The timeline revisited

[G-Unit]

😁 Really!!

Except in sceptic minds, hearts and fora, where does this delusional insistence feature in the investigation by SY - PJ - BKA.

Investigators generally follow whatever evidence there is - I think that is part of their training - and although I think they will evaluate what witnesses have to say - I think it is utter balderdash (not to say insulting) to subscribe to the fallacy that they are swayed by a small group of witnesses.

They are professionals ~ not bloggers 😁

I really can't believe you'te trying to deny that abduction has been the only crime mentioned by the McCanns, their family and friends, their supporters and Operation Grange.

A C Rowley 2017

"In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction."

[Mr Gray]

I really can't believe you'te trying to deny that abduction has been the only crime mentioned by the McCanns, their family and friends, their supporters and Operation Grange.

A C Rowley 2017

"In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction."

Finding the window open would suggest abduction to the McCanns. it seems like garlic to a vampire to some

[G-Unit]

Finding the window open would suggest abduction to the McCanns. it seems like garlic to a vampire to some

"plenty of evidence for abduction for those of us who understand what evidence means"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg256029#msg256029

[Mr Gray]

"plenty of evidence for abduction for those of us who understand what evidence means"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg256029#msg256029

There is plenty of evidence of abduction... Some posters confuse evidence and proof

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Finding the window open would suggest abduction to the McCanns. it seems like garlic to a vampire to some

What did forensic evidence suggest in terms of who might have opened the window?

[Brietta]

I really can't believe you'te trying to deny that abduction has been the only crime mentioned by the McCanns, their family and friends, their supporters and Operation Grange.

A C Rowley 2017

"In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction."

What on earth has your post got to do with anything let alone revisiting timelines of the 3rd May 2007.  But whatever it is I think you picked exactly the wrong cite to illustrate it.

I suggest you pop back and reread the whole of the question and answer session without prejudice ... and give a little thought to what the man is actually saying and not what you think he should be saying



Interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April 2017.

What we started with here was something extraordinary.  We started with 40,000 documents.

We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation
and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work
and we did appeals to the public,
four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible.

Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort.

It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on.  And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and
focusing our attention and making progress.

And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that
together and that takes real time.

So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining
number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant.

If we didn’t think they were significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.

            ___________________________________________________________________

Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?

MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

What on earth has your post got to do with anything let alone revisiting timelines of the 3rd May 2007.  But whatever it is I think you picked exactly the wrong cite to illustrate it.

I suggest you pop back and reread the whole of the question and answer session without prejudice ... and give a little thought to what the man is actually saying and not what you think he should be saying



Interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April 2017.

What we started with here was something extraordinary.  We started with 40,000 documents.

We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation
and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work
and we did appeals to the public,
four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible.

Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort.

It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on.  And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and
focusing our attention and making progress.

And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that
together and that takes real time.

So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining
number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant.

If we didn’t think they were significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.

            ___________________________________________________________________

Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?

MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm

And what did their "forensic analysis of the timeline" lead them to see as being probable points of significance? 1. Tannerman was almost certainly not an abductor. 2. Smithman is almost certainly someone of significant importance. They want to identify him. (Crimewatch 2013)

[G-Unit]

What on earth has your post got to do with anything let alone revisiting timelines of the 3rd May 2007.  But whatever it is I think you picked exactly the wrong cite to illustrate it.

I suggest you pop back and reread the whole of the question and answer session without prejudice ... and give a little thought to what the man is actually saying and not what you think he should be saying



Interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April 2017.

What we started with here was something extraordinary.  We started with 40,000 documents.

We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation
and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work
and we did appeals to the public,
four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible.

Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort.

It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on.  And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and
focusing our attention and making progress.

And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that
together and that takes real time.

So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining
number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant.

If we didn’t think they were significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.

            ___________________________________________________________________

Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?

MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm

My post says what it's about; your attempts to suggest that abduction was not the mantra of the McCanns, their family and friends, supporters and Op Grange. Of course it was.

[Vertigo Swirl]

My post says what it's about; your attempts to suggest that abduction was not the mantra of the McCanns, their family and friends, supporters and Op Grange. Of course it was.

It’s not a “mantra”, it’s the only plausible logical and plausible explanation when taking into account all the known facts.  IMO.

[Wonderfulspam]

It’s not a “mantra”, it’s the only plausible logical and plausible explanation when taking into account all the known facts. IMO.

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

the lack of any convincing rebuttal to the statement in 14+ years makes me quite confident that it is, whether you like it or not.

[G-Unit]

It’s not a “mantra”, it’s the only plausible logical and plausible explanation when taking into account all the known facts.  IMO.

There's nothing implausible and illogical about a child leaving 5A through patio doors left unlocked for that exact purpose.

[Mr Gray]

There's nothing implausible and illogical about a child leaving 5A through patio doors left unlocked for that exact purpose.

And theres nothing implausible or illogical about an abduction. If you accept Maddie was able to leave the aot unnoticed then you must accept that CB could have entered unnoticed. Then of course would Maddie have closed doors and gates behind her

[Vertigo Swirl]

There's nothing implausible and illogical about a child leaving 5A through patio doors left unlocked for that exact purpose.

And then what?  Fill in all the plausible, logical gaps.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And theres nothing implausible or illogical about an abduction. If you accept Maddie was able to leave the aot unnoticed then you must accept that CB could have entered unnoticed. Then of course would Maddie have closed doors and gates behind her

Nope.  G-Unit steadfastly maintains abduction by a stranger is neither logical nor plausible.  Go figure.