no leads They (he) bleated they did they didn't An age progression pic is a PR exercise AR is now retired in a handsome pension Pity he didn't really get to the bottom of it let's see if Wall does anything
So Andy Redwood's a liar too is he?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 04, 2015, 11:20:56 PM
You said he bleated about having leads but that they didn't have leads. So, is that not lying in your book?
he exaggerated them, end of
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 12:30:57 AM
Cops rule Maddie abducted POLICE have finally admitted Madeleine McCann was abducted four years ago.
By Sunday Star Reporter / Published 18th December 2011
Her parents Kate and Gerry had fought authorities to accept she was snatched from their holiday apartment in Portugal.
But only now have detectives put in writing that her case is one of abduction.
The Met at first refused to release paperwork under the Freedom of Information Act on the grounds it would “adversely harm the investigation”.
But, after an appeal, police finally handed over details to the Daily Star Sunday last week after a wait of nearly three months.
A source close to the McCanns, both 43, said: “Kate and Gerry are pleased the police are treating it as an abduction because that’s what they have said was the case since Madeleine went missing.”
A Scotland Yard review of Madeleine’s case began in May after pressure from the Prime Minister and Home Secretary Theresa May.
Met police spokesman Simon Fisher told the Daily Star Sunday the terms allowed for “investigating any sort of lead” from studying the files.
A spokesman for the McCanns said: “We are pleased the review is making progress.”
Scotland Yard is calling for the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance to be reopened, as detectives revealed there is evidence to suggest she might be alive.
Senior detectives within the Metropolitan police have been reviewing the Portuguese inquiry into the girl's disappearance for a year. On Wednesday – as the fifth anniversary of her disappearance approaches – police released an age-enhanced image of what she might look like now.
Madeleine, whose ninth birthday is on 12 May, disappeared from a Portuguese resort on 3 May 2007.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said he believed she was abducted by a stranger, adding that there were 195 "investigative opportunities".
Redwood said he "genuinely" believed Madeleine could be alive, though the team is following an equal line of inquiry that she might now be dead.
The officer is leading a team of 37 detectives dedicated solely to carrying out an active investigative review of all the evidence in the case.
They are sifting through 40,000 pieces of material, and within them Redwood said officers have identified 195 historic investigative opportunities.
He said the team was developing new information about what happened to Madeleine five years ago, when she disappeared from her parents' holiday villa in Praia de Luz.
"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.
He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.
Advertisement
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
He appealed directly to anyone who might know where Madeleine was to contact the police.
The Met team is working with a Portuguese review team in Oporto, which is separate from the original inquiry and, said Redwood, was as committed as Scotland Yard to getting to the bottom of what happened to Madeleine.
"The Metropolitan police service wants the investigation reopened," he said. But he added that the decision had to be made by the Portuguese.
The Yard team is passing its information directly to the Portuguese review team. Redwood has visited Portugal seven times in the past year.
The review was set up last year on the fourth anniversary of the child's disappearance after Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, appealed to the prime minister, David Cameron, for Scotland Yard to look at the case.
Redwood said: "We have approached the material with a completely open mind. We have sought to put Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do."
That isn't an answer. You said I didn't mention 'stranger'. i DID.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 05:46:59 AM
The only evidence for an abduction seems to be a very badly worded statement by DCI Redwood. Perhaps he meant to say he believed it was an abduction, but that's not what he actually said. He used the words 'we believe' but not 'we believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger'. He said 'we believe that that is a criminal act by a stranger'. He was referring to what he said just before that, that there was an opportunity in the timeline for someone to take Madeleine alive. So if someone took MM alive, that was a criminal act by a stranger, investigators believe.
Either the man was incapable of making himself clear, or he was fishing for information and had to say something.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: John on July 05, 2015, 06:37:51 AM
Members should avoid speculation and confine themselves to the known facts. TY
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2015, 06:43:00 AM
The only evidence for an abduction seems to be a very badly worded statement by DCI Redwood. Perhaps he meant to say he believed it was an abduction, but that's not what he actually said. He used the words 'we believe' but not 'we believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger'. He said 'we believe that that is a criminal act by a stranger'. He was referring to what he said just before that, that there was an opportunity in the timeline for someone to take Madeleine alive. So if someone took MM alive, that was a criminal act by a stranger, investigators believe.
Either the man was incapable of making himself clear, or he was fishing for information and had to say something.
Redwood's statement is not evidence of abduction...you do not seem to understand what evidence means... AS regards fishing for information...simply ridiculous. Every question Redwood was asked would have been arranged beforehand...as would have been his answers
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 07:05:56 AM
Redwood's statement is not evidence of abduction...you do not seem to understand what evidence means... AS regards fishing for information...simply ridiculous. Every question Redwood was asked would have been arranged beforehand...as would have been his answers
Why have we spent so long discussing it then? Nothing else has been offered as evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2015, 07:14:51 AM
Why have we spent so long discussing it then? Nothing else has been offered as evidence.
There is a whole thread on the subject...it's pointless going over it. Redwood statement shows that having looked at the evidence he believes abduction is the most likely scenario...as I do.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 07:49:29 AM
There is a whole thread on the subject...it's pointless going over it. Redwood statement shows that having looked at the evidence he believes abduction is the most likely scenario...as I do.
Beliefs are irrelevant.
Evidence counts.
Not one snippet worth a damn in this case.
I'm sure Redwood and his associates enjoyed there freebies to Portugal at the tax payers expense though.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2015, 08:13:27 AM
The only evidence for an abduction seems to be a very badly worded statement by DCI Redwood. Perhaps he meant to say he believed it was an abduction, but that's not what he actually said. He used the words 'we believe' but not 'we believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger'. He said 'we believe that that is a criminal act by a stranger'. He was referring to what he said just before that, that there was an opportunity in the timeline for someone to take Madeleine alive. So if someone took MM alive, that was a criminal act by a stranger, investigators believe.
Either the man was incapable of making himself clear, or he was fishing for information and had to say something.
He made himself crystal clear - "unequivocal" was the word used by the Guardian to describe his words. Are they incapable (like me) of understanding what he said then?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 05, 2015, 11:15:24 AM
I wonder what DCI Redwood meant by "195 investigative opportunities across a broad range of issues" ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 05, 2015, 11:28:12 AM
He made himself crystal clear - "unequivocal" was the word used by the Guardian to describe his words. Are they incapable (like me) of understanding what he said then?
It would appear so.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 01:55:39 PM
I have discussed Amaral's theory before, but then I might be libellous towards the mccanns, and that would
never do, would it ?
As to the current investigations, I judge by the results, or in this case, lack of them. 8((()*/
Hmmmm ... ok ... that would appear to be pretty clear. If discussion of Mr Amaral's theory might be interpreted as being libellous don't you think that may be because it undoubtedly is?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 02:32:03 PM
Hmmmm ... ok ... that would appear to be pretty clear. If discussion of Mr Amaral's theory might be interpreted as being libellous don't you think that may be because it undoubtedly is?
No, the theory of accidental death has not been disproved.
However, I've no intention of becoming a victim of the mccanns. 8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 05, 2015, 03:00:32 PM
No, the theory of accidental death has not been disproved.
However, I've no intention of becoming a victim of the mccanns. 8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/
I think the theory of accidental death and parental involvement has been well and truly discarded and I think the first competent investigation to do so was Rebelo's.
Two other investigations working independently of each other have also discarded the original flawed theory. So that makes it three against one.
It stands to reason these professionals are investigating Madeleine McCann's abduction based on all the accurate evidence they have to hand, some of which has come in post the archiving of the case.
So walked and wandered seems to have been put aside, accidental death also ... what does that leave?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 05:08:00 PM
I think the theory of accidental death and parental involvement has been well and truly discarded and I think the first competent investigation to do so was Rebelo's.
Two other investigations working independently of each other have also discarded the original flawed theory. So that makes it three against one.
It stands to reason these professionals are investigating Madeleine McCann's abduction based on all the accurate evidence they have to hand, some of which has come in post the archiving of the case.
So walked and wandered seems to have been put aside, accidental death also ... what does that leave?
Nothing has been discarded as far as I know?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 05:21:40 PM
So in your opinion Mr Amaral's theory about accidental death and parental involvement has not been discarded ??
I prefer to think the present inquiries are following the evidence to find the actual perpetrator of the crime and in my opinion that evidence seems to be directing them away from the mistakes of the initial investigation and towards apprehending an abductor.
If you think differently ... fine by me.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 05:28:28 PM
So in your opinion Mr Amaral's theory about accidental death and parental involvement has not been discarded ??
I prefer to think the present inquiries are following the evidence to find the actual perpetrator of the crime and in my opinion that evidence seems to be directing them away from the mistakes of the initial investigation and towards apprehending an abductor.
If you think differently ... fine by me.
None of that provides any evidence to support the abduction theory, as per the thread title. You can think anything you like, but as we don't know what the investigators are investigating it's simply guesswork on your part.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 05:35:22 PM
I think the theory of accidental death and parental involvement has been well and truly discarded and I think the first competent investigation to do so was Rebelo's.
Two other investigations working independently of each other have also discarded the original flawed theory. So that makes it three against one.
It stands to reason these professionals are investigating Madeleine McCann's abduction based on all the accurate evidence they have to hand, some of which has come in post the archiving of the case.
So walked and wandered seems to have been put aside, accidental death also ... what does that leave?
Why is it a flawed theory, merely on your say so ?
As a reminder yet again, the crime as unknown.
There are the indications of the dogs, neither confirmed nor contradicted by forensics.
The professionals as you call them have found nothing as regards abduction.
For if believe they have, you are dreaming.
The abduction is a belief/theory for some and without which, can lead in one clear direction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 05:48:10 PM
None of that provides any evidence to support the abduction theory, as per the thread title. You can think anything you like, but as we don't know what the investigators are investigating it's simply guesswork on your part.
My guesswork has some foundation in fact.
Yours and Mr Amaral's guesswork has been investigated ... not least by the man himself ... and has proven to be worthless.
What better evidence for abduction than two police authorities looking for an abductor?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2015, 05:48:24 PM
None of that provides any evidence to support the abduction theory, as per the thread title. You can think anything you like, but as we don't know what the investigators are investigating it's simply guesswork on your part.
we do ...sy have said mccanns not suspects...no guesswork
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 05:59:42 PM
Yours and Mr Amaral's guesswork has been investigated ... not least by the man himself ... and has proven to be worthless.
What better evidence for abduction than two police authorities looking for an abductor?
I don't have a theory, thank you. i have a few possibilities which, given the facts, could have happened. There's no point in mentioning Amaral that I can see. Have the police told us they're looking for an abductor?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 06:14:22 PM
So in your opinion Mr Amaral's theory about accidental death and parental involvement has not been discarded ??
I prefer to think the present inquiries are following the evidence to find the actual perpetrator of the crime and in my opinion that evidence seems to be directing them away from the mistakes of the initial investigation and towards apprehending an abductor.
If you think differently ... fine by me.
I have always said that Brietta, they are seeking someone to pin it on rather than looking for a missing child and that is why a reward has not now been offered for her safe return.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 06:30:10 PM
I don't have a theory, thank you. i have a few possibilities which, given the facts, could have happened. There's no point in mentioning Amaral that I can see. Have the police told us they're looking for an abductor?
You've obviously forgotten the Op Grange remit which uses the word abduction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 06:47:34 PM
we do ...sy have said mccanns not suspects...no guesswork
Well that's OK then, because the police would never mislead us, would they?
28/01/2009 Police say Mr Prout is not suspected of murdering his wife. 10/03/2009 Mr Prout arrested and charged with his wife's murder. 5/02/2010 Mr Prout found guilty of his wife's murder.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carew on July 05, 2015, 06:50:20 PM
Seriously? You have no idea of any action taken by Op Grange since the 2012 announcement?
Not a clue other than reading lots of files, peering into a few holes in PdL last year, appearing on Crime Watch a couple of times, visiting Portugal once a month and having PJ interview a few (11?) bods on their behalf. The press said all sorts of things most if not all of which did not come to pass and DCI Redwood gave a few TV interviews where he went all Norman Collier. So cutting to the chase we know naff all, apart from a deathly 'ush from a Nicola direction, but we can have fun guessing.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carew on July 05, 2015, 07:00:40 PM
Not a clue other than reading lots of files, peering into a few holes in PdL last year, appearing on Crime Watch a couple of times, visiting Portugal once a month and having PJ interview a few (11?) bods on their behalf. The press said all sorts of things most if not all of which did not come to pass and DCI Redwood gave a few TV interviews where he went all Norman Collier. So cutting to the chase we know naff all, apart from a deathly 'ush from a Nicola direction, but we can have fun guessing.
