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

[Wonderfulspam]

A great shame that you demonstrate a failure to understand the way the law works in your own posts then. I can only go on the actual evidence of the content of your posts, you understand.

And I do find it laughable that we have had on this thread another person citing a belief in the fantasist from South Africa which you did not query but you cannot bring yourself to understand that the vast proportion of the work of SY is honest and reliable.

Prove Mr Birch is wrong, go on, get your spade out.

[sadie]

It will be proved that he was carrying Madeleine so that means at least two knew about her death when it happened in the apartment due to the dogs evidence. Anything said after her estimated time of death by the accused can't be believed as it is simply staging including any other evidence found such as finger prints.

Surely, surely, by now, you understand thta there is NO EVIDENCE from the dogs in 5A, in the villa or in the car.  No evidence.... NONE .... just a mighty cock up by Amaral, who at best did not understand the alerts meanings and the forensics from the UK..  And at worst may have been trying to fit the Mccanns up?  Only my opinion.


NO EVIDENCE Pathfinder.  It has been gone over repeatedly and you are still denying the facts.

Try pulling your head out of the sand and rereading all the stuff, pathfinder.  Please.

[gilet]

So you are not convinced that she was abducted by a stranger  ?

thanks,  I just wanted to clarify before joining your thread

Though mine is the opening post, it is not in fact my thread. It was created out of another by the admin of this forum.

The initial post was in fact a response to some rather ridiculous comments from people alleging that the McCanns were guilty of criminal actions, which they could not support with evidence.

As I said at the time, when push comes to shove, the truth is that people cannot provide any evidence at all that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.

[stephen25000]

A great shame that you demonstrate a failure to understand the way the law works in your own posts then. I can only go on the actual evidence of the content of your posts, you understand.

And I do find it laughable that we have had on this thread another person citing a belief in the fantasist from South Africa which you did not query but you cannot bring yourself to understand that the vast proportion of the work of SY is honest and reliable.

In your desperation to harangue the McCanns you cannot bring yourself to admit that most UK police work is done honestly and reliably. That is the kind of inanity which most posters and readers will recognise.

An expected response, but hardly surprising.

The bottom line remains, the mccanns are responsible for the fate that befell Madeleine, no one else.

Posters who know the background to what happened will know that as well, and not some watered down version on crimewatch, or the Mills and Boon rubbish of km's book.

You are marked by your uncritical defense of the mccanns.

P.S. Birch is a nut job, and if you had paid attention to my posts in the past you would have seen that.

[sadie]

Prove Mr Birch is wrong, go on, get your spade out.

I would love that drive to be dug up!   Just to prove things.  And also Mrs Murat would get a new drive.

[gilet]

Prove Mr Birch is wrong, go on, get your spade out.

Again the idiotic reliance on the negative. It is up to Mr Birch to prove his fantasies to be true.

He has stated that the world recognises that he has solved the McCann case. Pure fantasy.

He has stated that he has found the body of Madeleine. Pure fantasy.

There is no evidence of either of these ridiculous claims just as there is no evidence of any crime having been committed by the McCanns.

But some posters here seem to give more credence to this law-breaker than to the UK police.

That is quite amusing and helps us understand why those posters make the claims they do.

[gilet]

An expected response, but hardly surprising.

The bottom line remains, the mccanns are responsible for the fate that befell Madeleine, no one else.

Posters who know the background to what happened will know that as well, and not some watered down version on crimewatch, or the Mills and Boon rubbish of km's book.

You are marked by your uncritical defense of the mccanns.

You are marked by your obsessive mantra which is entirely OFF TOPIC as usual.

And your inability to understand that the McCanns were actually cleared of any abandonment of their children is also very enlightening.

The mantra you choose to repeat ad nauseam, does not help anyone solve the case. It is said just to hurt the parents of Madeleine as much as you are able. Everyone knows about the mistake they made. Your sick pleasure in posting your mantra about it dozens and dozens of times a week helps nobody to find the missing child. You know that and don't really care do you?

[Wonderfulspam]

I would love that drive to be dug up!   Just to prove things.  And also Mrs Murat would get a new drive.

I think that's the very least Mrs Murat deserves for her suffering.

[icabodcrane]

Though mine is the opening post, it is not in fact my thread. It was created out of another by the admin of this forum.

The initial post was in fact a response to some rather ridiculous comments from people alleging that the McCanns were guilty of criminal actions, which they could not support with evidence.

As I said at the time, when push comes to shove, the truth is that people cannot provide any evidence at all that the McCanns are guilty of any crime.

Well of course no-one here can provide evidence that the McCanns are   guilty  of any crime  ...  but you knew that before asking didn't you  ?

What might be more interesting,  I think,   would be a discussion as to whether there is any evidence which might be seen to  implicate  the McCanns   

What do you  think  ?   ...  do you think there is any evidence which might be   'suggestive'  of the McCanns being involved in a crime  ? 

[pathfinder73]

Surely, surely, by now, you understand thta there is NO EVIDENCE from the dogs in 5A, in the villa or in the car.  No evidence.... NONE .... just a mighty cock up by Amaral, who at best did not understand the alerts meanings and the forensics from the UK..  And at worst may have been trying to fit the Mccanns up?  Only my opinion.


NO EVIDENCE Pathfinder.  It has been gone over repeatedly and you are still denying the facts.

Try pulling your head out of the sand and rereading all the stuff, pathfinder.  Please.

Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

SO you're ruling out the sliding door (for reasons I haven't fully investigated but never mind) but don't say why it is impossible for someone to have gained entry with a spare set of keys or via the window.
 
How about elaborating somewhat on your simple scenario, eg: when was "the kid" dumped?

[Alfred R Jones]

Certainly scores high for simplicity.

Not really when you start to think about it. 

[Jean-Pierre]

"Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it."

Of course.  But it is also the case that the onus is on the person making a claim to provide the corroborating evidence.

Afaik no such corroborating evidence has been provided.  It is of course possible that, at some time in the future, corroborating evidence may be found.  But at present it is perfectly correct for sadie to say No Evidence.

[Alfred R Jones]

It's the simplest solution & doesn't require the invention of an abductor, and all the further speculation that goes with him/her, or collusion between the entire T9.

I'm afraid it does require the invention of a T9 conspiracy if the "kid" being "dumped" occurred at the time of the Smiths sighting.

[Mr Gray]

Surely you know Sadie the dogs findings needs to be confirmed with corroborating evidence. So the dogs evidence can still be an important part of this case so don't forget it.

how can the alerts be part of the case...where is the corroborating evidence going to come from  from the appt...from the car