Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Wonderfulspam]

My opinion has only strengthened since the Germans got involved.  I always said that the most plausible and logical explanation was that a local paedophile took Madeleine and this is exactly the same conclusion they have drawn from the total sum of evidence they have amassed, I believe it is also the same conclusion as arrived at by the Metropolitan Police.  Now do explain why we’re all hopelessly misguided won’t you please?

Because the evidence against Brueckner is flimsy.

No forensics & the best example of evidence presented so far is that a criminal said that Brueckner said he dunnit.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because the evidence against Brueckner is flimsy.

No forensics & the best example of evidence presented so far is that a criminal said that Brueckner said he dunnit.

The evidence against the McCanns is flimsy, especially that which I highlighted in my previous post yet you fervently believe that amounts to compelling evidence.

[Wonderfulspam]

The evidence against the McCanns is flimsy, especially that which I highlighted in my previous post yet you fervently believe that amounts to compelling evidence.

When have I ever said that?

[Mr Gray]

Your comments about Billy's posts and motives are opinions and should be identified as such. How do you describe 'disruption'? Posting on-topic without insulting other members is not disruption in my opinion.

I think Billy summarised the reasons for the suspicions the first investigation developed very well;

"There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wander at night."

As opposed to the evidence supporting the theory of stranger abduction;

"apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory."




Speculation and invention has been utilised to support the abduction theory, rather than evidence imo. The conclusions the first investigation reached may be wrong, but the evidence used is there for all to see.

The first investigation thought the main evidence against the parents was the dog alerts... That just about sums  up the first investigation and those who give it any credibility

[Vertigo Swirl]

When have I ever said that?

So you don’t think Smith’s evidence is compelling?  Yet you always seem utterly convinced it was Gerry marching through town with his daughter’s corpse, and the only evidence for this is Smith’s statement.  I hope that answers your question.

[Eleanor]

My opinion has only strengthened since the Germans got involved.  I always said that the most plausible and logical explanation was that a local paedophile took Madeleine and this is exactly the same conclusion they have drawn from the total sum of evidence they have amassed, I believe it is also the same conclusion as arrived at by the Metropolitan Police.  Now do explain why we’re all hopelessly misguided won’t you please?

I can't quite do this.  My mind goes blank, although I don't know why.  I have tried.  But it doesn't alter the fact that I believe Madeleine was abducted by someone. And that paedophiles were around.

Too long now for The McCanns to be responsible with absolutely nothing to show for that.  But then it took me about a week to spot the flaws with all of the If, Buts and Maybes of the disgraceful British Press.
But it was nearly fifteen years ago.  Although I am still cross with myself that it took a week.

Brueckner?  I truly can't get there.  Perhaps I have become too entrenched in Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
But this is not a bad place in which to be.

[Wonderfulspam]

So you don’t think Smith’s evidence is compelling?  Yet you always seem utterly convinced it was Gerry marching through town, and the only evidence for this is Smith’s statement.  I hope that answers your question.

There's other evidence Gerry was out in the streets, he went off searching, allegedly.

[Eleanor]

The first investigation thought the main evidence against the parents was the dog alerts... That just about sums  up the first investigation and those who give it any credibility

I think it was a bit more ridiculous than just that.  Amaral desperately wanted The McCanns to be responsible to save his own hide from The Cipriano Case.

[Eleanor]

There's other evidence Gerry was out in the streets, he went off searching, allegedly.

Goodness me.  What a very strange thing to do when his daughter was missing.

[Wonderfulspam]

Goodness me.  What a very strange thing to do when his daughter was missing.

Well, it's never been explained where exactly he searched, & if you read the rogs, according to Russell it was Gerry who suggested everyone to split up & find her to see if she just wandered out, even though he allegedly knew only abduction was logical & plausible since he'd seen the open window & shutters.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There's other evidence Gerry was out in the streets, he went off searching, allegedly.

Oh?  What carrying a corpse?  Don’t you think in light of the fact that his wife had just announced his daughter’s disappearance that searching the streets might have been plausible logical behaviour?

[Wonderfulspam]

Oh?  What carrying a corpse?  Don’t you think in light of the fact that his wife had just announced his daughter’s disappearance that searching the streets might have been plausible logical behaviour?

Yes, but, pretending to search alone whilst moving his daughters corpse is also plausible.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes, but, pretending to search alone whilst moving his daughters corpse is also plausible.

No it isn’t, it’s incredibly implausible IMO.

[Wonderfulspam]

No it isn’t, it’s incredibly implausible IMO.

Yes, that's just your opinion.

I think sending everyone off in another direction would be a good way of distracting them whilst you do something else.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes, that's just your opinion.

I think sending everyone off in another direction would be a good way of distracting them whilst you do something else.

Did he?  Did he know in advance that they would all stick to his orders?  That no one would come running after him to tell him or ask him something?  That he wouldn’t pass someone in the street who worked at the OC who knew him?  That the police hadn’t already been called?  Why didn’t he hide the body before the alarm was raised later in the evening and then stage the abduction reveal for when they were all turning in for the night?  Wouldn’t that make more sense?  Fewer people about and certainly no one searching for starters.