A child abducted yet nobody thought to phone the police immediately?

[ferryman]

Any combination of the numerous pointers outlined by Sadie point to abduction. 

If Madeleine left the apartment of her own volition you will have to consider how she could have done so without leaving a trace.

(a) She was not wearing shoes
(b) She had never seen anyone opening the window or the shutter of her room
(c) Her fingerprints were not on the window or on the sill or on the shutter mechanism
(d) Her fingerprints were not on the front door
(e) Her fingerprints were not on the sliding patio door
(f) Her fingerprints were not on the gates

Do we even know if a three year old was capable of opening the doors or the window?  If so it is unlikely it could be done without leaving a trace.
An adult intruder on the other hand would take care he/she left no forensic evidence; however since the initial forensics lifted from the scene were useless we will never know if he/she was careful enough.

On that first point, not only was Madeleine not wearing shoes, the only pair of outdoor shoes she had on that holiday were found in the villa after she vanished, although I have heard the view expressed that a child Madeleine's age wouldn't necessarily think to put shoes on.

That surprised me, I confess ...

[sadie]

What the FCUK ??

Do you mind, Stephen !

I know that you have spelt it wrongly, but I do not think that it is a suitable word for a man [especially one claiming to be a professional) to use aimed at a woman ...

I spent 10 years in industry, 3 on the 'shop floor', working alongside labourers as well as craftsmen, and occasionally
I heard the word , but never did any man aim such langiage at me

And, you know, if the utterer of the language realised that I had heard it, he always apologised



Just cos you are losing the argument doesn't give you reason to use foul language ... especially to a woman

[stephen25000]

Do you mind, Stephen !

I know that you have spelt it wrongly, but I do not think that it is a suitable word for a man [especially one claiming to be a professional) to use aimed at a woman ...

I spent 10 years in industry, 3 on the 'shop floor', working alongside labourers as well as craftsmen, and occasionally
I heard the word , but never did any man aim such langiage at me

And, you know, if the utterer of the language realised that I had heard it, he always apologised



Just cos you are losing the argument doesn't give you reason to use foul language ... especially to a woman

I haven't lost any argument sadie.

Your posts are geared towards wild theories which you cannot substantiate And look increasingly weird.
.
So if you want to put forward your 'theories', expect a response.

[Brietta]

I haven't lost any argument sadie.

Your posts are geared towards wild theories which you cannot substantiate And look increasingly weird.
.
So if you want to put forward your 'theories', expect a response.

An intelligent response is one thing profanity is another - and I applaud Sadie for pulling you up on it.

You have been given numerous examples by different posters of circumstances which in another jurisdiction would have been considered as indicators of abduction or criminal intervention by others.

You have been unable to present a cogent argument against even one.

Says it all.

[stephen25000]

An intelligent response is one thing profanity is another - and I applaud Sadie for pulling you up on it.

You have been given numerous examples by different posters of circumstances which in another jurisdiction would have been considered as indicators of abduction.

You have been unable to present a cogent argument against even one.

Says it all.

Dear oh dear.

Numerous examples, i.e. Only in the minds of certain mccann supporters.

sadie's wild theories have become a laughing stock.

You haven't presented any evidence at all of an abduction that would stand up in court.

[sadie]

I haven't lost any argument sadie.

Your posts are geared towards wild theories which you cannot substantiate And look increasingly weird.
.
So if you want to put forward your 'theories', expect a response.

I dont expect foul language aimed at me.

That is NOT a suitable response, just cos you are losing it.

[stephen25000]

I dont expect foul language aimed at me.

That is NOT a suitable response, just cos you are losing it.

Losing it ???

Who are you kidding sadie.

[Brietta]

Dear oh dear.

Numerous examples, i.e. Only in the minds of certain mccann supporters.

sadie's wild theories have become a laughing stock.

You haven't presented any evidence at all of an abduction that would stand up in court.

Source materials taken from witness statements as recorded in the files are ignored in the main by some unless there is anything in them which can be twisted to suit an agenda directed against Madeleine’s parents.  An unbiased reading of these files is worth considering while bearing in mind translation errors.

Over the past year I find the people most likely to be attacked and ridiculed are those whose opinions are feared. Most recently S&S.
I doubt very much that Sadie needs to have any worries that you disapprove of her theories … which she always maintains are open to question, discussion and amendment … much easier for you just to deride than do that.

