Innocentman came forward in 2007!

[pathfinder73]

From what I gather Neil & Raj shouted to Gerry from their balcony and he said his daughter had gone missing. They came down and helped with the searches. At around 10.25 Gerry and Russ are seen entering 5A (Emma Knight arrived at 10.20 and Gerry wasn't there - only Kate & Fiona). Pamela Fenn is talking to Gerry from her balcony at 10.30.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am simply not convinced, mainly because the direction was wrong.  The door could always be explained by a draft, but what was he doing walking up a busy main road some distance from The Creche when there was a much shorter route?. But anything in the direction he was going is even closer to The Creche.
I suppose that knowing where he was going might help.

Something odd is going on about this.  It just doesn't make sense.

But how do we explain that 30 detectives have not considered these things? Questions and problems about the scenario that seem glaring to us; overlooking basic facts about the geography and locations of PdL?

Perhaps one person could get it wrong - but a team of 30?

[Eleanor]

But how do we explain that 30 detectives have not considered these things? Questions and problems about the scenario that seem glaring to us; overlooking basic facts about the geography and locations of PdL?

Perhaps one person could get it wrong - but a team of 30?

I simply do not know.  But we could always have a conspiracy theory.  Absolutely everyone would believe that.

Me?  I think that Scotland Yard don't know as much about it all as we do.  But none of this is going to indict The McCanns.  Which man was walking were isn't actually going to prove anything.

[AnneGuedes]

Their first statements are not missing, they haven't been released for reasons unknown like many others.

They are part of the LC Files. The MP had no right to release copies of files that belonged to the LC.
 Interview to NEIL BERRY, 42, MeXXXXXXXX ROXX, Surrey, SMX 7XX. He should be subject to a buccal swab and hair sample collection and asked the following questions :
* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm

[Sherlock Holmes]

I simply do not know.  But we could always have a conspiracy theory.  Absolutely everyone would believe that.

Me?  I think that Scotland Yard don't know as much about it all as we do.  But none of this is going to indict The McCanns.  Which man was walking were isn't actually going to prove anything.

Can a team of 30 detectives with all different types of resources at their disposal really know less than us?
I find that hard to imagine. They are certainly far from a solution to this, I agree.

As far as Madeleine is concerned, I don't believe the McCanns are in any way guilty either. No opportunity and zero evidence on the current understanding of events.

For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.

The question here, however, is why he wasn't ruled out in 2007, and why, apparently, he did not re-clarify his position to police until his much more recent involvement with Scotland Yard?

[Lyall]

I think the answer lies in the decision to dedicate more than half of a Crimewatch hour to the new investigation. Who made that decision? With so little to say the Met team must have had kittens. But they had to say something. It was botched PR but almost all of the 7m watching will have no idea of the issues we're talking about here - they will have just accepted what Redwood told them.

[stephen25000]

Can a team of 30 detectives with all different types of resources at their disposal really know less than us?
I find that hard to imagine. They are certainly far from a solution to this, I agree.

As far as Madeleine is concerned, I don't believe the McCanns are in any way guilty either. No opportunity and zero evidence on the current understanding of events.

For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.

The question here, however, is why he wasn't ruled out in 2007, and why, apparently, he did not re-clarify his position to police until his much more recent involvement with Scotland Yard?

Can you say with 100% certainty Madeleine  did not have an accident which led to her demise ?

Meanwhile of course there is zero evidence of ABDUCTION.

The sight, allegedly of course of a man carrying a child does not mean abduction.

Likewise, you cannot say that the Mccanns have expounded the whole truth of the events which transpired.

[AnneGuedes]

For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.

Out of curiosity what part do you attribute to Smithman and the little blond one ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Can you say with 100% certainty Madeleine  did not have an accident which led to her demise ?

Meanwhile of course there is zero evidence of ABDUCTION.

The sight, allegedly of course of a man carrying a child does not mean abduction of course.

Likewise, you cannot say that the Mccanns have expounded the whole truth of the events which transpired.

I agree with everything you say, Stephen.

I cannot say with 100% certainty that Madeleine did not have an accident. In fact I cannot say with any percentage of 'certainty' (if degrees of certainty make sense..) that she did not have an accident. There is insufficient evidence one way or the other.

There is also no concrete evidence for abduction. There are suggestions, in my opinion; pointers, as Sadie would say, but those suggestions are comparatively shaky. If they were stronger, we (as in everyone, collectively) might at least have a general picture as to what type of abduction it could have been and what the motive was - and we don't even have that.

I also agree that the sightings of bundleman and Smithman do not prove - or even suggest, necessarily - abduction. As we have discussed at length, why would an abductor be walking through the town with a child? I am interested in what Sadie has to say on this because the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.

As regards the way the McCanns have handled matters since May of 2007, many mistakes have been made. Though these oddities don't incriminate them.

