Abduction ... what is the evidence ?

[icabodcrane]

Mates?   Are they his mates?

His presence has been verified by everyone who was sat there at 10pm and the waiters and the Club nanny.  Not even a NASA satellite can help with this one!   

The only truely independant witness statements I can find in the police files that refer to the table being unoccupied   ( the McCann group having already left )  are from the waiter who took  O Briens steak back to keep warm,  and a chef who was leaving work through the Tapas bar

Both say that the table was already empty by 9.45pm    ( apart from Diane Webster ) 

I can reference the statements if you wish

Can you give me a reference   to  the waiters  and Nanny  who placed Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm  ?

thanks

[Heriberto Janosch]

Times are given very approximately in eyewitness testimony. Except for those which have a reason to be more precise. It is the case of MMMS http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm or the Smiths ...

In MMMS statement we read "that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58. She remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge" [...] "that it wasn't yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement was nill" [...] "Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions" ...

So at 22:00 the alarm was not probably raised yet ... And most of the McCann group were at the Tapas Bar table ...

Heri.

 

[xtina]

Xtina.  Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.

In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time.  Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.

thank you for the welcome..have now introduced my self...[have also seen the correction in the mcann files]about g mcc being at the table at 10 pm..


this is the thing though about all this no one actually knows who was where or doing what ...like the time line that first said the children were being checked every fifteen minuets ..then it was half an hour ...yet the check from 9 15 turned out to be 45 min's  [10 0clock]

there is two things here what happened ...either maddie was abducted ..or she wasn't..

why should the abduction be the only one that is true ...when there is nothing to support it ..not one shread of evidence ...apart from j/t reporting she had seen a child being carried away ..five ....hours later yet k mcc knew straight away maddie had been abducted [why]...yet she let no end of people into the apartment 

[C.Edwards]

So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling  "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect",  was she speaking to a ghost.   Come on guys ...get real!

Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!

Come on debunker. You've had ages to address this post and you're failing to do so.  Where is John's supporting evidence. You say nothing is valid or up for discussion without said evidence.  Where is the nanny statement he's referring to in his previous post?

"Neutral"?  yeah, 'course you are.

[faithlilly]

I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)

I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.

To be honest if 8 or 9 people say something is so then it would be very hard for the PJ to prove otherwise. The bald fact is that there is no independent witnesses who place Gerry at the tapas table from 9.30 onwards which certainly leaves own the possibility that the Smith family did indeed see Gerry.

[xtina]

So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling  "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect",  was she speaking to a ghost.   Come on guys ...get real!

Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!

silly thing to do then don't you think.....running out to the bar when you think your child has been abducted what if abductor/abductors had still been in the apartment...[they could have lost another child...

if they were so near the apartment wouldn't she have been better yelling for help

[gilet]

So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling  "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect",  was she speaking to a ghost.   Come on guys ...get real!

Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!

silly thing to do then don't you think.....running out to the bar when you think your child has been abducted what if abductor/abductors had still been in the apartment...[they could have lost another child...

if they were so near the apartment wouldn't she have been better yelling for help

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1126.msg32623#msg32623

[C.Edwards]

Why do you think Amaral discounted this possibility at the time?

How do you know he did?

Why was Gerry  McCann never asked by police if he had been carrying a child around PdL at around 10pm that evening?

How do you know he wasn't?

You seem to assume that the police have revealed every single bit of information they have.
There are things that have come to light since Amaral was removed from the investigation that may, for all we know, have changed his angle of questioning/beliefs about the case.

I will state again that the police (certainly in this country and I have no reason to believe it's different abroad) even though they may pretty much know full well what's happened will not prosecute whilst there is insufficient evidence to do so.  As has been pointed out by none other than debunker, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Just because the McCanns have not, as yet, been charged with anything does not mean they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Yes, it *might* mean that, but it's not a logical conclusion to continually say, "well why haven't they been charged yet if they dunnit?"  The police have plenty of evidence of all sorts which point the finger firmly at a coverup of sorts. What they don't have is admissible evidence that implicates the McCanns to a point whereby a prosecution would be successful.

