Was 50 metres from the apartment 50 metres too far?

[Benice]

Are you a bit slow, then what you said applies to ACCIDENTAL DEATH and the WALKING OUT OF THE APARTMENT.

 

I'll ignore your customary rudeness.

What has any of your reply got to do with my post?     I asked  if you had proof that no evidence of an abduction ever existed in the first place - which is what you appear to be constantly claiming.        If you cannot  provide proof  -  then you cannot rule out the possibility that evidence of an abduction did originally exist - but was destroyed by the traffic of people/police/dogs through 5A.    Agreed?

[stephen25000]

I'll ignore your customary rudeness.

What has any of your reply got to do with my post?     I asked  if you had proof that no evidence of an abduction ever existed in the first place - which is what you appear to be constantly claiming.        If you cannot  provide proof  -  then you cannot rule out the possibility that evidence of an abduction did originally exist - but was destroyed by the traffic of people/police/dogs through 5A.    Agreed?

There is a subtle difference between being rude and observant.

You and your fellows deny there is evidence of accidental death or Madeleine walking out of the apartment.

Your comments about abduction, should therefore be viewed in the same context.

i.e. You cannot prove there wasn't an accident or Madeleine walked out of the apartment and disappeared.

[G-Unit]

are you crazy...you must be...you think it would be reasonable to expect the mcccanns to come on this forum and answer questions from any anonymous person...you must be absolutely mad   ...a forum on which a moderator calls them shit parents

A bit more name calling. I see. are you an abusive troll then?

How do you know they don't post anonymously on the internet? It's perfectly possible, although more likely imo that others do it on their behalf.

[stephen25000]

A bit more name calling. I see. are you an abusive troll then?

How do you know they don't post anonymously on the internet? It's perfectly possible, although more likely imo that others do it on their behalf.

Nicely put. 

[Benice]

There is a subtle difference between being rude and observant.

You and your fellows deny there is evidence of accidental death or Madeleine walking out of the apartment.

Your comments about abduction, should therefore be viewed in the same context.

i.e. You cannot prove there wasn't an accident or Madeleine walked out of the apartment and disappeared.

Your comment was rude and uncalled for.  Full stop.

However, it's my 'observation' that as per usual -  you are not going to answer a perfectly simple and valid question put to you.

So nothing new there then.

[stephen25000]

Your comment was rude and uncalled for.  Full stop.

However, it's my 'observation' that as per usual -  you are not going to answer a perfectly simple and valid question put to you.

So nothing new there then.

You are, as per usual ignoring key points, though that is no surprise.

If you wish people to accept the possibility of abduction without evidence, then you have to accept the possibility of accidental death or walking out of the apartment.

[Mr Gray]

People have been abusive to each other since there were human beings. The only difference these days is that it's anonymous on the internet. That allows some hate-filled, self deluding, faux intelligent, holier than thou people to vent their spleen on all and sundry without being identified, usually because they would be too cowardly to do it in their own names. That's why a reputable forum imposes penalties; to keep these people in order.

According to Bernard Hogan-Howe being abusive is just 'what happens in life'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx

The only time the police would be interested is if people were racist, threatening, or blackmailing; i.e. breaking the law.

as I said you would have to be crazy to expect the mccanns to answer questions here

[pegasus]

Fact is ... whether the eighty paces distance counted by Martin Brunt which it was said was possible to traverse in less than a minute ... the factor not considered in a risk assessment for the children was that an abductor would enter the premises and steal a child.

Even after the event the authorities did not take this into consideration till some time had elapsed.

They did not know about home invasions and attacks on children while their parents slept, making distance a bit of an irrelevance.

They made a huge mistake and said so right from the very beginning.  "We've let her down!".  So why labour the point?  the only possible reason I can see for it is as a convenient rod for the Drs McCann backs.

Isn't it about time it was realised that enough is enough and wish this family a positive outcome.

Mr Brunt measured the paces from the restaurant table to a garden gate.

I have carefully double-checked the PJ photos taken that night, and can assure you that the garden gate did not disappear!

The garden gate was not abducted, the garden gate did not hide in a wardrobe under some clothes due to a burglary attempt, nor did it unscrew its own hinges and wander into the street.
Why all this concern for a garden gate?
Why measure the distance to it - it's irrelevant.
The child was in the north bedroom, much further away than the garden gate.

[Benice]

You are, as per usual ignoring key points, though that is no surprise.

If you wish people to accept the possibility of abduction without evidence, then you have to accept the possibility of accidental death or walking out of the apartment.

IOW  you are not going to answer my question - or even acknowledge that it has been asked!   

Why a simple valid question should present such a problem to you - that you have to go into mega 'deflective' mode and pretend it doesn't exist  rather than answer it -  is inexplicable IMO.

But do carry on if it makes you happy. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Stop being silly Alfie, of course they do. Whether they would want to is a different matter entirely.

So the McCanns are currently at liberty to discuss the case with any manner of anonymous internet troll and harridan are they?  You don't think Op Grange might frown on this?

[Brietta]

Mr Brunt measured the paces from the restaurant table to a garden gate.

I have carefully double-checked the PJ photos taken that night, and can assure you that the garden gate did not disappear!

The garden gate was not abducted, the garden gate did not hide in a wardrobe under some clothes due to a burglary attempt, nor did it unscrew its own hinges and wander into the street.
Why all this concern for a garden gate?
Why measure the distance to it - it's irrelevant.
The child was in the north bedroom, much further away than the garden gate.

Madeleine McCann was within the boundaries of the property where strangers had no right of access and which should have been a safety zone for her. I'm not sure your reference to the gate does you any credit, but you are of course correct about the irrelevance of the whole discussion which has as usual been turned into yet another vehicle to denigrate Madeleine's parents.

So very, very tiresome.

[stephen25000]

IOW  you are not going to answer my question - or even acknowledge that it has been asked!   

Why a simple valid question should present such a problem to you - that you have to go into mega 'deflective' mode and pretend it doesn't exist  rather than answer it -  is inexplicable IMO.

But do carry on if it makes you happy.

I have merely pointed out your hypocrisy.

i.e. Abduction or nothing.

[slartibartfast]

I'll ignore your customary rudeness.

What has any of your reply got to do with my post?     I asked  if you had proof that no evidence of an abduction ever existed in the first place - which is what you appear to be constantly claiming.        If you cannot  provide proof  -  then you cannot rule out the possibility that evidence of an abduction did originally exist - but was destroyed by the traffic of people/police/dogs through 5A.    Agreed?

That is a fairly nonsensical argument, no evidence exists. To insinuate that it is acceptable or useful to consider non existent evidence as proof of anything is mind boggling.

You might as well point out that if someone else had been in 5a they would have been an eye witness.

[Alfred R Jones]

That is a fairly nonsensical argument, no evidence exists. To insinuate that it is acceptable or useful to consider non existent evidence as proof of anything is mind boggling.

You might as well point out that if someone else had been in 5a they would have been an eye witness.

You might want to consider that argument the next time the bloody dog alerts are brought up.

[slartibartfast]

You might want to consider that argument the next time the bloody dog alerts are brought up.

Did you mean blood dog?