Glove Prints

[jassi]

But that reflects back to the person saying it as in "You are not making sense".

And what's wrong with that ?
It's not like saying " I consider you a complete idiot for even suggesting such a stupid idea" is it ?

I think moderation should be based on what people actually say, not what moderators think they say

[Holly Goodhead]

lol well it can't support the theory if it doesn't exist. If witnesses had mentioned a car then I would look closer.

The only reason I Can think of for MBM's scent to stop suddenly was; if she woke and wandered in her bare feet and got picked up at the spot mentioned.

This could be picked up by a stranger or someone known to her can carried back to the flat or somewhere else.

There's no need for the lol.  What evidence exists that a car was or wasn't involved?

Its entirely possible MM was placed in a car in the immediate vicinity which corresponds with the GNR search and rescue dogs.  If MM was taken to an apartment then I would expect the dogs to indicate at the doors.

[Holly Goodhead]

Not in my opinion.
If a car had been seen driving off, it would be valid to claim that Madeleine might have been in it, even though she wasn't observed.
To say there might have been a car that might have contained Madeleine is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

If a car was used in the immediate vicinity who would you expect to observe such?

What evidence do you have that MM was not placed in a car in the immediate vicinity?

[jassi]

If a car was used in the immediate vicinity who would you expect to observe such?

What evidence do you have that MM was not placed in a car in the immediate vicinity?

A witness.

In reply to the 2nd sentence, there was no witness.

Just how far do you think police are prepared to go on pure supposition?

[Robittybob1]

And what's wrong with that ?
It's not like saying " I consider you a complete idiot for even suggesting such a stupid idea" is it ?

I think moderation should be based on what people actually say, not what moderators think they say

Well if Hmm are not allowed.  I tend to think it has gone overboard too.   That is why I asked a poster "are you thick?"  Some posters even admit to being thick.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10908.msg547217#msg547217

[Miss Taken Identity]

There's no need for the lol.  What evidence exists that a car was or wasn't involved?

Its entirely possible MM was placed in a car in the immediate vicinity which corresponds with the GNR search and rescue dogs.  If MM was taken to an apartment then I would expect the dogs to indicate at the doors.

The lol reflects my mood and response to someone making a theory which includes  an imaginary/invention of a  car- I find that funny. As you are claiming yours is evidence based- So sue me.

"What evidence exists that a car was or wasn't involved?"



Evidence there was no car would be the absence of witnesesses.
The evidence of there being a car used to carry abductor and child would require witnesses to place it where you claim it was.

Anything is possible, doesn't make your theory believable though IMO.

"If MM was taken to an apartment then I would expect the dogs to indicate at the doors."

If she walked out in bare feet and scent was fiollowed - then carried- the scent would have stopped at the point where she was picked up. That is the point I was making. So there would be no scents at doors!

[jassi]

Well if Hmm are not allowed.  I tend to think it has gone overboard too.   That is why I asked a poster "are you thick?"  Some posters even admit to being thick.

It is my observation that those who claim to be thick are usually anything but, whereas those who claim uber intelligence usually aren't

[Robittybob1]

It is my observation that those who claim to be thick are usually anything but, whereas those who claim uber intelligence usually aren't

OMG !

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is my observation that those who claim to be thick are usually anything but, whereas those who claim uber intelligence usually aren't

Self praise hath no worth! I use 'Hmm' and 'MBM' there is absolutely nothung wrong with either, but used as a stick to beat me with by mods and supporters alike.. which is hilarious as it has the opposite effect!

I do enjoy reading theories, If they have circumstancial evidence of motive,opportunity and credability I will commend it as a possibility. not having a car would crash out many abduction to order theories.

[Anthro]

According to the PJ files, the front door has a round knob. A key has to be used when one is on the outside but exiting from the inside, one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it.

[Holly Goodhead]

A witness.

In reply to the 2nd sentence, there was no witness.

Just how far do you think police are prepared to go on pure supposition?

It was low season.  Some of the apartments were empty.  It was dark or darkish and by most accounts quite chilly.  Why would you expect witnesses to necessarily be around to observe?  Even if they did they might deem it irrelevant.  JT observed 'Tannerman' but GM and JW didn't.  And after all this it seems 'Tannerman' was simply Dr Totman.  Did anyone else observe Tannerman?  A man carrying a child moves a lot slower than a moving car.

It is not pure supposition hence Ian Horrocks, a police officer of long experience, incorporates it in his theory.

[Holly Goodhead]

According to the PJ files, the front door has a round knob. A key has to be used when one is on the outside but exiting from the inside, one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it.

Thanks anthro1967.

[barrier]

But it doesn't exclude it either.  Therefore it is valid to include it in a theory.

Horse and cart next.

[jassi]

It was low season.  Some of the apartments were empty.  It was dark or darkish and by most accounts quite chilly.  Why would you expect witnesses to necessarily be around to observe?  Even if they did they might deem it irrelevant.  JT observed 'Tannerman' but GM and JW didn't.  And after all this it seems 'Tannerman' was simply Dr Totman.  Did anyone else observe Tannerman?  A man carrying a child moves a lot slower than a moving car.

It is not pure supposition hence Ian Horrocks, a police officer of long experience, incorporates it in his theory.

How is it not supposition?  Where is there positive evidence of there being a car at that time & place?

I'm afraid I don't place much weight on the view of a retired detective working for the Sun newspaper

[Robittybob1]

According to the PJ files, the front door has a round knob. A key has to be used when one is on the outside but exiting from the inside, one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it.

Look at the video. They have to activate the lever to close it.  No this can't be done "one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it".