So we know quite a lot of what they have done (and one or two things you chose to gloss over including their focus on break ins and sex attacks on holiday apartments in the Algarve) , and none of it apparently focused on the parents of Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 05, 2015, 07:04:08 PM
Abduction generally means to take by force or coercion. If the person is already dead then I would use the word "removal". What point are you trying to make?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 07:04:40 PM
So we know quite a lot of what they have done (and one or two things you chose to gloss over including their focus on break ins and sex attacks on holiday apartments in the Algarve) , and none of it apparently focused on the parents of Madeleine McCann.
For many, it would seem the investigation is clutching at straws.
That's the trouble with a narrow 'investigation'.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carew on July 05, 2015, 07:09:33 PM
Abduction generally means to take by force or coercion. If the person is already dead then I would use the word "removal". What point are you trying to make?
..........that maybe hanging tenaciously to the "abduction" word may not reflect all possibilities under consideration?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 05, 2015, 07:19:36 PM
..........that maybe hanging tenaciously to the "abduction" word may not reflect all possibilities under consideration?
There appear to be two possibilities under consideration 1) that she was abducted and 2) that she was killed in a "burglary / abduction attempt gone wrong" scenario. What other scenarios do you think the Met are actively considering and what is the evidence to support your belief?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 07:26:24 PM
So we know quite a lot of what they have done(and one or two things you chose to gloss over including their focus on break ins and sex attacks on holiday apartments in the Algarve) , and none of it apparently focused on the parents of Madeleine McCann.
We know three fifths of five eighths of FA about what they have been doing in reality. We know what has been said at infrequent press conferences and what the press "say he says you say she says they are doing" Ah yes the sex attacks that allegedly took place miles away. Did the British cops say anything about that and have the PJ interview suspects on their behalf ? That would smack of interfering with police operations in another country so I doubt that happened, the British press notwithstanding. I have no basis for opinion on the latter point; as I stated we don't know what The MPS are doing. Guess away.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 05, 2015, 07:35:32 PM
Evidence of abduction - none. So it would be a bit of a leap to assume it lead to murder (although most do, of course)
If there was no evidence of abduction then why would the Op Grange remit include the word in its remit? I know you seem to think they were told to - but by whom, exactly - and why?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 05, 2015, 07:39:17 PM
We know three fifths of five eighths of FA about what they have been doing in reality. We know what has been said at infrequent press conferences and what the press "say he says you say she says they are doing" Ah yes the sex attacks that allegedly took place miles away. Did the British cops say anything about that and have the PJ interview suspects on their behalf ? That would smack of interfering with police operations in another country so I doubt that happened, the British press notwithstanding. I have no basis for opinion on the latter point; as I stated we don't know what The MPS are doing. Guess away.
The British cops have spoken about the sex attacks on the Algarve, yes I believe they have. You are perfectly at liberty to disbelieve everything we are told by the Met and the press about this investigation if it makes things easier for you to maintain your beliefs - that's entirelyyour choice. My choice is to trust the Met and to believe what they tell us via the media is broadly the truth. I guess that makes me a clone or a sheeple or whatever term you want to ascribe to me to make you feel smugly superior.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 07:42:11 PM
If there was no evidence of abduction then why would the Op Grange remit include the word in its remit? I know you seem to think they were told to - but by whom, exactly - and why?
There may be evidence of an abduction, but we don't know what it may be. We only know what evidence was found in 2007, and there was none then. Hence we can't answer the thread title, we can only speculate and guess.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 05, 2015, 08:04:21 PM
The British cops have spoken about the sex attacks on the Algarve, yes I believe they have. You are perfectly at liberty to disbelieve everything we are told by the Met and the press about this investigation if it makes things easier for you to maintain your beliefs - that's entirelyyour choice. My choice is to trust the Met and to believe what they tell us via the media is broadly the truth. I guess that makes me a clone or a sheeple or whatever term you want to ascribe to me to make you feel smugly superior.
I don't disbelieve everything we are told by The Met. but I take with bushels of salt what the press say The Met say, furthermore I believe that in press conferences The Met, in common with most organisations, will give expedient PC responses. The last sentence is a rather strange thing to say considering I was only expressing a solicited opinion!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2015, 08:18:25 PM
I don't disbelieve everything we are told by The Met. but I take with bushels of salt what the press say The Met say, furthermore I believe that in press conferences The Met, in common with most organisations, will give expedient PC responses. The last sentence is a rather strange thing to say considering I was only expressing a solicited opinion!
It's a matter of putting everything together and seeing what makes sense...it's called joined up thinking
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 08:21:25 PM
There appear to be two possibilities under consideration 1) that she was abducted and 2) that she was killed in a "burglary / abduction attempt gone wrong" scenario. What other scenarios do you think the Met are actively considering and what is the evidence to support your belief?
Since no evidence has been revealed yet for either of the possibilities or beliefs you mention, the fact that it was felt necessary for the investigating team to refer to the possible removal of a corpse from the apartment seems to stand out.
I wonder what evidence there is to support the idea, otherwise why mention specifically a scenario in which Madeleine was possibly not alive when removed from the apartment?
I mean.......what`s behind the comment and why was it thought necessary to mention it in a case in which so little is actually forthcoming and wouldn`t it hinder the search for a living findable child coming from the present investigative team?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 05, 2015, 10:10:50 PM
There may be evidence of an abduction, but we don't know what it may be. We only know what evidence was found in 2007, and there was none then. Hence we can't answer the thread title, we can only speculate and guess.
There obviously IS evidence of abduction unless you are of the opinion that Operation Grange, together with its remit, is a complete sham.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 05, 2015, 10:43:56 PM
. We only know what evidence was found in 2007, and there was none then.
There was no evidence (of anything except abduction) at the conclusion of the 2007 enquiry.
Quite true ....
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 06, 2015, 06:09:08 AM
I look forward to hearing all about it, no-one has put it on this thread so far. No evidence at all.
evidence for abduction is on two threads...why should anyone bother to go through the whole thing again with posters who simply will not accept the truth. Redwood has said SY are looking for a stranger abductor...he has said this live on tv...but posters still want to pretend it isn't true...you don't understand head injuries and fatal accidents and refuse to accept the truth. Keep on thinking anything you like..it doesn't matter. We all know what both SY and the Portuguese think and they are not investigating the McCanns
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 06, 2015, 07:14:17 AM
evidence for abduction is on two threads...why should anyone bother to go through the whole thing again with posters who simply will not accept the truth. Redwood has said SY are looking for a stranger abductor...he has said this live on tv...but posters still want to pretend it isn't true...you don't understand head injuries and fatal accidents and refuse to accept the truth. Keep on thinking anything you like..it doesn't matter. We all know what both SY and the Portuguese think and they are not investigating the McCanns
It doesn't matter what any of us think in the end. Some of us (not all) think we know what the police are thinking and doing. Some of us know they're unlikely to tell us. Since chatty DCI Redwood went they have maintained a dignified silence which I find encouraging. Using police statements as 'evidence' certainly doesn't count.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 06, 2015, 08:04:47 AM
There's no point trying to identify the evidence for you because a) I don't have access to it all and b) you don't accept what we do know as evidence for abduction. It matters not a jot what you will and won't accept though, as your views are of zero importance in this case.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 06, 2015, 08:07:19 AM
It doesn't matter what any of us think in the end. Some of us (not all) think we know what the police are thinking and doing. Some of us know they're unlikely to tell us. Since chatty DCI Redwood went they have maintained a dignified silence which I find encouraging. Using police statements as 'evidence' certainly doesn't count.
Encouraging in what sense? If the next Met statement is along the lines of "we are closer to finding out who abducted Madeleine than ever before" will you take that as an encouraging sign or as evidence of a whitewash?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 06, 2015, 08:29:40 AM
There's no point trying to identify the evidence for you because a) I don't have access to it all and b) you don't accept what we do know as evidence for abduction. It matters not a jot what you will and won't accept though, as your views are of zero importance in this case.
A child disappearing is not evidence of an abduction by a stranger.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 06, 2015, 08:34:55 AM
Encouraging in what sense? If the next Met statement is along the lines of "we are closer to finding out who abducted Madeleine than ever before" will you take that as an encouraging sign or as evidence of a whitewash?
If? I try not to speculate, there's no point. We know of no evidence pointing to an abduction having taken place.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 06, 2015, 08:49:42 AM
Encouraging in what sense? If the next Met statement is along the lines of "we are closer to finding out who abducted Madeleine than ever before" will you take that as an encouraging sign or as evidence of a whitewash?
Being closer is of no use unless it leads to a result - a successful prosecution and conviction.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on July 06, 2015, 08:51:20 AM
A child disappearing is not evidence of an abduction by a stranger. Your views are also of zero importance, so what point are you trying to make by saying that mine are? Pots and kettles.
Of course my views are of no importance to this case, I never thought for one moment they were, however Operation Grange's remit would seem to carry some weight in this argument and it states quite clearly that they are investigating an abduction. Like it or lump it.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 06, 2015, 09:10:11 AM
evidence for abduction is on two threads...why should anyone bother to go through the whole thing again with posters who simply will not accept the truth. Redwood has said SY are looking for a stranger abductor...he has said this live on tv...but posters still want to pretend it isn't true...you don't understand head injuries and fatal accidents and refuse to accept the truth. Keep on thinking anything you like..it doesn't matter. We all know what both SY and the Portuguese think and they are not investigating the McCanns
No there isn't.
Wishful thinking is no replacement for facts.
All you have is a belief and that's it.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 06, 2015, 09:17:21 AM
Of course my views are of no importance to this case, I never thought for one moment they were, however Operation Grange's remit would seem to carry some weight in this argument and it states quite clearly that they are investigating an abduction. Like it or lump it.
If that was their stated aim then they didn't 'take everything back to zero' did they? I wonder what the PJ are investigating?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 06, 2015, 09:21:39 AM
Since no evidence has been revealed yet for either of the possibilities or beliefs you mention, the fact that it was felt necessary for the investigating team to refer to the possible removal of a corpse from the apartment seems to stand out.
I wonder what evidence there is to support the idea, otherwise why mention specifically a scenario in which Madeleine was possibly not alive when removed from the apartment?
I mean.......what`s behind the comment and why was it thought necessary to mention it in a case in which so little is actually forthcoming and wouldn`t it hinder the search for a living findable child coming from the present investigative team?
DCI Redwoods comment that Madeleine may not have been alive when she was removed from the apartment was said in relation to the assaults on other British children by an intruder. SY appealed for anyone who had experience of this to come forward - and not to assume that because they had reported it to the GNR that SY had knowledge of it.
I've no doubt that those families who did report this crime were interviewed at length by SY - and IMO it is from information gleaned during those interviews - (particularly on how the intruder kept the children quiet during the assaults) which may have led to SY believing there was a possibility that Madeleine was no longer alive when she was removed from 5a.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 06, 2015, 09:24:22 AM
If? I try not to speculate, there's no point. We know of no evidence pointing to an abduction having taken place.
The denial of the assaults which were carried out on British children whose parents were sleeping in the next door bedroom is possibly a fair staring point for the denial that Madeleine may have been abducted.
It seems witness statements are not considered enough ... doesn't mean it didn't happen though.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 06, 2015, 09:28:27 AM
The denial of the assaults which were carried out on British children whose parents were sleeping in the next door bedroom is possibly a fair staring point for the denial that Madeleine may have been abducted.
It seems witness statements are not considered enough ... doesn't mean it didn't happen though.
If that was their stated aim then they didn't 'take everything back to zero' did they? I wonder what the PJ are investigating?