What is clear to all but you blinkered sorts is that there are all sorts of discrepancies and bits of odd, if not inexplicable, behaviour that leaves a far from clean slate for the McCanns.  That you are unable to separate this point of view from that of what you would call a "[ censored word ]" or "[ censored word ]" says more about your mental faculties than it does for anyone that doubts them.

[Chinagirl]

I will state again that the police (certainly in this country and I have no reason to believe it's different abroad) even though they may pretty much know full well what's happened will not prosecute whilst there is insufficient evidence to do so.  As has been pointed out by none other than debunker, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Just because the McCanns have not, as yet, been charged with anything does not mean they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Yes, it *might* mean that, but it's not a logical conclusion to continually say, "well why haven't they been charged yet if they dunnit?"  The police have plenty of evidence of all sorts which point the finger firmly at a coverup of sorts. What they don't have is admissible evidence that implicates the McCanns to a point whereby a prosecution would be successful.

This is simply a cop-out - an excuse to continue hounding the family of a missing child, to suggest that the police have evidence against the McCanns, but insufficient to bring a prosecution.  You are overlooking the basic legal tenent of the presumption of innocence.

Scotland Yard are currently doing a review.  I cannot believe that they would continue to spend taxpayers' money on this review if they already had some evidence pointing to the parents, even if insufficient to take to court.  The exercise would simply have been wound down by now.

[John]

My own experience of the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities is that if in doubt...PROSECUTE.

The fact that they did not do so in the Madeleine McCann case speaks volumes....they just had no way of securing any conviction against anyone.

Please enlighten us Chinagirl, what is this evidence of a cover-up?

[John]

Please moderate the language folks...thank you.

[Chinagirl]

@ John:

Please enlighten us Chinagirl, what is this evidence of a cover-up?

Where have I talked of a cover-up???

[John]

I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)

I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.

To be honest if 8 or 9 people say something is so then it would be very hard for the PJ to prove otherwise. The bald fact is that there is no independent witnesses who place Gerry at the tapas table from 9.30 onwards which certainly leaves own the possibility that the Smith family did indeed see Gerry.

Why are you insisting with this nonsense when it is factually incorrect?

The entire tapas bar including the 'friends', the staff and the nanny but to mention a few evidenced Gerry McCann's presence at the table in the tapas bar where they were at various stages in their main course meal.

When Kate returned to the table after finding Maddie gone her first words were  "Gerry...Madeleine's gone"  Was Kate speaking to a ghost?   If Gerry was hundreds of yards away and being seen by Mr Smith, who was eating his dinner?

A bit of common sense please!

[John]

@ John:

Please enlighten us Chinagirl, what is this evidence of a cover-up?

Where have I talked of a cover-up???

I do apologise...I misread.   

Can you forgive me??   

[icabodcrane]

I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)

I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.

To be honest if 8 or 9 people say something is so then it would be very hard for the PJ to prove otherwise. The bald fact is that there is no independent witnesses who place Gerry at the tapas table from 9.30 onwards which certainly leaves own the possibility that the Smith family did indeed see Gerry.

Why are you insisting with this nonsense when it is factually incorrect?

The entire tapas bar including the 'friends', the staff and the nanny but to mention a few evidenced Gerry McCann's presence at the table in the tapas bar where they were at various stages in their main course meal.

When Kate returned to the table after finding Maddie gone her first words were  "Gerry...Madeleine's gone"  Was Kate speaking to a ghost?   If Gerry was hundreds of yards away and being seen by Mr Smith, who was eating his dinner?

A bit of common sense please!

I believe it is you who is being factually incorrect John

I have asked,  earlier in the thread,  that you reference the evidence you base your statement that staff and a nanny place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm

Unless you can, you might think about adding it to your  'Myth'  thread