After the Smiths sighting - Where could this mystery man have gone? Land or Sea?

[AnneGuedes]

Once again you are trying to put your words into my mouth.   As far as I was aware the people who took the children out on boats were employed by Mark Warner, and I merely stated that I had not seen any statements from those people.   If they were used to sailing around in that area, then they might have noticed any boats they had not seen before.

If you are so certain that the McCanns 'dunnit' then why don't give us your theory.  In six years not one 'sceptic' has ever been able to come up with one that can remotely be considered as credible.





 

Don't expect any theory from sceptics, Benice : too much of an oxymoron.
You can't bypass using your imagination, this is inspector Amaral's main error, imo. And he has this in common with Mr and Mrs McCann, imo. They're not so different finally. Imo.

[Benice]

no your post specificlly asked about a person whose boat the children were taken to, there is no such person

***
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to. 

***


oh PS I never said they *dun it* I say I do not believe them,they may have done it or  ie covered some accident up, they are LYING about something, I find them deceiptful, thatis 100% true and corredt for me, no doubt whatsoever,and I dont have to have a theory of what happened to suspect them its my right to, its called freedom of thought, thank god thatis still allowed
 

No - I said I thought the children were taken out by dinghy with the nannies to another boat.  And then said I had not seen any witness statements from those people (not the nannies).    If there was no other boat and they stayed in the dinghys - then that's my mistake.     But at no time did I intimate in any way shape or form that any of the people I mentioned should be regarded as suspects.  That came from your mind  - not mine.

[Redblossom]

No - I said I thought the children were taken out by dinghy with the nannies to another boat.  And then said I had not seen any witness statements from those people (not the nannies).    If there was no other boat and they stayed in the dinghys - then that's my mistake.     But at no time did I intimate in any way shape or form that any of the people I mentioned should be regarded as suspects.  That came from your mind  - not mine.

i explained to you the people who took the children on the sailing boat were Mark Warner employees, it was not a private boat, they were alice stanley  and chris  unsbruck or something, mw employees, mark  warner  property, NO stranger boat owner to interview, which is what YOU intimated, ie why not interview the owner of that boat

i repeat your post, look down......


I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to. 

[AnneGuedes]

Those "navigators" didn't at least officially give statements. Jeanne darc has an interesting theory on the sailing episode.

[Benice]

i explained to you the people who took the children on the sailing boat were Mark Warner employees, it was not a private boat, they were alice stanley  and chris  unsbruck or something, mw employees, mark  warner  property, NO stranger boat owner to interview, which is what YOU intimated, ie why not interview the owner of that boat

i repeat your post, look down......


I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.

Where do I suggest they are strangers?  I referred to them as 'people' - because I didn't know their names.  I would take it for granted that anyone taking part in the children's activities were contracted to Mark Warner.

My comment was that I had never seen any statements from these people.   The hope being that if there were statements someone would point them out to me.

[Redblossom]

Where do I suggest they are strangers?  I referred to them as 'people' - because I didn't know their names.  I would take it for granted that anyone taking part in the children's activities were contracted to Mark Warner.

My comment was that I had never seen any statements from these people.   The hope being that if there were statements someone would point them out to me.

NO this is your post.....

I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.
-----
WHY would ANYONE IF they rented these boats to MW know anything, like they watched MW teaching the kids club kids on them........ 
nust  another ridiculous  garden path to waste police time ong

[Benice]

NO this is your post.....

I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.-----
WHY would ANYONE IF they rented these boats to MW know anything, like they watched MW teaching the kids club kids on them........
nust  another ridiculous  garden path to waste police time ong

Yes that is what I said and you decided to put your own interpretions on a perfectly innocent statement.

If Madeleine was taken out of the country by boat - then surely people regularly working with boats in PdL would be useful to interview.  They would know if any strange boats had been in the same vicinity as they were that particular week.    Or whether any people on a strange boat were paying particular attention to a boat which had small children on board or maybe even taking photographs.   

I don't understand why you should be so opposed to that line of enquiry.

[Redblossom]

Yes that is what I said and you decided to put your own interpretions on a perfectly innocent statement.

If Madeleine was taken out of the country by boat - then surely people regularly working with boats in PdL would be useful to interview.  They would know if any strange boats had been in the same vicinity as they were that particular week.    Or whether any people on a strange boat were paying particular attention to a boat which had small children on board or maybe even taking photographs.   

I don't understand why you should be so opposed to that line of enquiry.

MAYBE I mistook your post, though its hard NOT to because you pro mccanns think any tom dick or harry within 20 000 miles could  have taken her, any line of enquiry has to have evidence for it is all see ya , thats why i hope all m3s documents are incinerated, they were employed to FIND studd which didnt exist IMO

[AnneGuedes]

Benice, I suggest you study Jeanne Darc's hypothesis.

[Benice]

MAYBE I mistook your post, though its hard NOT to because you pro mccanns think any tom dick or harry within 20 000 miles could  have taken her, any line of enquiry has to have evidence for it is all see ya

There you go again making wrong assumptions about me.     I agree with SY that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.  Who that stranger or strangers might be I have no idea.   But until evidence is found to the contrary - the McCanns have every right to believe their daughter may still be alive and to try to keep her profile high in the public's mind.   

[AnneGuedes]

There you go again making wrong assumptions about me.     I agree with SY that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.  Who that stranger or strangers might be I have no idea.   But until evidence is found to the contrary - the McCanns have every right to believe their daughter may still be alive and to try to keep her profile high in the public's mind.   

You'll admit, Benice, that the good little soldier you are needs arms. There's nothing like this forum to help you furbish them. Nothing like people who think against you. Nothing is more precious and Mr and Mrs McCann should be grateful to you.

[Benice]

You'll admit, Benice, that the good little soldier you are needs arms. There's nothing like this forum to help you furbish them. Nothing like people who think against you. Nothing is more precious and Mr and Mrs McCann should be grateful to you.

Sorry Anne, but I have no idea what you are talking about or what you think I will admit to.  Could you elucidate please?

[Chinagirl]

I think Mr & Mrs McCann would be grateful for a lot less self-righteous nit-picking over what they should or shouldn't have done in a catastrophic situation the nit-pickers haven't faced - and a stop to the mindless, often libellous hatred directed at them from other parts of the internet.

[AnneGuedes]

Sorry Anne, but I have no idea what you are talking about or what you think I will admit to.  Could you elucidate please?

Don't you understand that people who don't think like you are very useful ? What's the interest of those who share the same ideas ?

[Chinagirl]

Don't you understand that people who don't think like you are very useful ? What's the interest of those who share the same ideas ?

This is not a game of competing "interests," or an academic exercise in an exchange of "ideas."  We are talking about a child who has been missing for six years and the efforts of her parents who are desperate to find her - parents moreover who have never been charged with any crime related to the disappearance of the child, yet who are constantly maligned, criticised and libelled on a daily basis.

No - the ideas of the so-called McCann sceptics who wilfully criticise these parents, and perpetrate myths and distortions about this case, their family, friends and supporters do not interest me.