How do you know what they did prior to drawing up the remit?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 06, 2015, 10:04:32 AM
They may be working in tandem and giving their full help and co-operation, but from what I have seen they are their own masters and the fact that their own independent investigation has pointed them towards abduction by stranger should speak volumes to anyone with an interest in finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 06, 2015, 11:35:11 AM
Both The MPS and PJ refer to "a broad range of issues" or similar with respect to their investigations. How do those statements reconcile with "they are only investigating an abduction"? The latter being a narrowing down of the focus rather than opening up a broad range of issues. Interesting.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on July 06, 2015, 11:38:25 AM
Abduction is the only option as far as I can see. Nothing else adds up.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 06, 2015, 11:45:21 AM
Both The MPS and PJ refer to "a broad range of issues" or similar with respect to their investigations. How do those statements reconcile with "they are only investigating an abduction"? The latter being a narrowing down of the focus rather than opening up a broad range of issues. Interesting.
Uh-Huh ... "a broad range of issues" investigation of which does not equate with investigation of Madeleine McCann's parents by either police authority both with the power to do so.
So what other issues do you think the PJ and SY are focusing on? The woke and wandered is actually one which the initial investigation exhaustively pursued and SY in their search of drains seems to have eliminated too.
Why do you think persons of interest and witnesses have been interviewed?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 06, 2015, 11:48:48 AM
Uh-Huh ... "a broad range of issues" investigation of which does not equate with investigation of Madeleine McCann's parents by either police authority both with the power to do so.
So what other issues do you think the PJ and SY are focusing on? The woke and wandered is actually one which the initial investigation exhaustively pursued and SY in their search of drains seems to have eliminated too.
Why do you think persons of interest and witnesses have been interviewed?
First bit: How would I know, not being privy to their machinations? What I find interesting is that both investigative bodies state they are looking at a "broad range of issues". I have no reason to doubt they know what they are at, so a broad range of issues must by definition encompass more than just abduction.
Second bit: Speculation on my part (based on no publicly announced arrests). "We know you were out and about in the vicinity of a potential crime within the appropriate time scale tell us what you saw".
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 06, 2015, 12:43:04 PM
Both The MPS and PJ refer to "a broad range of issues" or similar with respect to their investigations. How do those statements reconcile with "they are only investigating an abduction"? The latter being a narrowing down of the focus rather than opening up a broad range of issues. Interesting.
Has "a broad range of issues" become the name of the latest straw to which you are now grasping by any chance? "Issues" does not equal theories, in my opinion, though you seem to think otherwise. Why is that?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 06, 2015, 12:49:58 PM
Hasn`t a "theory" been mentioned which includes the use of sedation by potential "perps" during the day which apparently explains Madeleine`s unusual fatigue?
Or was it allegedly administered on the night, during a window of opportunity between checks?
I reckon the exhaustion of the children could have an innocent and even healthy explanation, conscientious and dedicated workers in the clubs the children all attended organising fun-filled, but also hectic and exhausting days for the children to take part in and enjoy.
I reckon that, at the end of it all, they were just dog tired and exhausted, and so just slept and slept.
That would have played into the hands of Madeleine's abductor(s) and also accounted for why the twins just slept and slept
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carew on July 06, 2015, 01:13:39 PM
I reckon the exhaustion of the children could have an innocent and even healthy explanation, conscientious and dedicated workers in the clubs the children all attended organising fun-filled, but also hectic and exhausting days for the children to take part in and enjoy.
I reckon that, at the end of it all, they were just dog tired and exhausted, and so just slept and slept.
That would have played into the hands of Madeleine's abductor(s) and also accounted for why the twins just slept and slept
That doesn`t tie in with Madeleine`s mother voicing concerns about her waking distressed whilst alone during the evening, as she had done previously, though.
The fatigue aspect making that prospect less likely wasn`t thought of at that time, perhaps.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 06, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
That doesn`t tie in with Madeleine`s mother voicing concerns about her waking distressed whilst alone during the evening, as she had done previously, though.
The fatigue aspect making that prospect less likely wasn`t thought of at that time, perhaps.
No record of her waking distressed on the night she was abducted ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carew on July 06, 2015, 01:31:12 PM
Has "a broad range of issues" become the name of the latest straw to which you are now grasping by any chance? "Issues" does not equal theories, in my opinion, though you seem to think otherwise. Why is that?
Rather not old stick. It falls in the category, for you, "you can't have yer bun and yer 'apenny". The broad issues bit comes in a Redwood video right at the beginning which you choose to ignore in favour of the bit at the end. Why is that ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 06, 2015, 01:40:07 PM
Rather not old stick. It falls in the category, for you, "you can't have yer bun and yer 'apenny". The broad issues bit comes in a Redwood video right at the beginning which you choose to ignore in favour of the bit at the end. Why is that ?
Common sense, init? @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on July 06, 2015, 01:44:35 PM
The denial of the assaults which were carried out on British children whose parents were sleeping in the next door bedroom is possibly a fair staring point for the denial that Madeleine may have been abducted.
It seems witness statements are not considered enough ... doesn't mean it didn't happen though.
That video is interesting on a number of points. Luckman indicates that Amaral did not indicate 'to the sea' past the Chinese, but down the street the Smiths had just come up. 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on July 06, 2015, 02:16:09 PM
Rather not old stick. It falls in the category, for you, "you can't have yer bun and yer 'apenny". The broad issues bit comes in a Redwood video right at the beginning which you choose to ignore in favour of the bit at the end. Why is that ?
I have chosen to ignore nothing. If you choose to interpret "a broad range of issues" to mean "a broad range of theories" then that really is your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 07, 2015, 07:20:29 AM
As there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted, what is the likelihood that she was? There's a lot of hysteria about stranger child abduction in recent years but it's very rare. How rare we don't know because the figures aren't clear, nor are the ages.
In his book Protecting the Gift, child-safety expert Gavin De Becker pointed out that compared to a stranger kidnapping, “ child is vastly more likely to have a heart attack, and child heart attacks are so rare that most parents (correctly) never even consider the risk.” http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 07, 2015, 07:32:49 AM
As there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted, what is the likelihood that she was? There's a lot of hysteria about stranger child abduction in recent years but it's very rare. How rare we don't know because the figures aren't clear, nor are the ages.
In his book Protecting the Gift, child-safety expert Gavin De Becker pointed out that compared to a stranger kidnapping, “ child is vastly more likely to have a heart attack, and child heart attacks are so rare that most parents (correctly) never even consider the risk.” http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm
statistically the likelihood that Maddie was abducted is very high
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 07, 2015, 07:34:52 AM
Please back up your statement so we know it's not just opinion.
It's fairly obvious.....you are confusing the chances of a child being abducted to the chances that a child has been abducted...... What are the chances that Ben Needham was abducted....you can consider this without bias and I think you will agree it's fairly high
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 07, 2015, 07:54:00 AM
I can only think realistically of 3 scenarios
abduction woke and wandered accident and cover up
if we consider each as equal the the chances of abduction are 33%...
that's not blind belief...it's logic
once you realise that a fatal accident where Maddie died almost immediately is basically impossible....that the fact that maddie would not have closed the gates behind her...then the chances of abduction increase
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 07, 2015, 10:56:14 AM
As there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted, what is the likelihood that she was? There's a lot of hysteria about stranger child abduction in recent years but it's very rare. How rare we don't know because the figures aren't clear, nor are the ages.
In his book Protecting the Gift, child-safety expert Gavin De Becker pointed out that compared to a stranger kidnapping, “ child is vastly more likely to have a heart attack, and child heart attacks are so rare that most parents (correctly) never even consider the risk.” http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm
Stranger abductions do appear to be rare and rarer still from inside a home. However, that doesn't mean that they don't happen... There's the child taken from her bath while her mother was in the house in the UK. Elizabeth Smart was taken from her bedroom while the parents were asleep. There have been a few others in the US and in Australia in recent years.
There's also one that happened just last week in France - a 5-year-old little girl taken from her first-floor bedroom in the middle of the night out of a window left open due to the heat. Neither her parents nor her sister all sleeping nearby heard anything.
if we consider each as equal the the chances of abduction are 33%...
that's not blind belief...it's logic
once you realise that a fatal accident where Maddie died almost immediately is basically impossible....that the fact that maddie would not have closed the gates behind her...then the chances of abduction increase
I rather think that the probability (chance) of abduction will remain constant as it is not dependent on a gate or the probability of accidental death. It stands in its own right.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 07, 2015, 11:13:24 AM
Stranger abductions do appear to be rare and rarer still from inside a home. However, that doesn't mean that they don't happen... There's the child taken from her bath while her mother was in the house in the UK. Elizabeth Smart was taken from her bedroom while the parents were asleep. There have been a few others in the US and in Australia in recent years.
There's also one that happened just last week in France - a 5-year-old little girl taken from her first-floor bedroom in the middle of the night out of a window left open due to the heat. Neither her parents nor her sister all sleeping nearby heard anything.
Unfortunately folk seem to think that 'very rare' means 'never' in the McCann case.
The fact that it was 16 years prior to 2007 that a UK child (Ben Needham), was abducted abroad is evidence of how rare this crime is - but is also evidence that 'rare' does not mean 'never'.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 07, 2015, 11:58:15 AM
Stranger abductions do appear to be rare and rarer still from inside a home. However, that doesn't mean that they don't happen... There's the child taken from her bath while her mother was in the house in the UK. Elizabeth Smart was taken from her bedroom while the parents were asleep. There have been a few others in the US and in Australia in recent years.
There's also one that happened just last week in France - a 5-year-old little girl taken from her first-floor bedroom in the middle of the night out of a window left open due to the heat. Neither her parents nor her sister all sleeping nearby heard anything.
Girl, 3, 'kidnapped' by a stranger through her bedroom window but is miraculously saved when her father and uncle chase abductor down and tackle him
By SOPHIE JANE EVANS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 14:29, 9 January 2015 | UPDATED: 16:38, 9 January 2015
A three-year-old girl was kidnapped by a stranger through her bedroom window - but miraculously saved when her father and uncle chased her abductor down the street, police have said.
The unidentified youngster was allegedly snatched by the hooded man after he leaned through her window at her family's Southern California home on Thursday and told her to 'come toward him'.
However, she was rescued when her father and uncle reportedly heard a commotion and ran out of the house, pursuing the alleged kidnapper down the street until they eventually caught up with him.
They then tackled the man to the ground, it is said.
Now, the man has been arrested by police on suspicion of kidnapping the infant.
His name, age and place of residence are currently being withheld by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
In a statement, the Department said:
'A male adult allegedly grabbed ahold of a 3-year-old female by reaching through a bedroom window at the female’s residence.'
Girl, 3, 'kidnapped' by a stranger through her bedroom window but is miraculously saved when her father and uncle chase abductor down and tackle him
By SOPHIE JANE EVANS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 14:29, 9 January 2015 | UPDATED: 16:38, 9 January 2015
A three-year-old girl was kidnapped by a stranger through her bedroom window - but miraculously saved when her father and uncle chased her abductor down the street, police have said.
The unidentified youngster was allegedly snatched by the hooded man after he leaned through her window at her family's Southern California home on Thursday and told her to 'come toward him'.
However, she was rescued when her father and uncle reportedly heard a commotion and ran out of the house, pursuing the alleged kidnapper down the street until they eventually caught up with him.
They then tackled the man to the ground, it is said.
Now, the man has been arrested by police on suspicion of kidnapping the infant.
His name, age and place of residence are currently being withheld by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
In a statement, the Department said:
'A male adult allegedly grabbed ahold of a 3-year-old female by reaching through a bedroom window at the female’s residence.'
I assume this is being posted to prove abductions can be done from bedroom windows... Thank goodness the childs family were there to stop it! I bet there was evidence like DNA and other stuff available, unlike Apartment 5a ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 07, 2015, 09:43:31 PM
I assume this is being posted to prove abductions can be done from bedroom windows... Thank goodness the childs family were there to stop it! I bet there was evidence like DNA and other stuff available, unlike Apartment 5a ...
Hmmm ... interesting you think there may be DNA available. According to that article ... the abductor did not enter via the window he had opened. He stood outside, the child came to him, he lifted her out and made off with her.
If the story is proved to be true ... I would say there are one or two interesting parallels with the situation in Praia da Luz.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 07, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
Hmmm ... interesting you think there may be DNA available. According to that article ... the abductor did not enter via the window he had opened. He stood outside, the child came to him, he lifted her out and made off with her.
If the story is proved to be true ... I would say there are one or two interesting parallels with the situation in Praia da Luz.
