What is the case for abduction

[gilet]

Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?

Total hypocrisy on their part.

The Smiths did not see an abductor  ...  they saw a man carrying a child

The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw

Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".

Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.

Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.

The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable.  My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.

[AnneGuedes]

Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?

Total hypocrisy on their part.

The Smiths did not see an abductor  ...  they saw a man carrying a child

The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw

Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".

Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.

Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.

The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable.  My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.

Gilet, how can you insist on this ? The nine members of the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl ! Had they seen an abductor, they would have stopped him for sure !

[gilet]

Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?

Total hypocrisy on their part.

The Smiths did not see an abductor  ...  they saw a man carrying a child

The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw

Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".

Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.

Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.

The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable.  My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.

Gilet, how can you insist on this ? The nine members of the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl ! Had they seen an abductor, they would have stopped him for sure !

Are you really asking such a ludicrous question? I can hardly believe it.

As a lecturer in languages, surely you can read clearly enough to realise that at no point have I said this family saw an abductor?  I have stated that they saw a potential abductor.

At the time they saw this man carrying a child they had no idea that a child was missing. 

By asking such a silly question you really not contributing to debate here.

And by deliberately playing down this clear evidence of a potential abductor without giving any reason for that dismissal, then you are showing your lack of interest in real truth.

[AnneGuedes]

Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?

Total hypocrisy on their part.

The Smiths did not see an abductor  ...  they saw a man carrying a child

The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw

Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".

Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.

Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.

The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable.  My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.

Gilet, how can you insist on this ? The nine members of the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl ! Had they seen an abductor, they would have stopped him for sure !

Are you really asking such a ludicrous question? I can hardly believe it.

As a lecturer in languages, surely you can read clearly enough to realise that at no point have I said this family saw an abductor?  I have stated that they saw a potential abductor.

At the time they saw this man carrying a child they had no idea that a child was missing. 

By asking such a silly question you really not contributing to debate here.

And by deliberately playing down this clear evidence of a potential abductor without giving any reason for that dismissal, then you are showing your lack of interest in real truth.

Really sad to read this.
Try and experiment asking Aoife whether she saw or not a potential abductor ! And why not a potential undertaker ?

[gilet]

Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.

If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.

Why are you posting such nonsense?

The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.

The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.

[AnneGuedes]

Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.

If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.

Why are you posting such nonsense?

The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.

The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.

Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !

[gilet]

Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.

If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.

Why are you posting such nonsense?

The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.

The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.

Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !

You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.

But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.

The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.

[AnneGuedes]

Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.

If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.

Why are you posting such nonsense?

The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.

The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.

Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !

You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.

But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.

The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.

Gilet, your sense of humour has to go to bed, meiner Ansicht nach.
The question of whether an abductor or a father or an uncle or... no I'm not saying it this time, I'm sparing you..., isn't the witness' problem. The witness is supposed to say what he/she saw, not to interpret it. Got it ?

[Benice]

Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.

If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.

Why are you posting such nonsense?

The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.

The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.

Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !

You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.

But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.

The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.

Gilet, your sense of humour has to go to bed, meiner Ansicht nach.
The question of whether an abductor or a father or an uncle or... no I'm not saying it this time, I'm sparing you..., isn't the witness' problem. The witness is supposed to say what he/she saw, not to interpret it. Got it ?

But didn't Mr. Smith put his own interpretation on the way Gerry was carrying his child from the plane?  You don't seem to have a problem with that.

[ferryman]

Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?

Total hypocrisy on their part.

The Smiths did not see an abductor  ...  they saw a man carrying a child

The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw

...that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw

I'll lay odds that's the wrong tense.

I doubt he thinks the same now ...

[Benice]

I think we can forgive Gerry McCann for not regarding the scene through cold clinical eyes as a crime scene in those first few moments.  Well I can anyway.     Unfortunately we cannot say the same about the GNR/dogs etc who also contributed to the contamination of 5A but were not in the same emotional state as the McCanns and their friends and as police officers should have known better.

Well, Benice, for the same reason you forgive Mr McCann, I'm amazed a cultured man manipulated a piece of evidence instead of running like a mad man sobbing and screaming his adored daughter's name.
Numi, if I may, was brought inside in order to find a trail ! Unfortunately they didn't open the patio doors, so we don't know where the freshest trail started.

I think you will find there is ample evidence of GM's escalating panic and fear as he searched frantically for his daughter - from several witnesses.

I'm amazed that anyone would expect him to think and behave like a policeman at such a time. 
IMO that was the GNR's sole responsibility.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

AnneGuedes

Numi, if I may, was brought inside in order to find a trail ! Unfortunately they didn't open the patio doors, so we don't know where the freshest trail started.

I am struggling to understand that.

[AnneGuedes]

Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.

If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.

Why are you posting such nonsense?

The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.

The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.

Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !

You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.

But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.

The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.

Gilet, your sense of humour has to go to bed, meiner Ansicht nach.
The question of whether an abductor or a father or an uncle or... no I'm not saying it this time, I'm sparing you..., isn't the witness' problem. The witness is supposed to say what he/she saw, not to interpret it. Got it ?

But didn't Mr. Smith put his own interpretation on the way Gerry was carrying his child from the plane?  You don't seem to have a problem with that.

Mr Smith had a feeling, Benice, that the man he had seen could be X. As this is not a fact, it can't be interpreted. Unless Mr X says "it was me", Mr Smith's feeling has no value in court, but could orientate the police towards an abductor with Mr X's gait. Too late.

[Lace]

There were sightings of a man hanging around the apartment seen by witnesses.

Where is this man?    why hasn't he come forward?

Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child.

The Smiths saw a man carrying a child.

Both Jane Tanner and the Smiths describe the man and the child, that they saw.      The description of the man and child are almost the same.  Same light coloured trousers.  Same dark top.  The man didn't look like a tourist.    The child was blonde,  the child was not a baby about 3/4 years old.   The child was barefoot.   These sightings are therefore evidence that it could have been Madeleine being abducted.

There are witnesses to say that Gerry McCann was at the Tapas Bar when the Smiths saw the man carrying the child.    That rules Gerry out as being the man that the Smiths saw.