So what is the evidence for abduction?

[mercury]

so bottom line was, there was no evidence of abduction

[Benice]

so bottom line was, there was no evidence of abduction

So how do you explain why both the UK and PT professional teams of detectives, who have been working exclusively on this case, have managed to get it all so wrong?

[stephen25000]

So how do you explain why both the UK and PT professional teams of detectives, who have been working exclusively on this case, have managed to get it all so wrong?

Perhaps you can remind us of what these professionals have found.

[Benice]

Perhaps you can remind us of what these professionals have found.

Both teams of professional policemen have 'found' as a result of their investigations that the McCanns and their friends can be ruled out as suspects.

[stephen25000]

Both teams of professional policemen have 'found' as a result of their investigations that the McCanns and their friends can be ruled out as suspects.

Ah, MANTRA TIME.


Poor policing.

You have to know the crime first.

[Benice]

Ah, MANTRA TIME.


Poor policing.

You have to know the crime first.

LOL you really don't do irony do you Stephen?

So IYO both the SY and Oporto teams of professional policemen dedicated to this case - don't know what they are doing, and armchair detectives - armed with only some of the evidence are far more competent than they are.   Really?

[stephen25000]

LOL you really don't do irony do you Stephen?

So IYO both the SY and Oporto teams of professional policemen dedicated to this case - don't know what they are doing, and armchair detectives - armed with only some of the evidence are far more competent than they are.   Really?

Oh I do know what irony is. Sorry to disappoint.


Now let's try again, and this time try to provide a logical answer, other than the mantra, which has become exceedingly boring (that's irony by the way  ).


What evidence of abduction exists ?

I'm all ears.

[Benice]

Oh I do know what irony is. Sorry to disappoint.


Now let's try again, and this time try to provide a logical answer, other than the mantra, which has become exceedingly boring (that's irony by the way  ).


What evidence of abduction exists ?

I'm all ears.

What has any of  that got to do with my post asking if it was your opinion that both the SY and Oporto teams don't know what they are doing and armchair detectives (such as yourself) who only know some of the facts  - are more competent than they are?

Not trying to deflect again are you Stephen?

[stephen25000]

What has any of  that got to do with my post asking if it was your opinion that both the SY and Oporto teams don't know what they are doing and armchair detectives (such as yourself) who only know some of the facts  - are more competent than they are?

Not trying to deflect again are you Stephen?

There is no deflection, other than what you are doing.

What is the evidence for abduction ?

What have this team of professionals found ?

[Benice]

There is no deflection, other than what you are doing.

What is the evidence for abduction ?

What have this team of professionals found ?

I see you are not going to answer the question, so I will assume that you actually do believe that armchair detectives with no experience of detective work and who only have some of the facts - are actually better equipped to 'solve' this case - than professional detectives who have all the available info, the ability to interview and carry out checks on people - and who also have years of expertise/experience between them.

If you want to believe that - then carry on.   It's your prerogative.

[stephen25000]

I see you are not going to answer the question, so I will assume that you actually do believe that armchair detectives with no experience of detective work and who only have some of the facts - are actually better equipped to 'solve' this case - than professional detectives who have all the available info, the ability to interview and carry out checks on people - and who also have years of expertise/experience between them.

If you want to believe that - then carry on.   It's your prerogative.

Have they found Madeleine or what happened to her ?

[mercury]

So how do you explain why both the UK and PT professional teams of detectives, who have been working exclusively on this case, have managed to get it all so wrong?

What exactly have they got so far four years down the line that is so right then?

[mercury]

Both teams of professional policemen have 'found' as a result of their investigations that the McCanns and their friends can be ruled out as suspects.

Bit of massaging of facts going on here and a rather telling "result/wishful thinking"  of an investigation.  The remit of the two operations was not to rule out the Mccanns, was it? the Mccanns were declared not persons of interest "in the context of" specific enquiries centred around persons of interest. Sigh.

[Benice]

What exactly have they got so far four years down the line that is so right then?

That doesn't answer my question mercury.       What evidence (which is so obvious to sceptics) have they missed which should have convinced them that the McCanns and/or their friends are guilty of wrongdoing and are all lying their heads off?

 

[xtina]

Re: So what is the evidence for abduction?


i think the op title says everything .......their is no evidence ....even tanner man now doesn't exist