The timeline revisited

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thank you. Abduction, as I stated, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt will have to fit in with existing testimony. Unless the testimony was to change, and then the change would have to be explained. Can you think of a proven abduction charge has just rested on “the person was with you so you abducted them”? A murder charge could rest on evidence outside of an abduction possibly. Concealment of a corpse would also not necessarily rely on being responsible for either abduction or murder. All this is pure speculation though as we know that to date there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence for any of those charges to be made against anyone.

I can’t think of a single abduction charge where a defendant  was found not guilty because there were slight disrepancies in the victim’s friends’ and family’s timeline, no.

[G-Unit]

What else could you call it if Madeleine was enticed into a car by a stranger?  Going for a joyride?

Abduction. From a place where she most definitely shouldn't have been.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Abduction. From a place where she most definitely shouldn't have been.

So you’re talking nonsense by putting forward this scenario and suggesting that abduction in such a scenario can’t be assumed.

[Mr Gray]

Abduction. From a place where she most definitely shouldn't have been.

So abduction

[Eleanor]

Maybe it depends if the whimsy has libellous connotations as to whether or not it should be tolerated, eh?  IMO there appears to be an undercurrent of "well it's all the parents fault if Madeleine was abducted anyway" to some of the more recent posts on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong?

You are not wrong.

[jassi]

Seems to be?  Not from where I am watching.

Ok. Is mocking a theory not a person.

[G-Unit]

Maybe it depends if the whimsy has libellous connotations as to whether or not it should be tolerated, eh?  IMO there appears to be an undercurrent of "well it's all the parents fault if Madeleine was abducted anyway" to some of the more recent posts on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong?

Libellous connotations was not the reason given for the objection raised. A post was criticised for being 'whimsy' on what was claimed to be a 'fact based' forum. My objection was that the forum is not fact based, and to prove my point I quoted what I see as an extremely whimsical theory which has been repeatedly posted here.

[Eleanor]

Libellous connotations was not the reason given for the objection raised. A post was criticised for being 'whimsy' on what was claimed to be a 'fact based' forum. My objection was that the forum is not fact based, and to prove my point I quoted what I see as an extremely whimsical theory which has been repeatedly posted here.

And will continue to be so if the member so chooses.

[jassi]

And will continue to be so if the member so chooses.

Then you shouldn't object if it gets ridiculed.

[Eleanor]

Then you shouldn't object if it gets ridiculed.

The tone of the comment was unacceptable.  And you jolly well know it.

[G-Unit]

Ok. Is mocking a theory not a person.

Thank you for seeing and pointing out the difference Jassi.

[G-Unit]

And will continue to be so if the member so chooses.

Which means that others can post whimsical theories if they wish.

[Eleanor]

Why the need to Mock in the first place?

[G-Unit]

One of the reasons I joined the forum was the amount of speculation and opinion which was being posted as fact. I have endeavoured ever since to encourage members to post cites to support their 'factual' posts.

[jassi]

Unlike supporters, sceptics have a wide range of opinions and uncertainties.  IMO