It remains to be seen how much evidence the PJ and the Met have if suspects are brought to court; there certainly never was any to indict the Drs McCann.
About time that was taken on board.

[sadie]

Losing it ???

Who are you kidding sadie.

Yep losing the discussion, cos we use FACTS and you use any old myths and misinformation, but rarely facts

You cant beat FACTS Stephen.  They are solid and dependable.

Try using them sometime. 

[sadie]

Source materials taken from witness statements as recorded in the files are ignored in the main by some unless there is anything in them which can be twisted to suit an agenda directed against Madeleine’s parents.  An unbiased reading of these files is worth considering while bearing in mind translation errors.

Over the past year I find the people most likely to be attacked and ridiculed are those whose opinions are feared. Most recently S&S.
I doubt very much that Sadie needs to have any worries that you disapprove of her theories … which she always maintains are open to question, discussion and amendment … much easier for you just to deride than do that.

It remains to be seen how much evidence the PJ and the Met have if suspects are brought to court; there certainly never was any to indict the Drs McCann.
About time that was taken on board.

    Good observations Brietta.


The more I am ridiculed and laughed at, the more I know that I have hit a sore spot.  

I have noticed that some peeps on here on the sceptics side, seem to be organised to come into a hard and prolonged attack whenever I mention something new that might point to the abductor, or the MO of the group behind the "master" abductor.


Now I wonder why that is?


Could it be to do with revealing not only a human trafficking group but also a lucrative drug trafficking set up?




There has to be a reason, there always is.

[stephen25000]

Yep losing the discussion, cos we use FACTS and you use any old myths and misinformation, but rarely facts

You cant beat FACTS Stephen.  They are solid and dependable.

Try using them sometime. 

If you think your 'theories' are being taken seriously, you are even more deluded than I thought.

Facts sadie, what facts prove abduction ?

[stephen25000]

  Good observations Brietta.


The more I am ridiculed and laughed at, the more I know that I have hit a sore spot.  

I have noticed that some peeps on here on the sceptics side, seem to be organised to come into a hard and prolonged attack whenever I mention something new that might point to the abductor, or the MO of the group behind the "master" abductor.


Now I wonder why that is?


Could it be to do with revealing not only a human trafficking group but also a lucrative drug trafficking set up?




There has to be a reason, there always is.

No sadie, the reason you are laughed at, and don't kid yourself you're not, is for the rubbish theories you post.

and your response above merely magnifies your idiocy.

[pathfinder73]

Yep losing the discussion, cos we use FACTS and you use any old myths and misinformation, but rarely facts

You cant beat FACTS Stephen.  They are solid and dependable.

Try using them sometime. 

And the fact is the parents didn't phone the police straight away after they knew she had been abducted. Fiona finally told Matt to go and call them 10-15 minutes after the alarm. Kate should have contacted them straight away but examining shutters seemed to be more important. Maybe Gerry being out and about searching for that evil Portuguese paedo gang explains why she didn't contact them straight away.

[slartibartfast]

  Good observations Brietta.


The more I am ridiculed and laughed at, the more I know that I have hit a sore spot.  

I have noticed that some peeps on here on the sceptics side, seem to be organised to come into a hard and prolonged attack whenever I mention something new that might point to the abductor, or the MO of the group behind the "master" abductor.


Now I wonder why that is?


Could it be to do with revealing not only a human trafficking group but also a lucrative drug trafficking set up?




There has to be a reason, there always is.

Have you never considered that people who criticise your wild assertions may be actually concerned about your state of mind?

[pegasus]

And the fact is the parents didn't phone the police straight away after they knew she had been abducted. Fiona finally told Matt to go and call them 10-15 minutes after the alarm. Kate should have contacted them straight away but examining shutters seemed to be more important. Maybe Gerry being out and about searching for that evil Portuguese paedo gang explains why she didn't contact them straight away.

I think KM honestly but mistakenly deduced from the open window that it was abduction.
Shortly after that, the tests by 2 people on that shutter (and by 1 person on another shutter) were because those people initially did not believe the shutter could be opened from outside.
IMO all the searches up to GNR arrival were, without exception, completely genuine.
I think the assumption that the timewindow for exit from apartment has to be something approximately like 21:00-22:00 (2007 PJ) or 21:30-22:00 (2013 SY) is illogical.