So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Mr Gray]

When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.

If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.

As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.

The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.

I don't think the direction tannerman was travelling is of any significance...it was simply a piece of film showing what he would look like. Who directed the programme...

[Mr Gray]

I.e. NO EVIDENCE WORTH A PINCH OF SALT. 

yet we are supposed to accept there is evidence implicating the parents...what rubbish

[Mr Gray]

When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.

If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.

As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.

The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.

Glad to see you fully accept my reasoning...SY have ruled out the parents and therefore abduction is way ahead the most probable explanation.... I don't see any evidence directly implicating the parents...I'm afraid you are dreaming.

non verbatim statements do not count as evidence and would be inadmissible...as is the supposed dog's alerts...that leaves you with nothing.


Then we have the SIO with a conviction for lying...doesn't look very convincing at all

[Brietta]

So do you think it would have been normal behaviour for Kate and Gerry to immediately refuse entry to anyone - on the grounds that they would be contaminating  a crime scene?   Do you honestly believe that they were capable of making that decision having just discovered that one of their children was missing?    Surely not.

              LOL ... and what a furore the conspiracy theorists would have made of that one.

[stephen25000]

yet we are supposed to accept there is evidence implicating the parents...what rubbish

Where has accidental death been disproved, or Madeleine walking out of thee apartment and 'disappearing' ?

Why did you selectively quote from G-Unit ?

When did SY and the PJ re-interview and investigate the parents and theit associates ?

[Mr Gray]

Where has accidental death been disproved, or Madeleine walking out of thee apartment and 'disappearing' ?

Why did you selectively quote from G-Unit ?

When did SY and the PJ re-interview and investigate the parents and theit associates ?

read the post by g again...she makes the case for abduction very well

[stephen25000]

read the post by g again...she makes the case for abduction very well

I've read the post.

When did SY or the PJ investigate and interview the parents and associwtes ?

It's a straightforward question.

[Mr Gray]

I've read the post.

When did SY or the PJ investigate and interview the parents and associwtes ?

It's a straightforward question.

you need to ask them not me

[Brietta]

The assumption being made when the dog went missing from the doorstep is that she was stolen although there are no witnesses to such an event. 

This is based on the fact that she did not come in when expected.

She does not appear to have been the victim of a RTA after wandering off as no body or injured dog has been found despite the minister's appeals publicising the event on social media.

Witnesses have said a man had shown interest in the dog before she disappeared.  So is it strange that the dog's family are making the assumption she has been stolen ... and no-body seems to be asking ... why not the younger dog?


**snip
A CHURCH minister is desperately appealing for information after one of his dogs disappeared from his doorstep.

Ken Whitelaw believes Molly, a four-year-old West Highland terrier , was stolen.

She vanished on July 10, leaving her puppy Maisie distraught.

Ken, 56, believes the dog has been stolen after reports of a man stopping in the street and asking about the dog.

The dad-of-four said: “Maisie is nowhere near her self. She is only a year old and she knows nothing other than being with her mum.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/puppy-misses-mum-minister-thinks-6074344


Similarly ... no one saw what happened to Madeleine McCann.

But witnesses did come forward to report suspicions about a man in the vicinity of the McCann apartment.

[stephen25000]

you need to ask them not me

Have they found Madeleine or even what happened to her ?

[Carana]

When the Met ruled Tannerman out they did it by accepting that someone was returning from the night creche when he was actually heading towards it. They also accepted that someone kept the clothes they and their child wore that night for six years and remembered which they were. Hmmm.

If they were as meticulous when examining the parents and their friends it's hardly surprising they managed to rule them out.

As ruling the parents and their friends out also rules out accidental death, there's not much left to consider when using the 'balance of probabilities' test. Either MM left the apartment herself or someone took her. Once you've excluded involvement by the group you can rule out woke and wandered because they said they found all gates and doors closed, which makes that theory unlikely. Because you've ruled out involvement by the group anyone taking her was a stranger. The probability being an abductor or a burglary gone wrong.

The problem is that circumstantial evidence exists which suggests parental involvement.

There was no reason to explain to a bunch of forumites why crecheman was considered to be Tannerman. The point was simply to inform the public at large that Tannerman was probably not the abductor and to think of anything potentially useful that people may have seen or known about - including Smithman and a later time period.

The idea that a 37-staff strong investigation team didn't know where the crèche actually was before coming to their conclusion seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly as they were the ones to check the records.

[ShiningInLuz]

There was no reason to explain to a bunch of forumites why crecheman was considered to be Tannerman. The point was simply to inform the public at large that Tannerman was probably not the abductor and to think of anything potentially useful that people may have seen or known about - including Smithman and a later time period.

The idea that a 37-staff strong investigation team didn't know where the crèche actually was before coming to their conclusion seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly as they were the ones to check the records.

Your first para is correct.  SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman.  However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.

As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.

By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.

[Brietta]

Your first para is correct.  SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman.  However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.

As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.

By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.

I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the police foot soldiers were punctilious in information gathering ... one of the issues apparently being that the investigation was overwhelmed by all the bits and pieces which the Rebelo investigation immediately took steps to transfer to computer.

There is a lot of information not on the files as we know them so it is not out with the bounds of possibility that the PJ had a copy of the crèche records contained in the complete files to which SY have access.

Dr Kate McCann records her shock at seeing the note regarding the tapas restaurant booking containing the information that the children would be on their own ... I don't think that is in the copy of the files to which we have access.

[G-Unit]

There was no reason to explain to a bunch of forumites why crecheman was considered to be Tannerman. The point was simply to inform the public at large that Tannerman was probably not the abductor and to think of anything potentially useful that people may have seen or known about - including Smithman and a later time period.

The idea that a 37-staff strong investigation team didn't know where the crèche actually was before coming to their conclusion seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly as they were the ones to check the records.

Obviously the point was to dismiss the Tanner sighting. Pity they chose to do it in such a way that they made themselves look silly.

[Anna]

Your first para is correct.  SY don't need to explain to forums why Tannerman is crècheman.  However, having left behind such a blatant problem, they have encouraged another round of speculation, which if it is inaccurate (the speculation) is harmful to making progress.

As to the crèche records, are they in the PJ Files? I think not, as all and sundry 'experts' would have identified and named crècheman. So now we also supposed to accept that SY magicked six and a half year old records out the Ocean Club.

By the way, if the crèche records do exist in the PJ file, surely we should simply be working out who had a 2 year old girl in the crèche that night, working out where he was walking to, and putting this speculation to rest.

No night crèche records. Probably because it was not used by the McCanns.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id351.html