Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.

[sadie]

And as I said the only testimony placing Madeleine in that area was given by her father after the dogs had been deployed.

So ?

[Mr Gray]

So may 17 the head of the PJ admits there is no evidence against the mccanns but in Jan 17 the SC are claiming the mccanns have not been cleared...cleared of what.... And DA Carmo said No evidence... Not insufficient  evidence..

The ECHR case should be interesting.... Shame wr have to wait so long

[G-Unit]

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.

Did this hypothetical person pause to wipe his hands on the very towel used to dry Madeleine after her bath, too? What a coincidence!

[sadie]

There was only around 30 meters of footpath from the lane to the secondary gate.  What are the chances of an accident?  IMO the chances of an accident increase if for any reason the Tapas entrance door was closed at any stage coinciding with Madeleine's attempt to get to the table.

The Tapas door was open when we visited and ate there ... and there was an empty chair at a desk that appeared to be there for someone to monitor who entered.

I seem to remember that it was mentioned in one of the statements that an unknown man had been seen in the toilets there on the evening in question.  How did he get in, if the door was locked?

[Mr Gray]

Did this hypothetical person pause to wipe his hands on the very towel used to dry Madeleine after her bath, too? What a coincidence!

No but Kate would have.. So whose scent was the dog following ..ask the dogs

[G-Unit]

So ?

Just more of the uncorroberated evidence which abounds in this case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Would you both expect a running commentary?

No, I’m asking you what sort of evidence would you expect the police to have uncovered since the archiving report which turned the least likely scenario of woke and wandered into the most likely scenario?

[sadie]

Did this hypothetical person pause to wipe his hands on the very towel used to dry Madeleine after her bath, too? What a coincidence!

Seems it is quite possible, especially if it were left on the bed or hanging from the door knob.

The Mccanns were not too bothered about extreme tidyness ... and I like them for that

[G-Unit]

No but Kate would have.. So whose scent was the dog following ..ask the dogs

I would have thought they would have given the dog handlers something more personal, but perhaps they didn't have anything available at the time.

[Mr Gray]

I would have thought they would have given the dog handlers something more personal, but perhaps they didn't have anything available at the time.

So it's a bit vague

[sadie]

Just more of the uncorroberated evidence which abounds in this case.

I am sorry but I find your suspicious mind of everything the Mccanns do and say intolerable at times.

Have you analysed every word that Bens mother and grandparents used?

What about April Jones ?  Where have you analysd everything they said and did ?

Has it troubled you that both families allowed a small child not only out of sight, but to be in dangerous places.  One a tot playing where a giant digger was on the lose and one across the main road and also after dark


You and others on here seem to have double standards .... and can see no good in the Mccanns .

Why is that ?



Please note that I am not very happy having to use these examples because I basically think both sets of parents were generally good ones, but both made massive mistakes.  Do you acknowledge they made mistakes, Gunit?

[G-Unit]

I am sorry but I find your suspicious mind of everything the Mccanns do and say intolerable at times.

Have you analysed every word that Bens mother and grandparents used?

What about April Jones ?  Where have you analysd everything they said and did ?

Has it troubled you that both families allowed a small child not only out of sight, but to be in dangerous places.  One a tot playing where a giant digger was on the lose and one across the main road and also after dark


You and others on here seem to have double standards .... and can see no good in the Mccanns .

Why is that ?



Please note that I am not very happy having to use these examples because I basically think both sets of parents were generally good ones, but both made massive mistakes.  Do you acknowledge they made mistakes, Gunit?

We all have our own little ways, Sadie. Some of us examine the evidence which is documented, some of us prefer to discuss hypothetical situations.

snip/

They met in the middle of the road. .......
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg506199#msg506199

Neither Jes nor Gerry reported that, it's pure conjecture .

[Mr Gray]

We all have our own little ways, Sadie. Some of us examine the evidence which is documented, some of us prefer to discuss hypothetical situations.

snip/

They met in the middle of the road. .......
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg506199#msg506199

Neither Jes nor Gerry reported that, it's pure conjecture .

We have different opinions as to what constitutes evidence.... IMO much of what you think is evidence simply isnt

[sadie]

We all have our own little ways, Sadie. Some of us examine the evidence which is documented, some of us prefer to discuss hypothetical situations.

snip/

They met in the middle of the road. .......
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg506199#msg506199

Neither Jes nor Gerry reported that, it's pure conjecture .

Anything that I say IMO for is opinion, same as stuff that you also add IMO to.


However, the suffix IMO means, in my case, that I have studied the befores and afters and worked out a sensible scenario that fits and provides a sensible reason why certain things happened.  They call it "LOGIC" and "LATERAL THINKING".  It is Creative Investigation based upon logic

Unlike others, I do not allow myself to be RESTRICTED by what has accidentally been left out of statements; either by muddled thinking, memory loss or simply not thinking it important enough to record.

Tons will have been left out, but because it has not been recorded in statements, it doesn't necessarily mean that certain things did not happen.

In Gerrys case it is almost without doubt a muddled and memory loss situation.


No other sensible reason that I can think of why he should get it wrong.  No way that I can think of that his misremembering  could have benefitted him.

[faithlilly]

Anything that I say IMO for is opinion, same as stuff that you also add IMO to.


However, the suffix IMO means, in my case, that I have studied the befores and afters and worked out a sensible scenario that fits and provides a sensible reason why certain things happened.  They call it "LOGIC" and "LATERAL THINKING".  It is Creative Investigation based upon logic

Unlike others, I do not allow myself to be RESTRICTED by what has accidentally been left out of statements; either by muddled thinking, memory loss or simply not thinking it important enough to record.

Tons will have been left out, but because it has not been recorded in statements, it doesn't necessarily mean that certain things did not happen.

In Gerrys case it is almost without doubt a muddled and memory loss situation.


No other sensible reason that I can think of why he should get it wrong.  No way that I can think of that his misremembering  could have benefitted him.

Nope I’m afraid it’s simply called making things up.....IMO.