Don't keep us in suspense! do tell what the parallels are. There is an obvious nonparallel of course relating to the location of the parents.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 07, 2015, 11:08:41 PM
Hmmm ... interesting you think there may be DNA available. According to that article ... the abductor did not enter via the window he had opened. He stood outside, the child came to him, he lifted her out and made off with her.
If the story is proved to be true ... I would say there are one or two interesting parallels with the situation in Praia da Luz.
That connects to Smithman then after 9:30 not Tannerman - glad you worked it out in your own different way 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 07, 2015, 11:21:37 PM
That connects to Smithman then after 9:30 not Tannerman - glad you worked it out in your own different way 8(0(*
Your thinking on that is definitely skew-whiff ... the man who fits best with anything I have to say is the one seen by Jane Tanner. Smithman just doesn't enter into my thinking or that of most other people at all.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 08, 2015, 12:33:50 AM
Your thinking on that is definitely skew-whiff ... the man who fits best with anything I have to say is the one seen by Jane Tanner. Smithman just doesn't enter into my thinking or that of most other people at all.
That doesn't surprise me. You will be proven wrong of course.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: misty on July 08, 2015, 01:21:20 AM
That doesn't surprise me. You will be proven wrong of course.
What do you suppose the odds were of the officers/searchers all failing to ask the owners of Estrela da Luz for the CCTV footage from that very prominent camera so close to the OC within, say, the first 48 hours?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 08, 2015, 01:38:44 AM
Your thinking on that is definitely skew-whiff ... the man who fits best with anything I have to say is the one seen by Jane Tanner. Smithman just doesn't enter into my thinking or that of most other people at all.
Who carries a 4 year old like "that"
??
ETA, like "Tannerman" I meant, not Mr Smithman
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on July 08, 2015, 07:01:38 AM
What do you suppose the odds were of the officers/searchers all failing to ask the owners of Estrela da Luz for the CCTV footage from that very prominent camera so close to the OC within, say, the first 48 hours?
I have yet to see anything in the PJ files that suggests ANY footage from the CCTV cameras around Estrela da Luz made it into police hands. If someone has seen an entry, I would love to be corrected on this.
PS Amaral definitely does not count on this point.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 08, 2015, 08:13:11 AM
Your thinking on that is definitely skew-whiff ... the man who fits best with anything I have to say is the one seen by Jane Tanner. Smithman just doesn't enter into my thinking or that of most other people at all.
Oh dear, has DCI Redwood lost a supporter? I wonder who these 'most other people are'? A bit of a sweeping statement.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 08, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
Oh dear, has DCI Redwood lost a supporter? I wonder who these 'most other people are'? A bit of a sweeping statement.
What might be considered more constructive would be a counter argument to anything I say with which you may disagree ... which when you think about it is almost everything.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on July 08, 2015, 08:34:04 AM
Watch the insults please.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 08, 2015, 08:38:49 AM
What might be considered more constructive would be a counter argument to anything I say with which you may disagree ... which when you think about it is almost everything.
DCI Redwood found Tannerman and turned him into crecheman. i assume that's the end of the matter for SY.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 08, 2015, 09:49:31 AM
Not a single soul answered my question about who carries a four year old like Tannerman alledgedly did
Oh well
It is an adult method of carrying a young child, with minimal disturbance, lifted from a horizontal position (usually sleeping) with the intention of moving them to another place a short distance away & laying them down again.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 08, 2015, 09:59:04 PM
It is an adult method of carrying a young child, with minimal disturbance, lifted from a horizontal position (usually sleeping) with the intention of moving them to another place a short distance away & laying them down again.
Like not disturbing their sleep? Like manoeuvering through doors in an apartment, out of a front door, into the cold,down a long path, out through a car park, down the road and then some, and thenjust laying them down again. OK. But of course Madeleine was "drugged" as posters on here and Mrs Mccann assert is their belief, in which case, any abductor would not have chosen the "heavy load" option as opposed to carryng as you normally carry young children, on your shoulder.?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 06:18:17 AM
It is an adult method of carrying a young child, with minimal disturbance, lifted from a horizontal position (usually sleeping) with the intention of moving them to another place a short distance away & laying them down again.
if someone picked Madeleine up in that way, her head, not her feet, would have been facing Jane Tanner.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on July 09, 2015, 08:32:57 AM
Simple as that? Not through the window, it seems, so why?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 09, 2015, 09:05:39 AM
none of us know what evidence SY have...although some seem to think they do. Whatever their faukts and no police force is perfect they are the best bet to get justice for maddie and that's what we all should want
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 09, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
Simple as that? Not through the window, it seems, so why?
She could have been passed to someone standing in front of 5A but on the opposite side of the wall. That would considerably shorten the distance to the car park exit for that person to have to cover.
However if the man JT saw was an innocent tourist - then it's irrelevant anyway.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on July 09, 2015, 09:20:40 AM
Simple as that? Not through the window, it seems, so why?
I don't know if it was through the window or the front door, but the actual abduction will have been stressful for fear of being trapped in the appartment, by someone checking, hence the open window. The person on the outside won't have been quite so stressed, so better able to take off from there.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Eleanor on July 09, 2015, 09:22:11 AM
She could have been passed to someone standing in front of 5A but on the opposite side of the wall. That would considerably shorten the distance to the car park exit for that person to have to cover.
However if the man JT saw was an innocent tourist - then it's irrelevant anyway.
This is a good point. The wall that is.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 09:28:44 AM
none of us know what evidence SY have...although some seem to think they do. Whatever their faukts and no police force is perfect they are the best bet to get justice for maddie and that's what we all should want
I am not a fan of the McCanns but I respect them enough to always refer to their daughter as Madeleine, because Kate McCann says they never shortened her name. We don't know what evidence the police have, and any evidence which SY collect has to be presented to the Portuguese authorities who will then decide whether to act upon it or not. If they say no, SY can't do anything about it themselves unless it points to a British person committing a serious crime. They have no authority to arrest any Portuguese people.
I want justice for Madeleine, but I also want to be sure that the investigations reach the correct conclusions and arrest and charge the correct people. SY have failed to do this in some cases, as have the PJ, so I'm happy to have both police forces working on the case as that's the best way to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Whatever charge is finally brought is fine by me so long as the evidence is clear and stands up in court. I will be surprised if abduction is the charge, because there was no evidence of it at the time, but if the two police forces find it, fair enough.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: jassi on July 09, 2015, 09:34:09 AM
I am not a fan of the McCanns but I respect them enough to always refer to their daughter as Madeleine, because Kate McCann says they never shortened her name. We don't know what evidence the police have, and any evidence which SY collect has to be presented to the Portuguese authorities who will then decide whether to act upon it or not. If they say no, SY can't do anything about it themselves unless it points to a British person committing a serious crime. They have no authority to arrest any Portuguese people.
I want justice for Madeleine, but I also want to be sure that the investigations reach the correct conclusions and arrest and charge the correct people. SY have failed to do this in some cases, as have the PJ, so I'm happy to have both police forces working on the case as that's the best way to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Whatever charge is finally brought is fine by me so long as the evidence is clear and stands up in court. I will be surprised if abduction is the charge, because there was no evidence of it at the time, but if the two police forces find it, fair enough.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 09, 2015, 10:15:05 AM
I am not a fan of the McCanns but I respect them enough to always refer to their daughter as Madeleine, because Kate McCann says they never shortened her name. We don't know what evidence the police have, and any evidence which SY collect has to be presented to the Portuguese authorities who will then decide whether to act upon it or not. If they say no, SY can't do anything about it themselves unless it points to a British person committing a serious crime. They have no authority to arrest any Portuguese people.
I want justice for Madeleine, but I also want to be sure that the investigations reach the correct conclusions and arrest and charge the correct people. SY have failed to do this in some cases, as have the PJ, so I'm happy to have both police forces working on the case as that's the best way to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Whatever charge is finally brought is fine by me so long as the evidence is clear and stands up in court. I will be surprised if abduction is the charge, because there was no evidence of it at the time, but if the two police forces find it, fair enough.
Not that it really matters ... but I believe it was Madeleine herself who wasn't keen on being called Maddie.
I think you can be certain the PJ and SY are already following the evidence, of which they have the full picture. Both have stated publicly they are looking for an abductor. Both have stated publicly that her parents are not the focus of their investigation.
If that abductor is apprehended ... great. If it leads to prosecutions under the law ... even better. If it leads to Madeleine being found and returned to her family who have looked for her unceasingly over eight years ... better still.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 01:17:13 PM
Not that it really matters ... but I believe it was Madeleine herself who wasn't keen on being called Maddie.
I think you can be certain the PJ and SY are already following the evidence, of which they have the full picture. Both have stated publicly they are looking for an abductor. Both have stated publicly that her parents are not the focus of their investigation.
If that abductor is apprehended ... great. If it leads to prosecutions under the law ... even better. If it leads to Madeleine being found and returned to her family who have looked for her unceasingly over eight years ... better still.
What the Portuguese authorities have said officially;
Similarly to what happens in all the cases of missing children, notwithstanding the formal archival of the investigation concerning her disappearance, and as was always publicly stated, the Judiciary Police continued to be attentive to any and all information likely to enable the understanding of the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which her disappearance occurred and the identity of its author(s).
With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
The proposal was made in conformity to the Hon. Prosecutor in the district of Portimão, the same was granted.
October 24, 2013
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 09, 2015, 01:18:35 PM
I am not a fan of the McCanns but I respect them enough to always refer to their daughter as Madeleine, because Kate McCann says they never shortened her name. We don't know what evidence the police have, and any evidence which SY collect has to be presented to the Portuguese authorities who will then decide whether to act upon it or not. If they say no, SY can't do anything about it themselves unless it points to a British person committing a serious crime. They have no authority to arrest any Portuguese people.
I want justice for Madeleine, but I also want to be sure that the investigations reach the correct conclusions and arrest and charge the correct people. SY have failed to do this in some cases, as have the PJ, so I'm happy to have both police forces working on the case as that's the best way to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Whatever charge is finally brought is fine by me so long as the evidence is clear and stands up in court. I will be surprised if abduction is the charge, because there was no evidence of it at the time, but if the two police forces find it, fair enough.
you have no respect for the mccanns or maddie and should not pretend you do
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 09, 2015, 01:30:18 PM
Similarly to what happens in all the cases of missing children, notwithstanding the formal archival of the investigation concerning her disappearance, and as was always publicly stated, the Judiciary Police continued to be attentive to any and all information likely to enable the understanding of the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which her disappearance occurred and the identity of its author(s).
With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
The proposal was made in conformity to the Hon. Prosecutor in the district of Portimão, the same was granted.
October 24, 2013
Thank you G, Just in case anyone is interested in reading more....I assume that this is the link to the above information? http://www.mccannfiles.com/id466.html
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 01:42:28 PM
I am not a fan of the McCanns but I respect them enough to always refer to their daughter as Madeleine, because Kate McCann says they never shortened her name. We don't know what evidence the police have, and any evidence which SY collect has to be presented to the Portuguese authorities who will then decide whether to act upon it or not. If they say no, SY can't do anything about it themselves unless it points to a British person committing a serious crime. They have no authority to arrest any Portuguese people.
I want justice for Madeleine, but I also want to be sure that the investigations reach the correct conclusions and arrest and charge the correct people. SY have failed to do this in some cases, as have the PJ, so I'm happy to have both police forces working on the case as that's the best way to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Whatever charge is finally brought is fine by me so long as the evidence is clear and stands up in court. I will be surprised if abduction is the charge, because there was no evidence of it at the time, but if the two police forces find it, fair enough.
I cannot see how questioning their honesty...as you do...is showing them respect
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 09, 2015, 01:58:47 PM
Simple as that? Not through the window, it seems, so why?
Whoever entered 5A and took Madeleine, IMO would probably have used the front door, which was hidden from view because of where it is situated and the trees served to cover any activity in that area.
Whether she was then passed out of the window or removed via the door and passed over the wall by the passageway to another person, waiting to go off with her, is unknown. As we all know, she was removed by someone, that's for sure.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
I cannot see how questioning their honesty...as you do...is showing them respect
I have quoted examples where their stories have changed. I have quoted examples where what they say is contradicted by other witness statements. I have made no unsupported allegations, I have cites for what I say.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 09, 2015, 02:50:33 PM
I have quoted examples where their stories have changed. I have quoted examples where what they say is contradicted by other witness statements. I have made no unsupported allegations, I have cites for what I say.
