Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[Mr Gray]

What's there to challenge when a known fact has been posted..

 How many times have we heard ...they have not been cleared

[Wonderfulspam]

Everyone knows by now that Kate & Gerry had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in their daughters disappearance.

It's obvious by now that the true culprit is any number of blonde haired German men or other interchangeable suspects (preferably dead)
but most definitely not Kate & Gerry.

... inappropriate allegation against two dead men removed ...

[jassi]

Everyone knows by now that Kate & Gerry had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in their daughters disappearance.

... inappropriate allegation against two dead men removed ...

Absolutely, yet despite this, those pesky rumours of suspicion just won't go away.

[Jean-Pierre]

Everyone knows by now that Kate & Gerry had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in their daughters disappearance.

... inappropriate allegation against two dead men removed ...

Well, so far, and after nearly seven years of one of the most public cases in history, and investigations by two police forces (as well as a lot of armchair detectives), nobody has come up with any credible evidence of the involvement of Madeleine's parents in her disappearance.  Neither have they been arrested, charged or convicted.

Of course this will not come as news to the dwindling band of "[ censored word]" who will continue their increasingly futile bleating.   

So whilst it is possible that as yet undicovered evidence may yet point to her parents, as things stand it seems that the finger of suspicion must point elsewhere.

 

[jassi]

Well, so far, and after nearly seven years of one of the most public cases in history, and investigations by two police forces (as well as a lot of armchair detectives), nobody has come up with any credible evidence of the involvement of Madeleine's parents in her disappearance.  Neither have they been arrested, charged or convicted.

Of course this will not come as news to the dwindling band of "[ censored word]" who will continue their increasingly futile bleating.   

So whilst it is possible that as yet undicovered evidence may yet point to her parents, as things stand it seems that the finger of suspicion must point elsewhere.

 

But where? There really is nothing to point anywhere else, either.

[Jean-Pierre]

But where? There really is nothing to point anywhere else, either.

That is for the police. 

I am sure that, under the circumstances, no member of this forum would wish to add to her parents anguish by continuing to "point the finger of suspicion" at them, without some actual credible evidence.

[stephen25000]

Well, so far, and after nearly seven years of one of the most public cases in history, and investigations by two police forces (as well as a lot of armchair detectives), nobody has come up with any credible evidence of the involvement of Madeleine's parents in her disappearance.  Neither have they been arrested, charged or convicted.

Of course this will not come as news to the dwindling band of "[ censored word]" who will continue their increasingly futile bleating.   

So whilst it is possible that as yet undicovered evidence may yet point to her parents, as things stand it seems that the finger of suspicion must point elsewhere.

 

'Dwindling band of [ censored word]'.

As an apologist for the Mccanns you should know better than that.

Perhaps when you go out in the real world and inform people of the facts of the case, not counting the whitewash which was the crimewatch program, why don't you you explain to your acquaintances, no evidence of abduction has been found which stands up, and of course explain to those people what the Mccanns did in the first place, when they left their children unsupervised, night after night, in an unlocked apartment, whilst they wined and dined.

[Wonderfulspam]

That is for the police. 

I am sure that, under the circumstances, no member of this forum would wish to add to her parents anguish by continuing to "point the finger of suspicion" at them, without some actual credible evidence.

I don't point the finger of suspicion at Kate & Gerry . I just reckon it was them.

[jassi]

That is for the police. 

I am sure that, under the circumstances, no member of this forum would wish to add to her parents anguish by continuing to "point the finger of suspicion" at them, without some actual credible evidence.

That is true, but until the issue is resolved, those suspicions will remain.

[Jean-Pierre]

'Dwindling band of [ censored word]'.

As an apologist for the Mccanns you should know better than that.

Perhaps when you go out in the real world and inform people of the facts of the case, not counting the whitewash which was the crimewatch program, why don't you you explain to your acquaintances, no evidence of abduction has been found which stands up, and of course explain to those people what the Mccanns did in the first place, when they left their children unsupervised, night after night, in an unlocked apartment, whilst they wined and dined.

How nice to hear from you again Stephen.  It is regrettable that the policeman originally charged with investigating Madeleine's disappearance failed to consider properly the possibility of abduction, and therefore did not bother to inestigate properly (if you dont believe me, have a look at his woeful "documentary"). 

And was seemingly more interested in lining his pockets. 

 

[Lyall]

That is for the police. 

I am sure that, under the circumstances, no member of this forum would wish to add to her parents anguish by continuing to "point the finger of suspicion" at them, without some actual credible evidence.

The police just offered us a "prime suspect" that an army of journalists, commentators, TV show hosts, private detectives, libel lawyers - and Madeleine's parents - had hitherto almost completely ignored.

That suggests to us the police really know nothing.

[stephen25000]

How nice to hear from you again Stephen.  It is regrettable that the policeman originally charged with investigating Madeleine's disappearance failed to consider properly the possibility of abduction, and therefore did not bother to inestigate properly (if you dont believe me, have a look at his woeful "documentary"). 

And was seemingly more interested in lining his pockets. 

 

There was an investigation with no indication of abduction.

Only inconsistent accounts of events from the witness statements.

As to making money, what monies have Amaral and the Mccanns made from Madeleine's disappearance  ?

[icabodcrane]

Well, so far, and after nearly seven years of one of the most public cases in history, and investigations by two police forces (as well as a lot of armchair detectives), nobody has come up with any credible evidence of the involvement of Madeleine's parents in her disappearance.  Neither have they been arrested, charged or convicted.

Of course this will not come as news to the dwindling band of "[ censored word]" who will continue their increasingly futile bleating.   

So whilst it is possible that as yet undicovered evidence may yet point to her parents, as things stand it seems that the finger of suspicion must point elsewhere.

 

In the context of this particular thread the 'finger of suspicion'  is very firmly pointed at the McCanns

They have been accused by a British broad sheet of suppressing information that Scotland Yard have deemed crucial to the investigation into the disappearance of their child

It is a very serious charge,  which they have yet to deny

[Mr Gray]

In the context of this particular thread the 'finger of suspicion'  is very firmly pointed at the McCanns

They have been accused by a British broad sheet of suppressing information that Scotland Yard have deemed crucial to the investigation into the disappearance of their child

It is a very serious charge,  which they have yet to deny

And the broadsheet has withdrawn the article

[Redblossom]

The Sunday Times bombshell can never be whitewashed away...not by other journos with damage limitation exercises trying to rewrite history by just writing text with no sources or proof, and not by internet posters, it is what it is and was and remains so.....

thats IMO

 

If it was pulled from online IMO the only reason is that the ST quoted and precied the contents of the confidential Oakley report too much...and some lawyers shenanigans clanged it......but thats what investigative journalists do, they give scoops and exposes of the truth....the Sunday Times is well known and respected in this field....