No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?

[gilet]

When push comes to shove, there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns, there is no theory which can possibly explain the involvement of the parents of Madeleine in any crime.  Being a very minor adviser to a government-set-up quango is not a crime.

And there is no explanation for the actions of those people on the internet and in real life who wish to pursue the McCanns for possible crimes without any evidence, without any logical theory as to how they are involved, other than the bizarre response that these people "see things clearer than others".

Is the ability to "see things clearer than others" a way of saying that they don't give a damm about the law, the need for evidence or any of the other niceties of civilised society and prefer just to find the justice they see from behind their blinkers or what exactly do you mean by that phrase?

[pathfinder73]

If the window was open before Kate arrived why wasn't the door slammed shut. Why did it conveniently shut when she arrived? Also there was no evidence of anyone going through the window - it makes no sense to have that open window whatever way your want to spin it. How couldn't Kate remember the last time she saw her daughter? I don't know if I checked before they left to go to the tapas but Gerry said he did. You'd think she'd try and remember the last time she saw her daughter. Why did she think Madeleine was under the covers but Gerry said she was on top of the covers. These are very  important details of when they last saw their daughter and their answers are very suspicious! Also can you explain how the door moved 3 times because an abductor would've only moved it once at the most and then left with Madeleine. If the cadaver scent Eddie found was Madeleine then she died before 8.30 and probably around 7. So that rules an abductor or burglar out of causing her death. A crime was covered up if that is the truth. This is a possible homicide to cover up such a death. Anything else would be a tragic accident e.g. a fall from the sofa. Even her taking tablets which I don't believe is a tragic accident and wouldn't be covered up IMO.

[gilet]

Have you never noticed on a hot but breezy day if you leave a door open, and then open another, the first door has a tendency to slam shut. My mother was forever telling me to shut the doors.  These days in my own home if I have the outside kitchen door open and go to answer the front door, the inner kitchen door tends to slam shut.

Air movement is a complex matter and without experimenting in the actual flat, neither you nor I can make assumptions as to how the window and doors would be affected.

Your tendency to take the precise words of a reported statement as the only possible interpretation. We have no way whatsoever of knowing precisely what Kate McCann said during the questioning, only the report which was made of those words.

Your inability to understand that real police understand that statements taken when a person is suffering a trauma as Kate was in May, or statements sometimes months after an event have to be taken as the basis of the truth and the content must be examined carefully. People do not always remember things as clearly as you seem to believe, even vital details.

As for your comment about Eddie. You are making a presumption that even Grime never made. You seem to believe 100% that the dog alerted to a cadaver. That simply is a gross mis-representation of fact. Grime stated that his dog alert was suggestive of cadaver scent. But cadaver scent can be introduced without direct cadaver presence in the apartment at all. So you are presuming there was a cadaver in 5A when the facts tell us only that there might have been cadaver scent. A crucial difference.

[stephen25000]

Have you never noticed on a hot but breezy day if you leave a door open, and then open another, the first door has a tendency to slam shut. My mother was forever telling me to shut the doors.  These days in my own home if I have the outside kitchen door open and go to answer the front door, the inner kitchen door tends to slam shut.

Air movement is a complex matter and without experimenting in the actual flat, neither you nor I can make assumptions as to how the window and doors would be affected.

Your tendency to take the precise words of a reported statement as the only possible interpretation. We have no way whatsoever of knowing precisely what Kate McCann said during the questioning, only the report which was made of those words.

Your inability to understand that real police understand that statements taken when a person is suffering a trauma as Kate was in May, or statements sometimes months after an event have to be taken as the basis of the truth and the content must be examined carefully. People do not always remember things as clearly as you seem to believe, even vital details.

As for your comment about Eddie. You are making a presumption that even Grime never made. You seem to believe 100% that the dog alerted to a cadaver. That simply is a gross mis-representation of fact. Grime stated that his dog alert was suggestive of cadaver scent. But cadaver scent can be introduced without direct cadaver presence in the apartment at all. So you are presuming there was a cadaver in 5A when the facts tell us only that there might have been cadaver scent. A crucial difference.

What proof is there  that the window was open ?

NONE of course.

kate mccanns words, as to telling the truth...............................

A court is where that could be judged.

As to the cadaver scent, insufficient evidence either way.