I don't believe their stories have changed...you are accusing them falsely.....all your allegations are based on twice translated files...which are not accurate
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 04:28:38 PM
I don't believe their stories have changed...you are accusing them falsely.....all your allegations are based on twice translated files...which are not accurate
Well, lets face it. You only believe two things. The McCanns are innocent. Madeleine was abducted. The coloboma debacle. Nothing to do with the files. Look, look, look into my eyes...the right eye.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 09, 2015, 04:32:47 PM
Well, lets face it. You only believe two things. The McCanns are innocent. Madeleine was abducted. The coloboma debacle. Nothing to do with the files. Look, look, look into my eyes...the right eye.
talking of eyes...I think you must be blind....
there's no coloboma debacle...just more of your imagination
the files contain statements that have been translated twice over so are not accurate
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 09, 2015, 05:19:44 PM
I have quoted examples where their stories have changed. I have quoted examples where what they say is contradicted by other witness statements. I have made no unsupported allegations, I have cites for what I say.
You are working from a very flawed basis indeed. Reading two or three mistranslated sentences of Dostoyevsky does not equate with understanding the plot of The Idiot.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 09, 2015, 05:23:12 PM
You are working from a very flawed basis indeed. Reading two or three mistranslated sentences of Dostoyevsky does not equate with understanding the plot of The Idiot.
That is your opinion and hardly surprising.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 05:58:44 PM
The mccanns were told/advised not to engage with it.
They still did.
Then shrugged it off on the Piers Morgan show 'we didn't make much of it really'. Really? All those posters showing her eye. The appeal on the Lancet website to health professionals to look for her coloboma. @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 09, 2015, 06:41:04 PM
Then shrugged it off on the Piers Morgan show 'we didn't make much of it really'. Really? All those posters showing her eye. The appeal on the Lancet website to health professionals to look for her coloboma. @)(++(*
Someone should tell gerry, it was a bad marketing ploy. *&*%£
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 09, 2015, 06:43:58 PM
Then shrugged it off on the Piers Morgan show 'we didn't make much of it really'. Really? All those posters showing her eye. The appeal on the Lancet website to health professionals to look for her coloboma. @)(++(*
you show you have no respect for Maddie the way you mock the search for her...we can all see exactly what you are. finishing your post re the coloboma with a smiley. For the record I have never heard the mccanns use the word coloboma...not that it would matter if they did
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 09, 2015, 06:51:17 PM
Then shrugged it off on the Piers Morgan show 'we didn't make much of it really'. Really? All those posters showing her eye. The appeal on the Lancet website to health professionals to look for her coloboma. @)(++(*
The first mention of it came from the PJ in a Press release on 5th May.
Subject: Request for Divulgation by means of the Press
As it is of clear interest to the investigation of the case in reference, I have the honour to ask you to authorise the divulgation of the disappearance of the young girl Madeleine McCann by means of the organs of the press, with the aim of obtaining information leading to her whereabouts.
I enclose a model for divulgation.
With best compliments
The Coordinator of the Investigation.
G. Amaral
Permission was granted for the release of the Press Release.
01 Processos Vol I Page 33 B
Press Release
Disappearance of Minor
The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.
She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription ‘EEYORE’.
Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.
05 May 2007
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 09, 2015, 07:03:33 PM
Subject: Request for Divulgation by means of the Press
As it is of clear interest to the investigation of the case in reference, I have the honour to ask you to authorise the divulgation of the disappearance of the young girl Madeleine McCann by means of the organs of the press, with the aim of obtaining information leading to her whereabouts.
I enclose a model for divulgation.
With best compliments
The Coordinator of the Investigation.
G. Amaral
Permission was granted for the release of the Press Release.
01 Processos Vol I Page 33 B
Press Release
Disappearance of Minor
The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.
She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription ‘EEYORE’.
Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.
05 May 2007
Strangely, Amaral's pals all said that the parents had signed her death warrant by releasing the detail about her eye, when in fact getting that organised is one of the few things that Amaral actually appears to have organised (relatively) quickly.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 09, 2015, 07:47:09 PM
Strangely, Amaral's pals all said that the parents had signed her death warrant by releasing the detail about her eye, when in fact getting that organised is one of the few things that Amaral actually appears to have organised (relatively) quickly.
shows how stupid amaral was...if maddie was taken by a paedophile she was dead anyway...if maddie was taken as a child for a childless couple...they would not harm her
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 09, 2015, 07:55:09 PM
shows how stupid amaral was...if maddie was taken by a paedophile she was dead anyway...if maddie was taken as a child for a childless couple...they would not harm her
The blame game yet again.
Always Amaral.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 09, 2015, 08:11:28 PM
you show you have no respect for Maddie the way you mock the search for her...we can all see exactly what you are. finishing your post re the coloboma with a smiley. For the record I have never heard the mccanns use the word coloboma...not that it would matter if they did
Of course it wouldn't because they're allowed to say what they like. I'm sure it was on the posters against their will, and in the Lancet. SY believed it and asked NZ police to DNA test a little girl because of it. All that fuss and publicity for something that never was? Not once did they speak out with a correction until the Piers Morgan interview.
The McCann family has asked health professionals to look out for Madeleine McCann, a 4-year-old English girl with a coloboma of her right iris, who was abducted while on holiday in Praia Da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007.
It caused this too;
She had the same rare eye defect as McCann called Coloboma that makes the iris look like it's split, according to Radio New Zealand.
"Following a DNA submission, we are now satisfied that the girl identified is not Madeleine McCann," said a spokeswoman for London's Metropolitan Police, according to the New Zealand Herald.
Scotland Yard requested assistance from New Zealand law enforcement to rule out that the possibility that the unidentified youngster was McCann. Their investigation into McCann's disappearance is called Operation Grange. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/madeleine-mccann-dna-new-zealand_n_2681725.html
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 09, 2015, 08:47:48 PM
Strangely, Amaral's pals all said that the parents had signed her death warrant by releasing the detail about her eye, when in fact getting that organised is one of the few things that Amaral actually appears to have organised (relatively) quickly.
Cite for others things not done quickly enough please?
The PJ were run round in circles by the Tapas and McCanns. They should have phoned the police much sooner!
and how about not leaving the chilren alone in the first place... no evidence of stranger abduction from whooshing curtained windows and jemmied shutters NONE!
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 09, 2015, 10:29:18 PM
She could have been passed to someone standing in front of 5A but on the opposite side of the wall. That would considerably shorten the distance to the car park exit for that person to have to cover.
However if the man JT saw was an innocent tourist - then it's irrelevant anyway.
More total speculation which doesnt really help.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 09, 2015, 10:36:06 PM
Not that it really matters ... but I believe it was Madeleine herself who wasn't keen on being called Maddie.
I think you can be certain the PJ and SY are already following the evidence, of which they have the full picture. Both have stated publicly they are looking for an abductor. Both have stated publicly that her parents are not the focus of their investigation.
Within context, so not exactly as you put it. The PJ or AG (cannot remember which one) stated the Mccanns were not suspects in their reopening of the case with regards the reason they reopened the case, ie new evidence which potentially implicated that petty thief and pre drug addict who used to work in PDL
SY stated in a conference ,in the context of their latest list of persons of interest, that the mccanns were not suspects or persons of interest
At no stage have either force said that is the ONLY focus of their enquiry, indeed, af least SY have stated in writing, ALL avenues of investigation are open
Best to be as precise as possible and not put words into others mouths unless you can cite them, and if yu do go looking, make sure yiu find a cite where one or either forces say the Mccanns have been cleared. Just to be sure as the Irish say
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 09, 2015, 10:40:00 PM
you have no respect for the mccanns or maddie and should not pretend you do
Who are you or anyone to expect or demand it? As if Moses wrote it down in stone as some commandment? Thou shall not doubt the Mccanns otherwise God will get very angry with you!!
@)(++(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 09, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
Who are you or anyone to expect or demand it? As if Moses wrote it down in stone as some commandment? Thou shall not doubt the Mccanns otherwise God will get very angry with you!!
@)(++(*
Respect for the rule of law is not (and will never be) an unreasonable request ...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 09, 2015, 10:47:39 PM
I don't believe their stories have changed...you are accusing them falsely.....all your allegations are based on twice translated files...which are not accurate
Not all statements have been twice translated, and leaving aside the fact that not all twice translated statements can be categorically stated to be all erroneous, we have plenty of statements in plain English, with NO translations required, we have plenty of TV footage, with No translation required and we have dozens on dozens of interviews in English featuring the Mccanns with NO translation required, so your attack/argument is groundless pretty much
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 09, 2015, 10:51:50 PM
Respect for the rule of law is not (and will never be) an unreasonable request ...
except if you are the recipient Of a miscarriage of justice? you meant to add that bit didn't you? or are you saying innocent people being found guilty- put to death or imprisoned is OK? rule of law has nothing to do with justice?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 09, 2015, 10:52:51 PM
You are working from a very flawed basis indeed. Reading two or three mistranslated sentences of Dostoyevsky does not equate with understanding the plot of The Idiot.
Says the person who constantly quotes discredited tabloid articles to sustain her arguments. Your reference to the Idiot has not gone unnoticed of course and as far as this argument is concerned you really slipped qute a few notches. Reading a couple of slightly mistranslated sentences has never made anyones mind think one thing or a whole theory, try again.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 09, 2015, 10:57:26 PM
except if you are the recipient Of a miscarriage of justice? you meant to add that bit didn't you? or are you saying innocent people being found guilty- put to death or imprisoned is OK? rule of law has nothing to do with justice?
Maligning and traducing an innocent couple has sod-all to do with the rule of law
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 09, 2015, 10:58:02 PM
Back on the topic of the thread please. without personal comments directed at other members. Thank you.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 09, 2015, 11:28:20 PM
shows how stupid amaral was...if maddie was taken by a paedophile she was dead anyway...if maddie was taken as a child for a childless couple...they would not harm her
Same can be said of the Mccanns publicising it then, no? by your logic?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 09, 2015, 11:34:16 PM
So, still no evidence of abduction mentioned as yet?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 09, 2015, 11:38:40 PM
It was all so easy until that nice Mr Redwood fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" 8(0(*
That's a point! Doesn't really matter now if he was carrying like this or that, owhether the pyjamas had frills or turn ups, whether his hair was short but actually long, his triusers cream or mustard, his shoe heifht 2" or 1 1/4" etc etc
I wonder if it was a shot across the bows...if not, why does the Official Madleine website still promote Tannerman and more or less ignore Smithman, which Redwood concentrated on as the person they are looking for?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 09, 2015, 11:49:04 PM
Topic Please. Off topic posts will be deleted
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 10, 2015, 12:06:49 AM
That's a point! Doesn't really matter now if he was carrying like this or that, owhether the pyjamas had frills or turn ups, whether his hair was short but actually long, his triusers cream or mustard, his shoe heifht 2" or 1 1/4" etc etc
I wonder if it was a shot across the bows...if not, why does the Official Madleine website still promote Tannerman and more or less ignore Smithman, which Redwood concentrated on as the person they are looking for?
Could it be that they still promote the sighting of Tanner man, so that if anyone saw him, they could have been around at that time of night and have seen something else?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 10, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
Could it be that they still promote the sighting of Tanner man, so that if anyone saw him, they could have been around at that time of night and have seen something else?
Maybe the British tourist who said it could be him taking his child for a long walk round a seaside resort on a chilly night in just pyjamas was mistaken, and there were two people about carrying a child in that manner and wearing the same clothes? Or maybe someone saw him meeting up with one of the unsavoury chaaracters in the efits?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Lace on July 10, 2015, 10:44:19 AM
Maybe the British tourist who said it could be him taking his child for a long walk round a seaside resort on a chilly night in just pyjamas was mistaken, and there were two people about carrying a child in that manner and wearing the same clothes? Or maybe someone saw him meeting up with one of the unsavoury chaaracters in the efits?
Well, I don't know G. Unit there could be someone who saw something.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 13, 2015, 11:26:41 PM
so bottom line was, there was no evidence of abduction
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 08:09:41 AM
so bottom line was, there was no evidence of abduction
So how do you explain why both the UK and PT professional teams of detectives, who have been working exclusively on this case, have managed to get it all so wrong?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 08:12:46 AM
So how do you explain why both the UK and PT professional teams of detectives, who have been working exclusively on this case, have managed to get it all so wrong?
