Amaral's OWN Private Investigation

[gilet]

There is quite a difference between the two scenarios though, there is not one scintilla of evidence of the first one but quite a large group of people did witness someone carrying a child of the same age as Madeleine in the area.

Yes I know

What I find unlikely is the McCann's suggestiion that it was the  same man Jane Tanner saw almost an hour before

As I say though,  it's not impossible  ...  none of the scenarios suggested have been proven to be impossible

I think there are just too many striking similarities between the man seen by the Smiths and the man JT saw for it to be two different men and too different little girls.  The fact that neither JT nor the Smiths knew of one anothers descriptions is very pertinent imo.     

There is no evidence at all to back up Amaral's 'fridge' theory.

Amaral's theory, however unevidenced, has not been proven to be impossible

Just as the abductor theory, equally unevidenced,   has not been proven impossible either

The claim that the fridge theory for which there is no evidence and the abduction theory are "equally unevidenced" is ridiculous.

It is a fact that there is no evidence at all for the fridge theory.

It is a fact that there is clear evidence of a possible abductor. There are a number of witnesses who have all testified to seeing a child being carried away from the vicinity of the apartment within an hour or so of the disappearance.

Neither of these possible abductors has ever come forward.

Suggesting that the two theories are "equally unevidenced" is simply not telling the truth and is utterly ridiculous.

[Benice]

JT didn't see a little girl, but legs.

She knew it wasn't a baby being carried, and so did the Smiths.

She saw that the child was wearing light coloured pajamas, and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child was not covered by a blanket and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child's feet were bare - and so did the Smiths.

Both JT and the Smiths said the man did not look like a tourist.

And then there are all the other similarities regarding the man himself.

Far too many for it to be a coincidence IMO.

[muratfan]

Well, feel free to provide a credible or even possible scenario that fits in with Amaral's theory. We have been waiting for it a long time.

Do I have time to put the kettle on

[Benice]

Well, feel free to provide a credible or even possible scenario that fits in with Amaral's theory. We have been waiting for it a long time.

Do I have time to put the kettle on

Two sugars for me please Muratfan.

[gilet]

JT didn't see a little girl, but legs.

She knew it wasn't a baby being carried, and so did the Smiths.

She saw that the child was wearing light coloured pajamas, and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child was not covered by a blanket and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child's feet were bare - and so did the Smiths.

Both JT and the Smiths said the man did not look like a tourist.

And then there are all the other similarities regarding the man himself.

Far too many for it to be a coincidence IMO.

Why do people state that this man (or even these men) are not evidence of a possible abductor?

It is stretching the bounds of reason to suggest as they do that neither of them could have anything to do with the case.  Even more so when after the worldwide publicity neither has ever come forward to eliminate themselves.

It is perfectly clear from the statements in the files (the actual evidence) that this/these men were potential abductors of a child about the age of Madeleine McCann (right time frame, right size child).  It is even very likely that both JT and the Smiths saw the same man as the descriptions are so similar in a number of ways.

Why anti-McCann posters deny this as evidence of a possible abductor is a puzzle to all sensible people who can immediately see its relevance to the inquiry.  It just makes them look as if they are unwilling to accept what is in the real evidence (the files) and you have to wonder why that is.

[Benice]

JT didn't see a little girl, but legs.

She knew it wasn't a baby being carried, and so did the Smiths.

She saw that the child was wearing light coloured pajamas, and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child was not covered by a blanket and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child's feet were bare - and so did the Smiths.

Both JT and the Smiths said the man did not look like a tourist.

And then there are all the other similarities regarding the man himself.

Far too many for it to be a coincidence IMO.

Why do people state that this man (or even these men) are not evidence of a possible abductor?

It is stretching the bounds of reason to suggest as they do that neither of them could have anything to do with the case.  Even more so when after the worldwide publicity neither has ever come forward to eliminate themselves.

It is perfectly clear from the statements in the files (the actual evidence) that this/these men were potential abductors of a child about the age of Madeleine McCann (right time frame, right size child).  It is even very likely that both JT and the Smiths saw the same man as the descriptions are so similar in a number of ways.

Why anti-McCann posters deny this as evidence of a possible abductor is a puzzle to all sensible people who can immediately see its relevance to the inquiry.  It just makes them look as if they are unwilling to accept what is in the real evidence (the files) and you have to wonder why that is.

