Children wandering off.

[Lyall]

I listened to Mr. Collins Lyall and he has got his facts wrong.    The McCann's didn't admit a week later that the patio doors were open,   Kate McCann in her very first statement with the police said that the Patio doors were open.

If you are going to say well how do you know the gate was shut the patio door was shut etc etc then there is no point debating it is pointless.

It's not pointless, it's highlighting there are very few things we know to be facts.

[Lyall]

It's so easy to be a 'sceptic' Lace.   Any claims made by witnesses that don't fit in with their theory - are simply dismissed by immediately casting doubt on the veracity of the witness in question.  It's just a cheap 'cop-out' IMO. 
 

I would say preferring to believe someone entered the apartment and took her "in between all this going on" - and leaving it at that - is a 'cop out'.

It's the easy answer the press were happy to accept in the hours and days after the disappearance.

[stephen25000]

From Fiona Payne as regards km.........................


''"She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying `Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, `or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh".

[Benice]

Here's Mr Collins, speaking in 2012.

http://tunein.com/topic/?topicId=38351661

Good grief - how many basic facts about the case can one person get so wrong?   Has he ever bothered to correct any of them since the files were released? 

[Lace]

It's not pointless, it's highlighting there are very few things we know to be facts.

Well I could say how do we know that cuddle cat didn't have dna of the abductor on it,  as it was'nt tested.  How do we know the bedding didn't have dna of the abductor on it,  it wasn't tested.

There are many 'how do we know'  Lyall it could go on for ever.

[Lyall]

Well I could say how do we know that cuddle cat didn't have dna of the abductor on it,  as it was'nt tested.  How do we know the bedding didn't have dna of the abductor on it,  it wasn't tested.

There are many 'how do we know'  Lyall it could go on for ever.

It will. People will be discussing the case forever.

[Lyall]

Good grief - how many basic facts about the case can one person get so wrong?   Has he ever bothered to correct any of them since the files were released?

That's just deflection. Why do you think there is just one book published in the UK on this case? And that book doesn't accept the abduction from inside the apartment claim. Why do you think there have been no books published by authors that do?

[Benice]

I would say preferring to believe someone entered the apartment and took her "in between all this going on" - and leaving it at that - is a 'cop out'.

It's the easy answer the press were happy to accept in the hours and days after the disappearance.

SY have identified a timeline in which an abductor could have entered the apartment and taken Madeleine away.  So who would know best? - the professional experts with all the necessary information and equipment to establish that -  or ordinary members of the public who have none of their expertise and don't have access to all the facts.   It's no contest as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lyall]

SY have identified a timeline in which an abductor could have entered the apartment and taken Madeleine away.  So who would know best? - the professional experts with all the necessary information and equipment to establish that -  or ordinary members of the public who have none of their expertise and don't have access to all the facts.   It's no contest as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, and I don't dispute it could have happened. How could I, I wasn't there. Nobody can rule it out.

But opportunity isn't evidence for it actually having happened.

Neither are the words of DCI Redwood on the TV evidence. The Met's written update did not say the same things.

Therefore we still await evidence.

[AnneGuedes]

If there was a witness outside the group of friends that would be more persuasive, but there isn't.

Actually the only one who said he entered the flat through the window-door and then confirmed it was left open is Mr Oldfield but his highly questionable statement casts doubt about the occurrence.

[Benice]

That's just deflection. Why do you think there is just one book published in the UK on this case? And that book doesn't accept the abduction from inside the apartment claim. Why do you think there have been no books published by authors that do?

It's not a deflection at all.  His interview is full of inaccuracies and untruths  - and if  his his book is based on what he said in that  interview then that will be as just as grossly inaccurate as well  -  unless you can show otherwise of course.

[AnneGuedes]

Neither are the words of DCI Redwood on the TV evidence. The Met's written update did not say the same things.

Did the Met explicitly claim they discarded abduction that wouldn't be from bed ?

[Lyall]

It's not a deflection at all.  His interview is full of inaccuracies and untruths  - and if  his his book is based on what he said in that  interview then that will be as just as grossly inaccurate as well  -  unless you can show otherwise of course.

I'm not attempting to show anything, Collins can speak for himself. He did in 2012, and clearly still doesn't believe the story as told in KM's book.

Why do you think there are no books published by anyone that does?

[Benice]

Yes, and I don't dispute it could have happened. How could I, I wasn't there. Nobody can rule it out.

But opportunity isn't evidence for it actually having happened.

Neither are the words of DCI Redwood on the TV evidence. The Met's written update did not say the same things.

Therefore we still await evidence.

But it wasn't just the fact that they have proved the  opportunity existed, there is also JT's witness statement to consider which backs it up and also the Smith's - which although does not help particularly with the timelines at 5A - does give a description of a man carrying a child which is remarkably similar to that of Jane Tanners which therefore gives weight to her sighting.

What is it the written update says which changes anything DCI Redwood has alreadysaid?  I don't know of anything.

[Lyall]

Did the Met explicitly claim they discarded abduction that wouldn't be from bed ?

I don't think so Anne, but I've no paid too much attention to Redwood's TV interviews over the years. They have only issued one thing in writing, and that was the July 4th update - which doesn't say anything categorically. How could it? The investigation has only just begun.