Perhaps you can remind us of what these professionals have found.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 08:17:33 AM
So IYO both the SY and Oporto teams of professional policemen dedicated to this case - don't know what they are doing, and armchair detectives - armed with only some of the evidence are far more competent than they are. Really?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 08:52:22 AM
So IYO both the SY and Oporto teams of professional policemen dedicated to this case - don't know what they are doing, and armchair detectives - armed with only some of the evidence are far more competent than they are. Really?
Oh I do know what irony is. Sorry to disappoint.
Now let's try again, and this time try to provide a logical answer, other than the mantra, which has become exceedingly boring (that's irony by the way 8)--))).
What evidence of abduction exists ?
I'm all ears. 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 08:58:02 AM
Now let's try again, and this time try to provide a logical answer, other than the mantra, which has become exceedingly boring (that's irony by the way 8)--))).
What evidence of abduction exists ?
I'm all ears. 8(0(*
What has any of that got to do with my post asking if it was your opinion that both the SY and Oporto teams don't know what they are doing and armchair detectives (such as yourself) who only know some of the facts - are more competent than they are?
Not trying to deflect again are you Stephen?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 09:04:29 AM
What has any of that got to do with my post asking if it was your opinion that both the SY and Oporto teams don't know what they are doing and armchair detectives (such as yourself) who only know some of the facts - are more competent than they are?
Not trying to deflect again are you Stephen?
There is no deflection, other than what you are doing.
What is the evidence for abduction ?
What have this team of professionals found ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 09:24:11 AM
There is no deflection, other than what you are doing.
What is the evidence for abduction ?
What have this team of professionals found ?
I see you are not going to answer the question, so I will assume that you actually do believe that armchair detectives with no experience of detective work and who only have some of the facts - are actually better equipped to 'solve' this case - than professional detectives who have all the available info, the ability to interview and carry out checks on people - and who also have years of expertise/experience between them.
If you want to believe that - then carry on. It's your prerogative.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 09:26:20 AM
I see you are not going to answer the question, so I will assume that you actually do believe that armchair detectives with no experience of detective work and who only have some of the facts - are actually better equipped to 'solve' this case - than professional detectives who have all the available info, the ability to interview and carry out checks on people - and who also have years of expertise/experience between them.
If you want to believe that - then carry on. It's your prerogative.
Have they found Madeleine or what happened to her ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 09:35:45 AM
So how do you explain why both the UK and PT professional teams of detectives, who have been working exclusively on this case, have managed to get it all so wrong?
What exactly have they got so far four years down the line that is so right then?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 09:51:22 AM
Both teams of professional policemen have 'found' as a result of their investigations that the McCanns and their friends can be ruled out as suspects.
Bit of massaging of facts going on here and a rather telling "result/wishful thinking" of an investigation. The remit of the two operations was not to rule out the Mccanns, was it? the Mccanns were declared not persons of interest "in the context of" specific enquiries centred around persons of interest. Sigh.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 09:53:44 AM
What exactly have they got so far four years down the line that is so right then?
That doesn't answer my question mercury. What evidence (which is so obvious to sceptics) have they missed which should have convinced them that the McCanns and/or their friends are guilty of wrongdoing and are all lying their heads off?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: xtina on July 14, 2015, 10:03:04 AM
Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
i think the op title says everything .......their is no evidence ....even tanner man now doesn't exist
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 10:04:47 AM
That doesn't answer my question mercury. What evidence (which is so obvious to sceptics) have they missed which should have convinced them that the McCanns and/or their friends are guilty of wrongdoing and are all lying their heads off?
No,you said how have they got it all so wrong, so I asked, what exactly have they got (right or wrong, seems nothing much apart from telling the world Tannerman was an innocent parent)
It wasn't a comment related to any other discussion going on.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 10:08:00 AM
Bit of massaging of facts going on here and a rather telling "result/wishful thinking" of an investigation. The remit of the two operations was not to rule out the Mccanns, was it? the Mccanns were declared not persons of interest "in the context of" specific enquiries centred around persons of interest. Sigh.
With respect - I think the 'wishful thinking' is all on your part Mercury.
From everything we have seen, i.e. Crimewatch appeals - the actions of the PJ and SY - which have no connection at all to the McCanns, and the clear statement by SY that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects - only goes to show how powerful 'wishful thinking' is - if the conclusion arrived at as a result of all that is .... 'the McCanns are prime suspects'. (even bigger sigh)
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 10:14:01 AM
With respect - I think the 'wishful thinking' is all on your part Mercury.
From everything we have seen, i.e. Crimewatch appeals - the actions of the PJ and SY - which have no connection at all to the McCanns, and the clear statement by SY that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects - only goes to show how powerful 'wishful thinking' is - if the conclusion arrived at as a result of all that is .... 'the McCanns are prime suspects'. (even bigger sigh)
What has all this achieved ?
Much bigger sigh.😏
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 10:15:20 AM
With respect - I think the 'wishful thinking' is all on your part Mercury.
From everything we have seen, i.e. Crimewatch appeals - the actions of the PJ and SY - which have no connection at all to the McCanns, and the clear statement by SY that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects - only goes to show how powerful 'wishful thinking' is - if the conclusion arrived at as a result of all that is .... 'the McCanns are prime suspects'. (even bigger sigh)
There is no wish in my thinking.I do not "wish" for anyone to be made a suspect unless the police think there are serious grounds to do so. The point and content of my post seems to have wooshed over your head by the way. For some reason.
PJ only ever said Mccanns are not suspects in relation to the reason the case was reopened, which was Monteiro. SY said they were not suspects in the context of their investigations on certain people at the time. Get it now? And PJ nor SY have never officially said Madeleine was abducted either.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: xtina on July 14, 2015, 10:17:08 AM
With respect - I think the 'wishful thinking' is all on your part Mercury.
From everything we have seen, i.e. Crimewatch appeals - the actions of the PJ and SY - which have no connection at all to the McCanns, and the clear statement by SY that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects - only goes to show how powerful 'wishful thinking' is - if the conclusion arrived at as a result of all that is .... 'the McCanns are prime suspects'. (even bigger sigh)
OK most of u keep saying the mccs are not suspects .....but that is not as cut and dried as you make out ....for instance ..why do so many people think they should be .....their is no evidence for abduction....apart from there say so ....and you cannot rule out they wont be suspects in the future ....the case is not closed...is it.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 10:20:20 AM
No,you said how have they got it all so wrong, so I asked, what exactly have they got (right or wrong, seems nothing much apart from telling the world Tannerman was an innocent parent)
It wasn't a comment related to any other discussion going on.
Yes - I asked how IYO two police forces have managed to get it all so wrong.
If you can't come up with anything which SY and the PJ have done which specifically proves them to be barking up the wrong tree - then what have they done to make you think they're both wrong?
As part of their investigations they have established that the man JT saw was very probably an innocent tourist. So what?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
Yes - I asked how IYO two police forces have managed to get it all so wrong.
If you can't come up with anything which SY and the PJ have done which specifically proves them to be barking up the wrong tree - then what have they done to make you think they're both wrong?
As part of their investigations they have established that the man JT saw was very probably an innocent tourist. So what?
I dont recall saying they were wrong about anything. And I have no idea what tree they are barking up on either. I can only comment when they cmment and theyve both been silent for a year or so now IIRC, must be busy.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 10:31:17 AM
OK most of u keep saying the mccs are not suspects .....but that is not as cut and dried as you make out ....for instance ..why do so many people think they should be .....their is no evidence for abduction....apart from there say so ....and you cannot rule out they wont be suspects in the future ....the case is not closed...is it.
Get your facts right. No evidence of an abduction was found. That does not mean it never existed as it could have been destroyed or overlooked.
Even Amaral commented on the less than professional manner of his officers when it came to collecting forensic evidence.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: xtina on July 14, 2015, 10:32:48 AM
Yes - I asked how IYO two police forces have managed to get it all so wrong.
If you can't come up with anything which SY and the PJ have done which specifically proves them to be barking up the wrong tree - then what have they done to make you think they're both wrong?
As part of their investigations they have established that the man JT saw was very probably an innocent tourist. So what?
so what ..........wasn't that the only so called thing.... that backed the abduction up ....
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 10:35:34 AM
Get your facts right. No evidence of an abduction was found. That does not mean it never existed as it could have been destroyed or overlooked.
Even Amaral commented on the less than professional manner of his officers when it came to collecting forensic evidence.
Did he? Well, there's also the fact that
Yes it didn't help much that the evidence was trampled all over by several people before the police were even called as the Public Prosecutor told us, so best to give all sides to a story Benice.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 10:36:56 AM
Get your facts right. No evidence of an abduction was found. That does not mean it never existed as it could have been destroyed or overlooked.
Even Amaral commented on the less than professional manner of his officers when it came to collecting forensic evidence.
get your facts right too........the mccs new maddie had been abducted straight away......yet the let 20 odd people trample round the apartment ...method in there madness or what ...or .are they completely incompetent ....
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 14, 2015, 10:41:49 AM
get your facts right too........the mccs new maddie had been abducted straight away......yet the let 20 odd people trample round the apartment ...method in there madness or what ...or .are they completely incompetent ....
You're being too polite Xtina.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: xtina on July 14, 2015, 10:49:32 AM
get your facts right too........the mccs new maddie had been abducted straight away......yet the let 20 odd people trample round the apartment ...method in there madness or what ...or .are they completely incompetent ....
Another poster who thinks that terrified parents who are suddenly confronted with the nightmare that their child has been abducted should immediately morph into policemen. The whole idea is ridiculous IMO. The policemen who did turn up didn't behave like policemen - but no doubt you find nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 06:54:49 PM
Another poster who thinks that terrified parents who are suddenly confronted with the nightmare that their child has been abducted should immediately morph into policemen. The whole idea is ridiculous IMO. The policemen who did turn up didn't behave like policemen - but no doubt you find nothing wrong with that.
oh really? How didnt they behave then? In a trampled and compromised apartment, what exactly dd they do wrong
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 14, 2015, 07:06:45 PM
Another poster who thinks that terrified parents who are suddenly confronted with the nightmare that their child has been abducted should immediately morph into policemen. The whole idea is ridiculous IMO. The policemen who did turn up didn't behave like policemen - but no doubt you find nothing wrong with that.
It is the responsibility of the police to organise and preserve a crime scene ... then why pass over the opportunity to get another dig in at the parents of a missing child. In my opinion a very weird pastime indeed.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 07:12:43 PM
It is the responsibility of the police to organise and preserve a crime scene ... then why pass over the opportunity to get another dig in at the parents of a missing child. In my opinion a very weird pastime indeed.
The police can only preserve a crime scene once they get there....and if its been destroyed before they do, well,no point blaming them is there,blame lies elsewhere
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 14, 2015, 09:49:22 PM
oh really? How didnt they behave then? In a trampled and compromised apartment, what exactly dd they do wrong
They did not immediately cordon off the scene or ask people to leave.
5A did not become a crime scene until if was absolutely certain that Madeleine was not there. There is no way that could be established without thoroughly searching the place first - which is what happened before the GNR arrived. The first thing one of the GNR officers did when he arrived at 11.00p.m. was to search the whole place.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 14, 2015, 09:56:00 PM
They did not immediately cordon off the scene or ask people to leave.
5A did not become a crime scene until if was absolutely certain that Madeleine was not there. There is no way that could be established without thoroughly searching the place first - which is what happened. The first thing one of the GNR officers did when he arrived at 11.00p.m. was to search the whole place.
As i said a contaminated crime scene before police were called or arrived ergo benice you have noargument
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 14, 2015, 11:38:07 PM
They did not immediately cordon off the scene or ask people to leave.
5A did not become a crime scene until if was absolutely certain that Madeleine was not there. There is no way that could be established without thoroughly searching the place first - which is what happened before the GNR arrived. The first thing one of the GNR officers did when he arrived at 11.00p.m. was to search the whole place.
At that moment one of the GNR officers told the witness that they had already searched for the girl in the wardrobes and other places in the apartment without having taken any care as to leaving their own traces or for destroying or adulterating any traces that might be of interest to the investigation.
