He doesn't use the word possibility. He makes it clear by referring to a percentage it is not a certainty and therefore is only a possibility.
I am not responding to posts from blogs. We have been told by admin to refrain from bringing such material here so I will not comment till you bring actual evidence for me to comment on. I am rather shocked that you should rely on blogs so heavily.
No need for the faux shock about the blogs. The point is i am of the same opinion regarding the crime scene in direct contradiction to your outrageous claim that the parents did not contaminate the crime scene.
So for the sake of discussion let us say that it is my position and my argument.
The fact is the parents did contaminate the scene before the police arrived and the McCann's destroyed the only solid physical evidence that would have determined the key questions about the apartment which could then have been used in court.
And that's why you will not respond to the piece, because you cannot argue with the logic. it debunks your assertion and you are not prepared to discuss it because to do so would be to admit you were wrong.
As for the dogs, yes they are an indication. Not evidence. But they were an indication that was thoroughly investigated at length and still no corroboration was found. I believe Martin Grime tells us that the alerts are of no evidential value unless corroborated.
So we have an indication, right? Not an indication the McCann's did anything but an indication of a death in the apartment. Why are you not prepared to admit that an abductor could have been responsible for the death in the apartment?
That's the problem with McCann supporters and the dog evidence. It's nothing to do with the indications they gave, it's the implication of who was involved that causes McCann supporters to dismiss them and libel Grime at every turn.
Unfortunately the equally valid indications of abduction (ie sigitings of men carrying children away from the area of the apartment) were not thoroughly investigated by the PJ under Amaral. Their total failure to rule out the Tanner sighting when the means to do so within hours of her making her statement is proof of that as is the fact that the PJ didn't even bother to check the timing of the Smith sighting by obtaining the till receipts till five whole months after the disappearance when Amaral had been removed from the case.
Why is it an equally valid indication? After all the so called abductor, dismissed by SY, was the one who the Tapas mob built their statements around.
He turned out to be someone walking his child home who took 6 years to come forward. You cannot say men walking with children is an indication of an abduction. Tannerman is ample proof of that.
What's more interesting is that it actually further calls into question the statements. How had the door moved by Gerry's check, was replaced back to its position then looked to have moved again by Oldfield's check if the abduction didn't happen until around 50 minnutes after Gerry's check and 25 minutes after Oldfield's?
That is why the focus is now rightly on abduction.
Well we will see won't we, because if the parents were suspected i have no doubt that both SY and the PJ would not be reopening the case in PT shouting to the world the parents are involved.
Citing abduction is the only way the case can ever be reopened, irrespective of the evidence to hand, short of a confession.
To think otherwise displays naivety of epic proportions.
