Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.

[Sunny]

It's on the same link and been cited many times.... It never ceases to amaze me how some posters, are just not aware of some very basic facts...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pedro+de%2Fcarmo+no+evidence+not+suspects&oq=pedro+de%2Fcarmo+no+evidence+not+suspects&aqs=chrome..69i57.21093j0j7&client=ms-android-tmobile-gb&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

I see your search referred to "lack of evidence" not "no evidence". And by the way there is no reason to be rude.

[Mr Gray]

I see your search referred to "lack of evidence" not "no evidence". And by the way there is no reason to be rude.

There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance... The words of Da Carmo... It's annoying to have to keep supplying the same cites over and over again... That isn't rude... It's a fact... Again my claim is correct... It's NO EVIDENCE... That to me is quite conclusive

[Mr Gray]

I see your search referred to "lack of evidence" not "no evidence". And by the way there is no reason to be rude.

Could you provide a cite my search refers to lack of evidence... It refers to no evidence... You are quite wrong

[Sunny]

There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance... The words of Da Carmo... It's annoying to have to keep supplying the same cites over and over again... That isn't rude... It's a fact... Again my claim is correct... It's NO EVIDENCE... That to me is quite conclusive

It may be to you but it is not a FACT imo.  He didn't say those words so your claimof fact is false- unless you can give me a cite that he actually did Davel.

Davel your request was for "no evidence" from Pedro Do Carmo but there were no hits with that only "lack of evidence". Simples.

[Mr Gray]

It may be to you but it is not a FACT imo.  He didn't say those words so your claimof fact is false- unless you can give me a cite that he actually did Davel.

Davel your request was for "no evidence" from Pedro Do Carmo but there were no hits with that only "lack of evidence". Simples.

Click on my search for no evidence.... There is a video there... The first one.... Watch it... It says.... No fact... No evidence... DA Carmo speaks those precise words

[Mr Gray]

It may be to you but it is not a FACT imo.  He didn't say those words so your claimof fact is false- unless you can give me a cite that he actually did Davel.

Davel your request was for "no evidence" from Pedro Do Carmo but there were no hits with that only "lack of evidence". Simples.

There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance.



The above are the verbatim words of PD Carmo from the video interview


Once again... You are totally wrong... You are quoting Morais biased version.. I'm quoting what DA Carmo actually said

[faithlilly]

Please frame your questions less to deflect but more to reflect thread topics.

You mentioned the re-investigation. I simply asked if the remit in your signature was in relation to that or the review.

[Sunny]

There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance.



The above are the verbatim words of PD Carmo from the video interview


Once again... You are totally wrong

There is no fact at this point or evidence that suggests they were involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.



That is actually verbatim including "at this point". I suggest you look the word up Davel.

[Mr Gray]

There is no fact at this point or evidence that suggests they were involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.



That is actually verbatim including "at this point". I suggest you look the word up Davel.

Si now you accept I am correct that DA Carmo said no evidence...having made several posts disputing it

[Sunny]

Si now you accept I am correct that DA Carmo said no evidence...having made several posts disputing it

Of course, I assume you will also accept that when he used those words he also said "at this time".

[Mr Gray]

Of course, I assume you will also accept that when he used those words he also said "at this time".

No he didn't... He said at this point... He is being totally professional and accurate..... So 10 years on... No evidence that the mccanns are involved... And no evidence that anything has changed since he said this ...what is significant is that he says this now... Yet the initial investigation  thought there was... Proving they were wrong

[sadie]

What evidence - there isn't any apart from g k mcs say so.

There is loads, IMO, from careful analyses

If only I were able to share it 

[sadie]

Could you cite the dog handlers view on the dogs tracking... As John said Maddie followed this route everday so it could have been a scent left previously... If anything

And have we forgotten that if an abduction took place then the fear-sweaty hands of the abductor (lifter) would have been on the cue blanket used to give the dog a scent.  That scent would have been far stronger than the gentle scent of Madeleine and the dog would have followed the scent of the lifter rather than Madeleines scent, imo.

The dog would not know which was Madeleines scent and which was the lifters.  He would follow the strongest.


This explains why the scent previously thought to be Madeleines ended at the car park.  It seems that is where the abductor and his assistant/s (lifter/s) scent started; from a car parked there.

All IMO but entirely plausible and possible.

[sadie]

I agree... Maddie is almost certainly  dead

Sorry to disagree, but I am convinced that Madeleine was alive in 2012 .... and that she almost certainly still is.

[Mr Gray]

Sorry to disagree, but I am convinced that Madeleine was alive in 2012 .... and that she almost certainly still is.

I hope you are right