« Reply #1039 on: May 27, 2019, 11:56:31 AM »
That takes you right back to the old Jim Gamble paradox. How can someone with an operational insight of the case plausibly believe the child may have woke and wandered and exclude a staged abduction at the same time? That's what he has done publicly but he must know Madeleine's prints weren't on the window. IMO given his insight of the case by admitting the possibility that the child may have wandered from an unlocked apartment, he has to either be directly or indirectly admitting the possibility that there is more to this than has ever been revealed.
What other PLAUSIBLE excuses could there be for the window and the shutter?
Now we take the giant leap into complete fantasy IMO.
I'm sure there other causes.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 07:09:31 PM by Angelo222 »

Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum. This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.