What do you think happened to Madeleine?

[icabodcrane]

For Tim Invictus:

Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga."  I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.

Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone.  A cover story.

I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.

Thank you for finally answering.

There is loads of evidence that Madeleine was abducted, but closed-minded people like you choose to ignore it.  There is none whatsoever for the lurid theory you have proposed.

Lurid? Strange word to use!

I freely admit I am no expert on the McCann case; why don't you state the 'loads of evidence' and enlighten me? I was of the opinion that Maddy's disappearance was a mystery!

I'm no expert either,  and I'd like to know what this load of evidence consists of too

[Benice]

For Tim Invictus:

Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga."  I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.

Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone.  A cover story.

I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.

That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed - it means no evidence was found.  Whether that is because it wasn't there or because it was overlooked - we shall never know.

[ferryman]

For Tim Invictus:

Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga."  I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.

Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone.  A cover story.

I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.

That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed - it means no evidence was found.  Whether that is because it wasn't there or because it was overlooked - we shall never know.

There is evidence Madeleine was abducted. 

There is DNA recovered from the apartment that could not be ascribed to the profiles of anyone known.  Of course, it might have been the DNA of previous visitors.  Or it might have been the DNA of the abductor.

Most crucially, there is the sighting of Jane Tanner and there is the sighting of the Smith family, at a time when Gerry was in the restaurant.  Aofe Smith stated that the little girl the man was carrying could have been Madeleine.

[Benice]

For Tim Invictus:

Would you PLEASE explain what you mean by "the tapas bar saga."  I asked you to do this right after the post where you first mentioned it, and several other posters have also asked.

Oops sorry I missed your question. Perhaps saga is the wrong description; I don't believe all the others there were involved with the McCann's who were using the night out at the tapas bar so they could then have a reason (not excuse) for leaving the kiddies alone.  A cover story.

I would like to stress (before my ankles get snapped at again) this is just my opinion of what happened and I freely admit there is no evidence to support my opinion just as there is no evidence Maddy was abducted.

That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed - it means no evidence was found.  Whether that is because it wasn't there or because it was overlooked - we shall never know.

There is evidence Madeleine was abducted. 

There is DNA recovered from the apartment that could not be ascribed to the profiles of anyone known.  Of course, it might have been the DNA of previous visitors.  Or it might have been the DNA of the abductor.

Most crucially, there is the sighting of Jane Tanner and there is the sighting of the Smith family, at a time when Gerry was in the restaurant.  Aofe Smith stated that the little girl the man was carrying could have been Madeleine.

I take you point Ferryman, but as the mantra of  'there is no evidence of abduction' is usually referring to  the apartment - I was only commenting on that  - but I confess I had forgotten about the unidentified DNA .

Personally I would also include the open shutters and window as evidence - as I believe one hotel employee (Amy Tierney) also saw them open - and I cannot believe the McCanns would be so dimwitted as to NOT realise that they would need to make it look as if the shutters had been forced and that marks would have to be made on the window ledge - if it was part of a 'cover plan' to convince the Pj that an abductor had broken in in that way.






   

[Tim Invictus]

With all due respect at best those points could be considered indicators of a possible abduction; there appears to be no direct evidence of abduction.

I am not being deliberately obtuse; I hope you're right and Maddy was abducted (however appalling that maybe) as that is the only possible way I see she can still be alive!

[AnneGuedes]

The blood DNA didn't belong to a single person, hence no hope of identification. No evidence.

[Tim Invictus]

Tim - did you ever address my question regarding the man seen carrying a child by Jane Tanner?  I can't find your response.  I ask because you say you don't believe the McCann friends are involved in a cover-up so do you not see this piece of evidence as rather important considering the time and place of the sighting and the fact that no onehas ever come forward to be eliminated?

Please excuse me Martha I missed your question.

I was just answering an overall question about what I 'think' happened to Madeleine.  I used the term "if I had to place a large bet" which is a not very good way of saying "if I had to express an opinion".  I freely admit I am by no means an expert on this case.

I don't believe any friend would lie to help coverup the disappearance of a child by the parents; shame on anyone who would do that. I am not sure what to think of Jane Tanner's sighting; I tend to believe her but have no idea if this sighting is sinister or something completely innocent.

You could shorten this post to "i do not have a clue"!  8-)(--)

[Angelo222]

The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene.  I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.

As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion.  You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!

Why don't you believe them Tim when the child was clearly there one minute and gone by the next as both parents enjoyed a night out??   I cannot understand your logic in making such a statement.  Maybe you can explain??

[Tim Invictus]

The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene.  I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.

As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion.  You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!

Why don't you believe them Tim when the child was clearly there one minute and gone by the next as both parents enjoyed a night out??   I cannot understand your logic in making such a statement.  Maybe you can explain??

Well my first comment on your post is they shouldn't have been 'enjoying a night out' and left those kiddies alone.

I freely admit I know little about this case and I further admit that my thoughts are based upon little more than a gut feeling. This is the reaction I had watching the case develop at the time and watching the McCann's being interviewed. In short, I just didn't believe them.

I may well be completely wrong. I am not trying to upset McCann supporters and quite frankly I am shocked at the open hostility displayed by some of their 'fans'. It is just my opinion on a case that is widely debated in the public domain.

The McCann's should never have left those kiddies alone. They should never have used the Maddy fund to pay their own mortgage and for jaunts to Rome, etc. The management of the fund should have been independent and transparent and it hasn't been. Kate's book has been criticised for mentioning things to do with Maddy that should never have been addressed and there have been questions again about who has benefited from the proceeds of this book.

These things do not paint the McCann's in a very favourable light and I think it is quite legitimate for even casual observers who have not studied the case to have and express their suspicions. It's about time some of the McCann's more ardent supporters learned to accept this fact.

And before you ask, no I haven't read Kate McCann's book. I would rather use the money to pay my own mortgage, not hers!

[Joanne]

Tim-I agree.

[Redblossom]

What is odd here is that for some people it is a total anathema, akin to a moral crime being  committed that anyone could even begin to  suspect that either parent could have been responsible, IMO that is nothing less than cultish or personal delusion for some reason

In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime

And historical reality has proved exactly the opposite in many cases.

To others it is a moral crime to ask questions. Sad and ridiculous state of affairs overall.

[Redblossom]

Do the police usually discuss their suspicions in public on the internet for the whole world to read?  In a snide, bitchy, p......y style?

Why are you leaping into unrelated different pastures? Totally unrelated to the crux of my post which you obviously either did not understand or more probably chose to ignore.

Start a new thread about horrible *.........* on the internet, would be more appropriate

[Tim Invictus]

What is odd here is that for some people it is a total anathema, akin to a moral crime being  committed that anyone could even begin to  suspect that either parent could have been responsible, IMO that is nothing less than cultish or personal delusion for some reason

In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime

And historical reality has proved exactly the opposite in many cases.

To others it is a moral crime to ask questions. Sad and ridiculous state of affairs overall.

Well said Red .... why McCann fans take any questioning as a personal affront is quite beyond me!

[Redblossom]

Redblossom, perhaps you could explain what you meant by this (rather strange) sentence then?

In their minds and world all police would be guilty of this awful crime

It was to that which I was responding, but granted I may have misunderstood your meaning.

The simple point is that it seems to be an anathema to suspect or voice this, and if you do you are x y z, that is all and you know it.

[AnneGuedes]

Well said Red .... why McCann fans take any questioning as a personal affront is quite beyond me!

Beyond me too. Who or what are they protecting actually ?