Innocentman came forward in 2007!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Facts prove that it went extremely well whatever the reason why it did.

Yes. It went well. But we don't know whether by design or accident.

[AnneGuedes]

Yes. It went well. But we don't know whether by design or accident.

Anyhow not  "badly wrong".

[AnneGuedes]

DCI Redwood, we must admit, has an enormous quality : he is focused on Madeleine. Hence Smithman carrying a matching little girl...

[Sherlock Holmes]

Innocentman's daughter has dark hair whereas the Smithman's daughter was surely blond.

Isn't that interesting. After all this time assuming bundleman was the abductor, we discover the child has dark hair.

But where does this information come from? Have I missed something? Surely this information is enough to convince us of bundleman's innocence and put paid to questions about direction of walking?

[Lyall]

DCI Redwood, we must admit, has an enormous quality : he is focused on Madeleine. Hence Smithman carrying a matching little girl...

You have much more faith in our police than we do Anne

[Sherlock Holmes]

DCI Redwood, we must admit, has an enormous quality : he is focused on Madeleine. Hence Smithman carrying a matching little girl...

True. That's the last sighing of anyone fitting Madeleine's description in Praia da Luz.

[stephen25000]

As I have said before Stephen this is a "celestial teapot" argument...but you have made it that many times that I think "celestial crackpot" is more apt

That statement merely reflects your ignorance and continuing and unquestioning support of the Mccanns.

Indeed par for your course.

[AnneGuedes]

You have much more faith in our police than we do Anne

Absolutely. The problem with our police/justice systems is that they've not the independent power they should have.

[Redblossom]

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.

In exactly the same way,there is no evidence there was no involvement, and no evidence of a stranger, so how can it be the mostly likely scenario that she was abducted, when you  have said statistics pont otherwise....it can only be a personal belief/judgement/informed opinion

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case...I would wager a bet most of it is anti abduction rather than the other way around, but then thats just my personal informed judgement too

No authority anywhere has said this was an abduction, inded the FCO office have the case classed as a missing person because there is no evidence of an abduction..see last sentence in second link, both pages linked for completeness


http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209.jpg&target=tlx_pic7gvj

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209b.jpg&target=tlx_picxuro

[AnneGuedes]

True. That's the last sighing of anyone fitting Madeleine's description in Praia da Luz.

True. But in spite of that, it was put in the bin. Why ?

[Mr Gray]

That statement merely reflects your ignorance and continuing and unquestioning support of the Mccanns.

Indeed par for your course.

 What evidence do you have that my support is unquestioning? What evidence do you have that I am ignorant?

[Redblossom]

True. That's the last sighing of anyone fitting Madeleine's description in Praia da Luz.

Err the only one....

[Redblossom]

Innocentman's daughter has dark hair whereas the Smithman's daughter was surely blond.

Did she??? I never read that anywhere....cos that would 1000 per cent rule out tannerman!

[stephen25000]

What evidence do you have that my support is unquestioning? What evidence do you have that I am ignorant?

There is an old saying to the effect, 'if you can't take criticism, don 't dish it'

[Mr Gray]

In exactly the same way,there is no evidence there was no involvement, and no evidence of a stranger, so how can it be the mostly likely scenario that she was abducted, when you  have said statistics pont otherwise....it can only be a personal belief/judgement/informed opinion

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case...I would wager a bet most of it is anti abduction rather than the other way around, but then thats just my personal informed judgement too

No authority anywhere has said this was an abduction, inded the FCO office have the case classed as a missing person because there is no evidence of an abduction..see last sentence in second link, both pages linked for completeness


http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209.jpg&target=tlx_pic7gvj

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foirequest141209b.jpg&target=tlx_picxuro

you are applying statistics without any understanding...as I have stated many times parental involvement in crime is seen in dysfunctional families as has been shown in the recent Scottish case.  You cannot use the fact that the bungled PJ operation found no evidence to suspect the McCanns. Perhaps if the pj had done their job properly evidence of an abductor would have been found.