That also applied to the shelving of the case. Insufficient evidence.

[gilet]

What proof is there  that the window was open ?

NONE of course.

kate mccanns words, as to telling the truth...............................

A court is where that could be judged.

As to the cadaver scent, insufficient evidence either way.

That also applied to the shelving of the case. Insufficient evidence.

Well a court would base the judgement on listening carefully, watching her and weighing up the words she speaks against other known facts. Proper observation of the person, proper examination of her actual words (remember the files do NOT contain Kate's actual words).

Now an interesting fact is that all the people who have actually had the opportunity to do those things (unlike Amaral who never bothered to meet her and the internet posse who have never had the chance to meet her) have found Kate McCann to be honest and genuine. They have found that her reports are credible and have supported her and her family.

As to the dog alerts. Even if you don't like it and are too stubborn to accept it, it is nevertheless a statement of fact that they do not indicate definitely that any corpse was present in Apt. 5A and most certainly do not indicate the death of Madeleine McCann. They are simply suggestive that cadaver scent may have been present and there are many potential explanations for that which have been posted many, many times but which you simply choose to ignore.

[slartibartfast]

I was under the impression that there was a wealth of evidence to support the McCann sceptic's point of view?

Dogs
Cell Phones
Statements
Sleeping Kids
Question Refusing
Leaving PDL
Litigation
Body Language
Fund

[gilet]

Dogs who alerted to potential cadaver scent which could have no connection to Madeleine.
Cell Phones - using mobile phones is not a crime and there is no evidence of anything illegal related to those mobiles
Statements - if all the statements matched perfectly that would be suspicious. Inconsistencies between statements is normal. People do not remember the same things as each other or the same things at different times.
Sleeping Kids - kids do sleep through things. Perfectly normal especially when exhausted by a busy day on holiday.
Question Refusing - done on legal advice. Sensible people take qualified legal advice no matter what the case when it is pointed out that the questions do not directly relate to finding the missing child.
Leaving PDL - at a pre-arranged time when it was clear that Amaral's team was misinterpreting the evidence which was available.
Litigation - only a moron would sit back and allow newspapers to lie about them and allow a disgraced ex-cop to lie about them. Perhaps that is why you find the litigation so odd.
Body Language - the last resort when all else fails is to resort to this. Please refer me to a professional report from a proper expert in the subject rather than the online witterings.
Fund - what is your problem with the fund, initially set up to deal with the monies which were coming in unrequested and ever since used legally and for the purpose of ensuring that their missing child is found and that liars do not get to make up theses which damage the search for her.

[slartibartfast]

Missing Cell Phone Records.
Fund being so unrestricted.
... And the Smiths and the strange book

Of course none is evidence as admissible in a court of law, but explains why some are sceptical.

[pathfinder73]

Don't forget that the kids routine changed on the day Madeleine went missing.

Imagine any detective coming in on the case and asking what was their normal daily routine and was informed that the kids daily routine only changed once and that was the day she went missing - only hours before she was reported to be missing. That doesn't look good. And then he asks did anyone see the missing child at this routine time change and you say Yes a friend of the parents and his testimony contradicts the mother of the missing child. She said she was only wearing a towel, he can't remember what she was wearing. He said he went into the apartment. The mother said he never entered the apartment. They are now put to the top of the possible suspects list.

[Alfred R Jones]

If the window was open before Kate arrived why wasn't the door slammed shut. Why did it conveniently shut when she arrived? Also there was no evidence of anyone going through the window - it makes no sense to have that open window whatever way your want to spin it. How couldn't Kate remember the last time she saw her daughter? I don't know if I checked before they left to go to the tapas but Gerry said he did. You'd think she'd try and remember the last time she saw her daughter. Why did she think Madeleine was under the covers but Gerry said she was on top of the covers. These are very  important details of when they last saw their daughter and their answers are very suspicious! Also can you explain how the door moved 3 times because an abductor would've only moved it once at the most and then left with Madeleine. If the cadaver scent Eddie found was Madeleine then she died before 8.30 and probably around 7. So that rules an abductor or burglar out of causing her death. A crime was covered up if that is the truth. This is a possible homicide to cover up such a death. Anything else would be a tragic accident e.g. a fall from the sofa. Even her taking tablets which I don't believe is a tragic accident and wouldn't be covered up IMO.

