What reasons are there to doubt the McCanns' version of events ?

[ferryman]

I've read the whole post.

But this:

  that had been withheld from the public by the McCanns,

Not a shred of evidence to support that, unsubstantiated, allegation ...

[slartibartfast]

I've read the whole post.

But this:

  that had been withheld from the public by the McCanns,

Not a shred of evidence to support that, unsubstantiated, allegation ...

 

[pathfinder73]

I've read the whole post.

But this:

  that had been withheld from the public by the McCanns,

Not a shred of evidence to support that, unsubstantiated, allegation ...

Those efits were done in 2008. What aren't they in the leaving no stone unturned book? Interesting the real reason why that book was written. It may be known to all soon.

[John]

Actions speak louder than words. In this particular instance the actions will say to a lot of people, myself included that amongst that report was something to hide.

A challenge to the McCanns.  Publish the Report done by Kevin Halligen and prove that there is nothing in the allegations.

[John]

I've read the whole post.

But this:

  that had been withheld from the public by the McCanns,

Not a shred of evidence to support that, unsubstantiated, allegation ...

Just the fact that it HAS BEEN WITHHELD.

[Luz]

To those who are sceptical of the the McCanns' version of events,   what raises those doubts  ?

What available information or evidence leads you to question the version put forward by Kate and Gerry McCann  ? 

For me,  one such doubt is raised by the witness statement of the upstairs neighbour, Mrs Fenn,  who says she heard a child crying in the McCanns' apartment for an hour and a quarter on Tuesday night

That raises a doubt about the McCanns claim that they had been checking on their children every half hour

Now,  I don't intend for this thread to descend into the usual back and forth of Mrs Fenn's reliability as a witness   ...   I am just saying that her testimony  raises a doubt  about the McCanns' version of events ...  which it undeniably does

What else raises doubts  ?

What reason is there to believe the versionS of eventS from the people that:
- didn't act according to their "theory" of abduction trying to search for the child immediately and/or call the authorities;
- factually compromised the crime scene;
- suppressed data that could have been relevant for the understanding of the events;
- gave contradictory/different statements (intra & inter-personally);
- never cared to go after any "sighting" but (coincidently in time) to some place totally different;
- lied about the support that was given to the search, faking that they were on their own (when they were the only ones that never searched);
- never seemed to prioritize the recovery of their child over their own "agenda" with travellings, media interviews, book, ...;
- etc, etc...

Why should anyone take for granted the version of anyone without any substantive, solid evidence?
The McCann told a story and expected it to be accepted when their behaviour told the opposite.

[jassi]

What reason is there to believe the versionS of eventS from the people that:
- didn't act according to their "theory" of abduction trying to search for the child immediately and/or call the authorities;
- factually compromised the crime scene;
- suppressed data that could have been relevant for the understanding of the events;
- gave contradictory/different statements (intra & inter-personally);
- never cared to go after any "sighting" but (coincidently in time) to some place totally different;
- lied about the support that was given to the search, faking that they were on their own (when they were the only ones that never searched);
- never seemed to prioritize the recovery of their child over their own "agenda" with travellings, media interviews, book, ...;
- etc, etc...

Why should anyone take for granted the version of anyone without any substantive, solid evidence?
The McCann told a story and expected it to be accepted when their behaviour told the opposite.

And yet, amazingly, some believe every word of it.

[Mr Gray]

What reason is there to believe the versionS of eventS from the people that:
- didn't act according to their "theory" of abduction trying to search for the child immediately and/or call the authorities;
- factually compromised the crime scene;
- suppressed data that could have been relevant for the understanding of the events;
- gave contradictory/different statements (intra & inter-personally);
- never cared to go after any "sighting" but (coincidently in time) to some place totally different;
- lied about the support that was given to the search, faking that they were on their own (when they were the only ones that never searched);
- never seemed to prioritize the recovery of their child over their own "agenda" with travellings, media interviews, book, ...;
- etc, etc...

Why should anyone take for granted the version of anyone without any substantive, solid evidence?
The McCann told a story and expected it to be accepted when their behaviour told the opposite.

because what you have written is untrue

[stephen25000]

because what you have written is untrue

Why should we believe the mccanns and associate version of events when there was clear collusion between them ?

[Mr Gray]

Why should we believe the mccanns and associate version of events when there was clear collusion between them ?

No one is asking you to believe them...your opinion is of no importance

[John]

No one is asking you to believe them...your opinion is of no importance

You really have to get a new line Dave.