So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Mr Gray]

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that Redwoods explanation wasn't believable for at least the three reasons I gave. That's why Redwood's other announcements can't be relied on.

in your very biased opinion

[mercury]

That is a question that has been mulled over many times, G.
Was it the person that JT saw on that night, or did she see an abductor?
All very strange to say the least!

And not forgetting that the Leicester police plods sat on this info for years.

[stephen25000]

in your very biased opinion

Now that coming from you....

 

[mercury]

Why don't you tell me verbatim exactly what you think he said then?

He said nothing more much than that the opportunity for an abduction was there, we will have to agree to disagree

[mercury]

What evidence do you want?    A note from the abductor saying 'I woz here'   There are MANY cases where there is no finger prints,   dna,   of the abductor.    In Sarah Payne's case if her brother hadn't seen that white van what evidence would there have been?    What evidence is there for Ben Needham.   The police probably come to their conclusion by elimination that it is unlikely she wandered,   not likely she had an accident and so what is left as there is no body to be found is abduction.

I have never asked for evidence, sometimes there is little or none, I have questioned the fact that many posters say there is plenty of evidence and asking, what is it? I have read posts that state, "someone was calling  out for Madeleine" that night, so that is evidence of an abduction. Others say "she is missing" so that is evidence. It isn't. Others say a man was spotted carrying a small child, that isn't either. It might be, but it isn't definitely evidence.

[mercury]

Not really surprising as some eights years on there still isn't any.

Sad but true.

[mercury]

Are you actually being serious?

DCI Redwood is talking exclusively about the McCann case and specifically about Madeleine McCann.  He was not talking in general terms in any way shape or form.     

In fact he could not have been more crystal clear or unambiguous if he'd tried.

The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.

I know he was talking about the case Benice! But what he said was not unambiguous. Either that or he has a problem with plain speaking. All he said was the opportunity was there for a stranger to abduct a child.

[Alfred R Jones]

He said nothing more much than that the opportunity for an abduction was there, we will have to agree to disagree

So are you explicitly denying that he stated he believed Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?

[mercury]

So are you explicitly denying that he stated he believed Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?

Yup

[Alfred R Jones]

Yup

Wow.  Stunning example of denial there, thanks!

[G-Unit]

in your very biased opinion

That doesn't answer my point, now does it? 

[mercury]

Wow.  Stunning example of denial there, thanks!

It's like getting blood out of a stone here sometimes.

He may well have been saying what YOU believe he was
IMHO he fudged his words and could as well have said nothing of the sort

Why did he have such difficulty stating his stance?All he had to say is we believe Madeleine was abducted. he didn't say that!


Why, if he believed that, would he say there was an opportunity for it???

[Alfred R Jones]

It's like getting blood out of a stone here sometimes.

He may well have been saying what YOU believe he was
IMHO he fudged his words and could as well have said nothing of the sort

Why did he have such difficulty stating his stance?All he had to say is we believe Madeleine was abducted. he didn't say that!

I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I enter into a discussion with you.  Redwood clearly ("unequivocally" is the word used by the Guardian newspaper when reporting his words) states that as an experienced investigator he believes Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.  There can be no dispute about this. It is a fact that her said this even if you refuse to accept it.

[Mr Gray]

That doesn't answer my point, now does it? 

You don't make any point.....imo

[stephen25000]

I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I enter into a discussion with you.  Redwood clearly ("unequivocally" is the word used by the Guardian newspaper when reporting his words) states that as an experienced investigator he believes Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.  There can be no dispute about this. It is a fact that her said this even if you refuse to accept it.

Redwood has also said she might have died in the apartment.

He also said he believes in an abduction.

So what exactly was his expertise in this type of investigation.

Since clearly he has found nothing of consequence, before his retirement.