Based on this mountain of evidence you should then be able to piece together a simple, plausible explanation regarding what happened to Madeleine, who committed the crime, why and with whose help (if any) to cover the tracks.  I look forward to reading it.  If you're worried about libel you could always describe it hypothetically, changing names where necessary.

ETA: if you were really worried about not committing libel you might actually want to reconsider what you wrote in the above post anyway.

[Alfred R Jones]

Same goes for the abduction theory, Alfie. Who did it, why and how please?

I'm all ears and believe it or not totally open to persuasion.

I've no idea who or why, how is fairly easy though - they entered the apartment either via the window or by using a spare set of keys, or possibly via the unlocked patio doors, picked up the child and left shortly therafter.   A three year old child was removed from her parents' home in the middle of the night in Australia whilst the parents were present, which shows it's perfectly possible.

[icabodcrane]

Yes I agree, and by far the simplest, most plausible explanation is that she was taken from the apartment by a stranger.  In fact it's the only theory that fits the known facts, something which is clearly demonstrated by the complete absence of any other workable theory to have been put forward in the last 7 years.

I don't think the theory that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger  is plausible   ...   not in the circumstances described by the McCanns 

That open for instance   

No-one climbed in or out of it  ...  yet it was open

None of the  'explanations'  given for it are  'plausible' 

 ...  Well,   except for the one that says the window/shutters were opened  ( but never used for exit/entry  )  because it was a staged break-in   ...   that,  at least, is a logical explanation

[sadie]

I don't think the theory that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger  is plausible   ...   not in the circumstances described by the McCanns 

That open for instance   

No-one climbed in or out of it  ...  yet it was open

None of the  'explanations'  given for it are  'plausible' 

 ...  Well,   except for the one that says the window/shutters were opened  ( but never used for exit/entry  )  because it was a staged break-in   ...   that,  at least, is a logical explanation

Here we go again.  You have seen this dozens of times Icabod.  Why do you keep saying the same things, over and over?

If two people were involved in the lifting and carrying, then the lifter is likely to be a woman known to Madeleine.  Someone she has confidence in.

Entry is made by the obvious way in, the front door.  A door that is deeply recessed and in almost complete darkness.  Also a spot that no-one passes and behind a fairly high wall.

Entry was made to two apartments in the block via the front door in the weeks before Madeleine was taken.

Reasons for the window to be open:
- As an escape route in emergency
- To give moral support to the woman inside - and instructions
- To pass things through from man outside to woman inside (maybe chloroform pad?) and receive back
- to give the false impression that maddeleine climbed out of the window and wanderd off.
- To give a little natural added light to the room
- Maybe to illuminate the room with a torch from outside.  The lifter would have both hands full.
- To warn if anyone came via the front, or if alone to see if anyone was coming.
- Heriberto has a theory involving only one man who lifted Madeleine through the window

There are other reasons, but it is late and I am tired.  Plenty of reasons for the window to be open.
Even if only one person was involved 5 of those reasons stand.


BUT NO reasons if you are determined that The Mccanns Dunit  and refuse to consider what SY believe ... that Madelleine WAS ABDUCTED.



All the above imo, of course.

[Alfred R Jones]

I don't think the theory that Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a stranger  is plausible   ...   not in the circumstances described by the McCanns 

That open for instance   

No-one climbed in or out of it  ...  yet it was open

None of the  'explanations'  given for it are  'plausible' 

 ...  Well,   except for the one that says the window/shutters were opened  ( but never used for exit/entry  )  because it was a staged break-in   ...   that,  at least, is a logical explanation

Why is it not possible for the intruder to have had a spare set of keys?  Why is it not possible to have entered or exited by the window or sliding doors for that matter?  How is this scenario less plausible than the supposedly simple scenario which no McCann sceptic has ever been able to describe in any plausible manner that fits the known facts?

[Wonderfulspam]

Why is it not possible for the intruder to have had a spare set of keys?  Why is it not possible to have entered or exited by the window or sliding doors for that matter?  How is this scenario less plausible than the supposedly simple scenario which no McCann sceptic has ever been able to describe in any plausible manner that fits the known facts?

Kate debunked the sliding door herself, whilst also admitting she is lying about something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1370


Simple scenario, the kid died, her body was chucked into a big dumpster type bin, off to the tip she went, the end.