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
And the most important part of the crime scene was tampered with before the police arrived. That red flag is doing some whooshing ?{)(**
In his book Mr Amaral asserts "An inspector is sent to the scene immediately to establish the initial facts. A forensic expert assigned to security of the premises will join him. All precautions are taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence."
But that is not what actually had happened.
Subject: Despatch of Report on the Searches carried out in P da L http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
4. The commander of the Lagos post, Sargeant Antonio Henrique Conceicao Duarte immediately left for the site the girl had disappeared from, telling the officers to preserve the apartment, and arrived at 23.50 at the OC, where he was informed about the situation together with the patrol officers and where he saw that searches had already taken place, carried out by the girl’s father and locals, but without any results.
This is confirmed in Sgt Duarte's witness statement http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_DUARTE.htm
The witness, from the description and supposed seriousness of the facts related, ordered the immediate preservation of the scene, and said he would go to the site and communicate the facts to the PJ (this was done from the Post, he does not remember which officer did this but thinks it was Officer Patricio).
Sgt Duarte arrived at the Ocean Club at 23.50 and when PJ Deputy Specialist João Franciso Páscoa Luis Trigo Barreiras arrived 00.50 the crime scene was still unsecured despite the sergeant who had given the order to secure it being in attendance for an hour.
When they arrived at the scene, which they immediately identified due to the presence of GNR officers, as well as quite a lot of people who were walking around the street searching for the child, they immediately went to the apartment in question, where they found several people, including some GNR officers, as well as the head of the Lagos GNR station. He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BARREIRAS.htm
I have written the above precis from the full account of the lack of professionalism in securing the crime scene from here https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/preserving-that-crime-scene/ which goes on to discuss the further contamination of the scene while under police control. Including a link to the Daily Mail article claiming that the cleaners were allowed to take Madeleine's bedding to the laundry.
To say the crime scene was mismanaged is an understatement considering the destroyed forensic evidence which could have shown the presence of an intruder had it survived.
To blame Madeleine McCann's parents for that situation is so far off the mark it is absurd.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 15, 2015, 02:37:41 AM
In his book Mr Amaral asserts "An inspector is sent to the scene immediately to establish the initial facts. A forensic expert assigned to security of the premises will join him. All precautions are taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence."
But that is not what actually had happened.
Subject: Despatch of Report on the Searches carried out in P da L http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
4. The commander of the Lagos post, Sargeant Antonio Henrique Conceicao Duarte immediately left for the site the girl had disappeared from, telling the officers to preserve the apartment, and arrived at 23.50 at the OC, where he was informed about the situation together with the patrol officers and where he saw that searches had already taken place, carried out by the girl’s father and locals, but without any results.
This is confirmed in Sgt Duarte's witness statement http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_DUARTE.htm
The witness, from the description and supposed seriousness of the facts related, ordered the immediate preservation of the scene, and said he would go to the site and communicate the facts to the PJ (this was done from the Post, he does not remember which officer did this but thinks it was Officer Patricio).
Sgt Duarte arrived at the Ocean Club at 23.50 and when PJ Deputy Specialist João Franciso Páscoa Luis Trigo Barreiras arrived 00.50 the crime scene was still unsecured despite the sergeant who had given the order to secure it being in attendance for an hour.
When they arrived at the scene, which they immediately identified due to the presence of GNR officers, as well as quite a lot of people who were walking around the street searching for the child, they immediately went to the apartment in question, where they found several people, including some GNR officers, as well as the head of the Lagos GNR station. He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BARREIRAS.htm
I have written the above precis from the full account of the lack of professionalism in securing the crime scene from here https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/preserving-that-crime-scene/ which goes on to discuss the further contamination of the scene while under police control. Including a link to the Daily Mail article claiming that the cleaners were allowed to take Madeleine's bedding to the laundry.
To say the crime scene was mismanaged is an understatement considering the destroyed forensic evidence which could have shown the presence of an intruder had it survived.
To blame Madeleine McCann's parents for that situation is so far off the mark it is absurd.
Nope its correct, the Mccanns let in all and sundry in before the police were even called. Thus DESTROYING evidence.....FACT and said FACT was stated by the countrys state prosecutor Your "snips" and machinations mean nothing much,,especially since they arebiased ergo totally worthless
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on July 15, 2015, 09:10:18 AM
Nope its correct, the Mccanns let in all and sundry in before the police were even called. Thus DESTROYING evidence.....FACT and said FACT was stated by the countrys state prosecutor Your "snips" and machinations mean nothing much,,especially since they arebiased ergo totally worthless
The Mccanns hoped that they were searching for a hiding or walked off little girl.
Everyone searched .... as little doubt, you and your friends would do if your child had gone missing.
Kate had to be with the twins. Also in case Madeleine returned of her own violition.
Also for the police. They were called in the first 5 - 10 minutes as far as the Tapas group were concerned. That is when Matt ran down to reception to ask them to call the police BUT as we all know, there was a huge delay before they arrived
It is natural that Kate would have others with her to support her in her distress.
Such a pity that when they eventually arrived. the police [GNR] did not secure the apartment, but even left their own evidence behind.
So mercury, you criticise the parents of a missing child for not securing the apartment, but it is OK that the GNR did NOT? They are the professionals with training and experience; the Mccanns were just totally distraught parents and amateurs
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 15, 2015, 09:42:01 AM
As i said a contaminated crime scene before police were called or arrived ergo benice you have noargument
So IYO it was the McCanns who failed in their duty to preserve the crime scene and cordon it off? IMO that expectation of distraught parents is more than a tad unrealistic.
However, I'm glad to see elsewhere that you agree that evidence of an intruder(s) which may have existed - was destroyed and therefore to claim there was no evidence of an abduction is incorrect. Just because no evidence was found doesn't mean it never existed.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 15, 2015, 09:45:22 AM
So IYO it was the McCanns who failed in their duty to preserve the crime scene and cordon it off? IMO that expectation of distraught parents is more than a tad unrealistic.
However, I'm glad to see elsewhere that you agree that evidence of an intruder(s) which may have existed - was destroyed and therefore to claim there was no evidence of an abduction is incorrect. Just because no evidence was found doesn't mean it never existed.
If the mccanns were 'looking' for a child that run off and 'searched', why did they cry abduction ?
Why did they also search and mess up the apartment ?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 15, 2015, 09:49:26 AM
So IYO it was the McCanns who failed in their duty to preserve the crime scene and cordon it off? IMO that expectation of distraught parents is more than a tad unrealistic.
However, I'm glad to see elsewhere that you agree that evidence of an intruder(s) which may have existed - was destroyed and therefore to claim there was no evidence of an abduction is incorrect. Just because no evidence was found doesn't mean it never existed.
I didn't say that did I? I was attempting to show that it is a falsehood to claim that the police and the police only were responsible for potential destruction of evidence. OK?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 15, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
My post: So IYO it was the McCanns who failed in their duty to preserve the crime scene and cordon it off? IMO that expectation of distraught parents is more than a tad unrealistic.
However, I'm glad to see elsewhere that you agree that evidence of an intruder(s) which may have existed - was destroyed and therefore to claim there was no evidence of an abduction is incorrect. Just because no evidence was found doesn't mean it never existed.
I didn't say that did I? I was attempting to show that it is a falsehood to claim that the police and the police only were responsible for potential destruction of evidence. OK?
This is what you said further back in this thread.
Quote Nope its correct, the Mccanns let in all and sundry in before the police were even called. Thus DESTROYING evidence.....FACT and said FACT was stated by the countrys state prosecutor Your "snips" and machinations mean nothing much,,especially since they arebiased ergo totally worthless Unquote
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 15, 2015, 10:05:27 PM
Benice, not sure what your point is
As I said in my previous post, the police cant be blamed for all loss of any potential evidence
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 16, 2015, 12:27:54 AM
As I said in my previous post, the police cant be blamed for all loss of any potential evidence
Neither can the McCanns who IMO behaved exactlly how one would expect any parents who found their child missing would behave. They frantically searched the place, and so did other people who arrived. That also was completely normal IMO. On the other hand the police should have known better.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 16, 2015, 12:49:42 AM
Neither can the McCanns who IMO behaved exactlly how one would expect any parents who found their child missing would behave. They frantically searched the place, and so did other people who arrived. That also was completely normal IMO. On the other hand the police should have known better.
Your post means nothing, ie the mccanns and others contaminated the crime scene,end of
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 16, 2015, 01:05:53 AM
Your post means nothing, ie the mccanns and others contaminated the crime scene,end of
So do you think it would have been normal behaviour for Kate and Gerry to immediately refuse entry to anyone - on the grounds that they would be contaminating a crime scene? Do you honestly believe that they were capable of making that decision having just discovered that one of their children was missing? Surely not.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 16, 2015, 01:13:38 AM
So do you think it would have been normal behaviour for Kate and Gerry to immediately refuse entry to anyone - on the grounds that they would be contaminating a crime scene? Do you honestly believe that they were capable of making that decision having just discovered that one of their children was missing? Surely not.
Give it up benice....fact is they ccompromised the crine scene, end of
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 16, 2015, 01:26:31 AM
Give it up benice....fact is they ccompromised the crine scene, end of
The fact is they behaved normally and in exactly the same way as any other parents would behave in the same situation. If you can't see that then IMO you are simply proving that you have no ability to identify with or understand another persons situation or feelings. IOW like so many other 'sceptic's - you have no empathy.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 16, 2015, 01:28:30 AM
The fact is they behaved normally and in exactly the same way as any other parents would behave in the same situation. If you can't see that then IMO you are simply proving that you have no ability to identify with or understand another persons situation or feelings. IOW like so many other 'sceptic's - you have no empathy.
Rubbish Fiona wouldn't touch those shutters because she knew it was tampering with the crime scene.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 16, 2015, 01:35:22 AM
[quotepkauthor=Benice link=topic=4142.msg255701#msg255701 date=1437006391] The fact is they behaved normally and in exactly the same way as any other parents would behave in the same situation. If you can't see that then IMO you are simply proving that you have no ability to identify with or understand another persons situation or feelings. IOW like so many other 'sceptic's - you have no empathy. [/quote] get a serious grip instead of dissolvng all over the place, keep ears open ie mccanns trashed potential evidence get it? Good
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on July 16, 2015, 01:44:53 AM
Give it up benice....fact is they ccompromised the crine scene, end of
mercury. Benice is being normal and thoughtful about the unlikelyhood of severely distraught parents even thinking about preserving the scene.
You dont seem to have any empathy or thoughts about what the sudden loss of Madeleine was likely to have done to them
How come that the professionals, the GNR, made no early attempts to preserve the cfrime scene? And as we all now know, they actually contaminated it themselves How about reserving a bit of indignation about thta mercury?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Benice on July 16, 2015, 01:54:00 AM
get a serious grip instead of dissolvng all over the place, keep ears open ie mccanns trashed potential evidence get it? Good
So can I take it that you don't believe the McCanns behaved normally and that other parents who thought their child had been abducted would have immediately started behaving like policemen and not like terrified parents who had just been plunged into every parents worst nightmare. Pull the other one.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: sadie on July 16, 2015, 02:01:58 AM
So can I take it that you don't believe the McCanns behaved normally and that other parents who thought their child had been abducted would have immediately started behaving like policemen and not like terrified parents who had just been plunged into every parents worst nightmare. Pull the other one.
Never said that, how many times do I NEED to tell you, the evidence was trashed before police got there ergo yiu cant blame the police, do you undesrstand?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 16, 2015, 07:33:51 AM
once the parents have been ruled out....SY say they are not suspects....then abduction is proved on the balance of probabilities
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 16, 2015, 08:32:51 AM
Now where is the carte blanche unassailable evidence of abduction ?
CONVINCE ME.
did you read the last post..I'm not interested in convincing anyone....abduction beyond reasonable doubt is a fact based on all the evidence..
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 16, 2015, 10:00:34 AM
When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.
If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.
As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.
The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 16, 2015, 10:22:29 AM
Now where is the carte blanche unassailable evidence of abduction ?
CONVINCE ME.
There often isn't - unless there's cctv or some vigilant person's smartphone showing someone stuffing a child in the boot of an identifiable car and a thorough forensic examination of an untouched crime scene.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 16, 2015, 10:44:11 AM
When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.