Indeed - they are ignoring the witness statements of 4 people - 3 of whom were completely independent witnesses who didn't even know the McCanns.

[icabodcrane]

JT didn't see a little girl, but legs.

She knew it wasn't a baby being carried, and so did the Smiths.

She saw that the child was wearing light coloured pajamas, and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child was not covered by a blanket and so did the Smiths

She saw that the child's feet were bare - and so did the Smiths.

Both JT and the Smiths said the man did not look like a tourist.

And then there are all the other similarities regarding the man himself.

Far too many for it to be a coincidence IMO.

Why do people state that this man (or even these men) are not evidence of a possible abductor?

It is stretching the bounds of reason to suggest as they do that neither of them could have anything to do with the case.  Even more so when after the worldwide publicity neither has ever come forward to eliminate themselves.

It is perfectly clear from the statements in the files (the actual evidence) that this/these men were potential abductors of a child about the age of Madeleine McCann (right time frame, right size child).  It is even very likely that both JT and the Smiths saw the same man as the descriptions are so similar in a number of ways.

Why anti-McCann posters deny this as evidence of a possible abductor is a puzzle to all sensible people who can immediately see its relevance to the inquiry.  It just makes them look as if they are unwilling to accept what is in the real evidence (the files) and you have to wonder why that is.

Well not me ...  I certainly acknowledge that the two men seen carrying a child by witnesses that night  is evidence of  a  'possible' abductor

In just the same way that the alerts by a cadaver dog in the apartment where a missing child was last seen is evidence of her  'possible' death 

No theory is any more evidenced than another

[sadie]

JT didn't see a little girl, but legs.
The pink blanket dog and the towel sniffer dogs didn't follow JT carrier, nor the Smith carrier. That's weird.

Granted, but a little girls feet are usually much daintier and often plumper with tiny toes, than a little boys.  Finer bones.

The human mind clocks these tiny details without even knowing it .. and so determines the probable sex.

[Mrs. B]

There is a huge difference between a POSSIBLE scenario & an IMPOSSIBLE scenario, if known facts are taken into account. Amaral's version is of the second variety.

[icabodcrane]

There is a huge difference between a POSSIBLE scenario & an IMPOSSIBLE scenario, if known facts are taken into account. Amaral's version is of the second variety.

That just won't do Mrs B

There is nothing  to say Amaral's theory is  'impossible'

(  Just as there is nothing to say the McCann's abductor theory is  'impossible'  )

[Mrs. B]

Yes, it's totally impossible actually, unless you expect people to evaporate into thin air.

[Benice]

There is a huge difference between a POSSIBLE scenario & an IMPOSSIBLE scenario, if known facts are taken into account. Amaral's version is of the second variety.

That just won't do Mrs B

There is nothing  to say Amaral's theory is  'impossible'

(  Just as there is nothing to say the McCann's abductor theory is  'impossible'  )

If you can put forward a credible theory of how the McCanns 'dunnit' in the way Amaral is purporting  - then I will be more than happy to consider it with an open mind - and that's a promise.

[sadie]

Icabod, if you, or anyone, can make a sensible suggestion as to how the McCanns could have dunit (ie an abduction or anything else) then I am all ears

,,,and I promise you I will analyse what you are saying, if it has a hope of being correct


So far nobody has made anything like a decent suggestion to indicate the McCanns dunit ... or were involved in any way.

Come on lets have your ideas

[Mrs. B]

There is a huge difference between a POSSIBLE scenario & an IMPOSSIBLE scenario, if known facts are taken into account. Amaral's version is of the second variety.

That just won't do Mrs B

There is nothing  to say Amaral's theory is  'impossible'

(  Just as there is nothing to say the McCann's abductor theory is  'impossible'  )

If you can put forward a credible theory of how the McCanns 'dunnit' in the way Amaral is purporting  - then I will be more than happy to consider it with an open mind - and that's a promise.

Yes, so will I & that's a promise too.

[icabodcrane]

Yes, it's totally impossible actually, unless you expect people to evaporate into thin air.

That is your personal belief and opinion  ...  to which you are perfectly entitled  ..  but is not  proof that Amaral's theory is  'impossible'

There is nothing, in fact,  in the way of evidence, that you can produce to prove that Amaral's theory is 'impossible'

...  nothing at all