Having said all that, I believe nonetheless that the abduction scenario is the most likely, for the simple reason that there is no evidence for parental involvement, nor any suggestion as to how, on our current understanding of the perameters, the McCanns would have been physically able to carry out any serious crime. That being said, our understanding of events could change in time, according to new information that presents itself.

Until then, despite the lack of evidence for the abduction theory, I think we have to bear in mind that although statistics point to the parents, at the same time extremely high levels of proof are required before accusing a person of the crimes the McCanns would have to have been involved if an abduction did not take place. And at the moment that evidence is nil.

[Eleanor]

Can a team of 30 detectives with all different types of resources at their disposal really know less than us?
I find that hard to imagine. They are certainly far from a solution to this, I agree.

As far as Madeleine is concerned, I don't believe the McCanns are in any way guilty either. No opportunity and zero evidence on the current understanding of events.

For what it's worth my opinion is that she was put in a car near to 5A and whizzed far away before anyone had the slightest idea that she had gone. So on that analysis the perambulations of bundleman probably don't matter very much either.

The question here, however, is why he wasn't ruled out in 2007, and why, apparently, he did not re-clarify his position to police until his much more recent involvement with Scotland Yard?

Let's try not to pass the buck here beyond the basic incompetence.  It was always too late by then anyway.  So who was seen walking with whom quickly ceased to matter.

The damage was only done to The McCanns, and I make no excuse for that belief.  Shit was piled on shit.  And it did seriously upset me.  They were just trying to find their daughter Against what were always bad odds.  And to be accused must nearly have decimated them.
So you see, what their accusers have to say is of no real importance to me.

Why am I still doing this?  Because I will not allow this to go by without commenting.  There is something very sick afoot which isn't just opinion.

[stephen25000]

I agree with everything you say, Stephen.

I cannot say with 100% certainty that Madeleine did not have an accident. In fact I cannot say with any percentage of 'certainty' (if degrees of certainty make sense..) that she did not have an accident. There is insufficient evidence one way or the other.

There is also no concrete evidence for abduction. There are suggestions, in my opinion; pointers, as Sadie would say, but those suggestions are comparatively shaky. If they were stronger, we (as in everyone, collectively) might at least have a general picture as to what type of abduction it could have been and what the motive was - and we don't even have that.

I also agree that the sightings of bundleman and Smithman do not prove - or even suggest, necessarily - abduction. As we have discussed at length, why would an abductor be walking through the town with a child? I am interested in what Sadie has to say on this because the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.

As regards the way the McCanns have handled matters since May of 2007, many mistakes have been made. Though these oddities don't incriminate them.

Having said all that, I believe nonetheless that the abduction scenario is the most likely, for the simple reason that there is no evidence for parental involvement, nor any suggestion as to how, on our current understanding of the perameters, the McCanns would have been physically able to carry out any serious crime. That being said, our understanding of events could change in time, according to new information that presents itself.

Until then, despite the lack of evidence for the abduction theory, I think we have to bear in mind that although statistics point to the parents, at the same time extremely high levels of proof are required before accusing a person of the crimes the McCanns would have to have been involved if an abduction did not take place. And at the moment that evidence is nil.

To be more precise, apart from the fact of Madeleine's disappearance, there is no evidence of anything.

Unless there is the proverbial bolt from the blue, such as a confession, nothing is like to change.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Out of curiosity what part do you attribute to Smithman and the little blond one ?

Probably none.

As I discussed at length with Sadie a long time ago (the psychological aspects of Bundleman, or some such thread), I cannot imagine an abductor parading through the town with a child.

And I don't believe he was Gerry McCann.

Paradoxically, I think the fact that SY have ruled out bundleman actually casts more doubt on Smithman. If one man can be ruled out  - and apparently he ruled himself out near the start - then another person,  doing something very similar to the first but in even more unlikely circumstances than the first, could easily be ruled out also.

Perhaps he even came forward, as did Tannerman, and that evidence fell through the net as well. Who knows.

[Eleanor]

Has someone written a handbook on how to deal with anything after your child has been abducted?

[AnneGuedes]

the only scenario in which I believe that either of those men could have been an abductor would be one in which an abduction plan had gone badly wrong. As a plan A - no chance.

What do you mean ? Death ?

[AnneGuedes]

Probably none.

As I discussed at length with Sadie a long time ago (the psychological aspects of Bundleman, or some such thread), I cannot imagine an abductor parading through the town with a child.

And I don't believe he was Gerry McCann.

Paradoxically, I think the fact that SY have ruled out bundleman actually casts more doubt on Smithman. If one man can be ruled out  - and apparently he ruled himself out near the start - then another person,  doing something very similar to the first but in even more unlikely circumstances than the first, could easily be ruled out also.

Perhaps he even came forward, as did Tannerman, and that evidence fell through the net as well. Who knows.

Excellent news for the McCanns ! You disagree also with DCI Redwood !