If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.
As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.
The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.
I don't think the direction tannerman was travelling is of any significance...it was simply a piece of film showing what he would look like. Who directed the programme...
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 16, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.
If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.
As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.
The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.
Glad to see you fully accept my reasoning...SY have ruled out the parents and therefore abduction is way ahead the most probable explanation.... I don't see any evidence directly implicating the parents...I'm afraid you are dreaming.
non verbatim statements do not count as evidence and would be inadmissible...as is the supposed dog's alerts...that leaves you with nothing.
Then we have the SIO with a conviction for lying...doesn't look very convincing at all
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 16, 2015, 10:58:07 AM
So do you think it would have been normal behaviour for Kate and Gerry to immediately refuse entry to anyone - on the grounds that they would be contaminating a crime scene? Do you honestly believe that they were capable of making that decision having just discovered that one of their children was missing? Surely not.
LOL ... and what a furore the conspiracy theorists would have made of that one.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 16, 2015, 10:59:13 AM
When did SY or the PJ investigate and interview the parents and associwtes ?
It's a straightforward question.
you need to ask them not me
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 16, 2015, 11:19:50 AM
The assumption being made when the dog went missing from the doorstep is that she was stolen although there are no witnesses to such an event.
This is based on the fact that she did not come in when expected.
She does not appear to have been the victim of a RTA after wandering off as no body or injured dog has been found despite the minister's appeals publicising the event on social media.
Witnesses have said a man had shown interest in the dog before she disappeared. So is it strange that the dog's family are making the assumption she has been stolen ... and no-body seems to be asking ... why not the younger dog?
**snip A CHURCH minister is desperately appealing for information after one of his dogs disappeared from his doorstep.
Ken Whitelaw believes Molly, a four-year-old West Highland terrier , was stolen.
She vanished on July 10, leaving her puppy Maisie distraught.
Ken, 56, believes the dog has been stolen after reports of a man stopping in the street and asking about the dog.
The dad-of-four said: “Maisie is nowhere near her self. She is only a year old and she knows nothing other than being with her mum. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/puppy-misses-mum-minister-thinks-6074344
Similarly ... no one saw what happened to Madeleine McCann.
But witnesses did come forward to report suspicions about a man in the vicinity of the McCann apartment.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 16, 2015, 11:20:01 AM
When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.
If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.
As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.
The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.
There was no reason to explain to a bunch of forumites why crecheman was considered to be Tannerman. The point was simply to inform the public at large that Tannerman was probably not the abductor and to think of anything potentially useful that people may have seen or known about - including Smithman and a later time period.
The idea that a 37-staff strong investigation team didn't know where the crèche actually was before coming to their conclusion seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly as they were the ones to check the records.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on July 16, 2015, 02:40:32 PM
There was no reason to explain to a bunch of forumites why crecheman was considered to be Tannerman. The point was simply to inform the public at large that Tannerman was probably not the abductor and to think of anything potentially useful that people may have seen or known about - including Smithman and a later time period.
The idea that a 37-staff strong investigation team didn't know where the crèche actually was before coming to their conclusion seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly as they were the ones to check the records.
Your first para is correct. SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman. However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.
As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.
By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 16, 2015, 02:59:37 PM
Your first para is correct. SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman. However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.
As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.
By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.
I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the police foot soldiers were punctilious in information gathering ... one of the issues apparently being that the investigation was overwhelmed by all the bits and pieces which the Rebelo investigation immediately took steps to transfer to computer.
There is a lot of information not on the files as we know them so it is not out with the bounds of possibility that the PJ had a copy of the crèche records contained in the complete files to which SY have access.
Dr Kate McCann records her shock at seeing the note regarding the tapas restaurant booking containing the information that the children would be on their own ... I don't think that is in the copy of the files to which we have access.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 16, 2015, 03:01:09 PM
There was no reason to explain to a bunch of forumites why crecheman was considered to be Tannerman. The point was simply to inform the public at large that Tannerman was probably not the abductor and to think of anything potentially useful that people may have seen or known about - including Smithman and a later time period.
The idea that a 37-staff strong investigation team didn't know where the crèche actually was before coming to their conclusion seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly as they were the ones to check the records.
Obviously the point was to dismiss the Tanner sighting. Pity they chose to do it in such a way that they made themselves look silly.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 16, 2015, 03:21:16 PM
Your first para is correct. SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman. However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.
As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.
By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.
No night crèche records. Probably because it was not used by the McCanns. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id351.html
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 16, 2015, 03:22:11 PM
Obviously the point was to dismiss the Tanner sighting. Pity they chose to do it in such a way that they made themselves look silly.
To whom? It's not that difficult to imagine that he may have had duly explained reasons as to why he was walking in that direction, is it?
I think the mass of PJ and other leaks may have made people imagine that they are entitled to scrutinise every snippet of information in a live investigation, irrespective of people's privacy.
Why on earth would the Met have detailed why he was where he was at the time? That's for the Met to know, not a few dozen people still following this case.
Or has the entire Met team invented crecheman to back down in a diplomatic moment of embarrassment to the world that Amaral was right all along and Tannerman never existed? I wouldn't bet my currently wilting parsley on that one.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 16, 2015, 03:27:31 PM
Obviously the point was to dismiss the Tanner sighting. Pity they chose to do it in such a way that they made themselves look silly.
I don't think what the reaction of a small group of sceptics on the internet was going to be - ever came into the equation when SY were deciding what information to include in their appeal to the GBP.
Anyone who thinks that none of the SY team dedicated to this case simply didn't notice that Crecheman was going in the wrong direction and so didn't question him about that apparent anomaly - is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO. It is quite obvious to me that they did - and were satisfied by his explanation.
The vast majority of the GBP wouldn't even know he was apparently going in the wrong direction if he was coming from the creche - because they don't follow the case. It's only a small number of people in a little corner of the internet who do follow the case who would pick up on that. The idea that SY had some duty to make the appeal with those people uppermost in their minds is preposterous IMO. They are of no importance to them whatsoever IMO.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 16, 2015, 03:31:17 PM
Your first para is correct. SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman. However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.
As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.
By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.
There are now currently two active police investigations.
Why would the Met or the PJ be interested in satisfying the curiosity of a handful of people on social media without a specific reason (e.g., a new appeal if they discover something new that requires the assistance of the public)?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 16, 2015, 07:55:36 PM
To whom? It's not that difficult to imagine that he may have had duly explained reasons as to why he was walking in that direction, is it?
I think the mass of PJ and other leaks may have made people imagine that they are entitled to scrutinise every snippet of information in a live investigation, irrespective of people's privacy.
Why on earth would the Met have detailed why he was where he was at the time? That's for the Met to know, not a few dozen people still following this case.
Or has the entire Met team invented crecheman to back down in a diplomatic moment of embarrassment to the world that Amaral was right all along and Tannerman never existed? I wouldn't bet my currently wilting parsley on that one.
You interpret it one way. I and others interpret it another. The difference between us seems to be that some accept what they're told and others wonder why we're being told something which doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: ferryman on July 16, 2015, 08:28:09 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I agree with your last point.
An example of the sort of thing Brietta might be referring to is that Amaral wrote his book without reference to Joao Carlos' final report on behalf of the PJ which (embarrassingly for Amaral's book) says that that the time of Kate's alert and the sighting of the Smiths, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant ...
Just one example ....
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 16, 2015, 08:43:29 PM
An example of the sort of thing Brietta might be referring to is that Amaral wrote his book without reference to Joao Carlos' final report on behalf of the PJ which (embarrassingly for Amaral's book) says that that the time of Kate's alert and the sighting of the Smiths, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant ...
Just one example ....
What has Amaral's book to do with the clumsy attempt by DCI Redwood to eliminate Tannerman? I don't know what you're talking about either, sorry.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 16, 2015, 08:47:06 PM
I wonder just a little bit about the content in your post which seems to imply you and others of your ilk see yourselves as 'free thinkers' who have arrived at certain conclusions unaided.
I can see the parallels with what you have been told about Mr Amaral's theory ... which is even less than a half time report since he wasn't even allowed to sit on the benches after the manager pulled him off the field ... he was sent to the dressing room and an early exit from the team.
The final whistle hasn't been blown yet.
Oh but we are 'free thinkers' we do not follow orders or directions from people who seem to have scored too many 'own goals' and refusing to accept the referees red card following a off side reprimand.
In other words: The McCanns made a huge mistake, blamed everyone else, accusing many of incompetence, while all the time moving their versions of accounts which cannot be forensically proved. And failing to answer serious but awkward questions. I do not think they told the truth about what happened, that doesn't mean I don't accept Maddie could have been abducted, just one of many theories.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Brietta on July 16, 2015, 08:52:46 PM
What has Amaral's book to do with the clumsy attempt by DCI Redwood to eliminate Tannerman? I don't know what you're talking about either, sorry.
What has Mr Amaral's book to do with anything one might say.
I think its relevance to this thread might be that stated within its pages is that he is averse to any indication that Madeleine McCann was abducted. Surprisingly there are others who claim to have reached that discarded conclusion too based on nothing more than reliance on their investigative skills ... aren't you one?
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: G-Unit on July 16, 2015, 09:00:33 PM
What has Mr Amaral's book to do with anything one might say.
I think its relevance to this thread might be that stated within its pages is that he is averse to any indication that Madeleine McCann was abducted. Surprisingly there are others who claim to have reached that discarded conclusion too based on nothing more than reliance on their investigative skills ... aren't you one?
As i haven't read Amaral's book I can't comment on it. My posts are the result of my research, yes. My conclusion? all options are possible, but some seem more improbable than others.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 16, 2015, 09:01:03 PM
Amaral's book has nothing to do with the thread or the abduction theory... hot air and high wind... deflecting from not having ANY EVIDENCE of abduction.
Thread: So what is the evidence for abduction? answer NONE.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 16, 2015, 09:30:39 PM
Please try and adhere to the topic. And direct your remarks to the topic under discussion and not the poster. Thank you.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 17, 2015, 07:26:35 AM
Amaral's book has nothing to do with the thread or the abduction theory... hot air and high wind... deflecting from not having ANY EVIDENCE of abduction.
Thread: So what is the evidence for abduction? answer NONE.
plenty of evidence for abduction for those of us who understand what evidence means
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 17, 2015, 12:24:27 PM
didn't make them look silly.....its just a small group who want to pretend SY are useless because they support the McCanns innocence
“The McCanns have completely changed the way we now look for missing children—it used to be you go to the police; now it means you go to the media, to celebrities,” says a disapproving Scotland Yard specialist in abused children.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Anna on July 17, 2015, 12:59:02 PM
“The McCanns have completely changed the way we now look for missing children—it used to be you go to the police; now it means you go to the media, to celebrities,” says a disapproving Scotland Yard specialist in abused children.
What good is a quote from an unnamed person mentioned in vanity fair? Pathfinder. Do you know who this person is?
I will add the link, but I would appreciate it if you included links in future. It will save me the trouble of google searching to find a person, only to find that he is not named.
Vanity fair on McCanns http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/02/mccanns200802?currentPage=1
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 17, 2015, 11:20:31 PM
plenty of evidence for abduction for those of us who understand what evidence means
I wish you would stop saying that as there is no evidence really, do the kind and polite thing and bullet point the list, pretty please, Id love to see it
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: mercury on July 19, 2015, 11:43:40 PM
I wish you would stop saying that as there is no evidence really, do the kind and polite thing and bullet point the list, pretty please, Id love to see it
BUMP before it drops off the page
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 20, 2015, 12:33:27 AM
An example of the sort of thing Brietta might be referring to is that Amaral wrote his book without reference to Joao Carlos' final report on behalf of the PJ which (embarrassingly for Amaral's book) says that that the time of Kate's alert and the sighting of the Smiths, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant ...
Just one example ....
That final report was wrong.
Title: Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?
Post by: Carana on July 20, 2015, 07:40:29 AM
It did seem somewhat confused. It states that the unknown crime occurred;
Time and Place – Between 21H05 and 22H00 of the day 3 May of 2007, at the G5A apartment, located at the touristic resort ‘Ocean Club’, Vila da Luz, Lagos.
Despite the above, later on in the report they have this, which suggests a much greater gap in which the unknown crime could have occurred;
What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.). http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm