So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Carana]

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.

To whom?
It's not that difficult to imagine that he may have had duly explained reasons as to why he was walking in that direction, is it?

I think the mass of PJ and other leaks may have made people imagine that they are entitled to scrutinise every snippet of information in a live investigation, irrespective of people's privacy.

Why on earth would the Met have detailed why he was where he was at the time? That's for the Met to know, not a few dozen people still following this case.

Or has the entire Met team invented crecheman to back down in a diplomatic moment of embarrassment to the world that Amaral was right all along and Tannerman never existed? I wouldn't bet my currently wilting parsley on that one.

[Mr Gray]

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.

didn't make them look silly.....its just a small group who want to pretend SY are useless because they support the McCanns innocence

[Benice]

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.

I don't think what the reaction of a small group of sceptics on the internet was going to be - ever came into the equation when SY were deciding what information to include in their appeal to the GBP.

Anyone who thinks that none of the SY team dedicated to this case simply didn't notice that Crecheman was going in the wrong direction and so didn't question him about that apparent anomaly -  is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.     It is quite obvious to me that they did - and were satisfied by his explanation.

The vast majority of the GBP wouldn't even know he was apparently going in the wrong direction if he was coming from the creche -  because they don't follow the case.      It's only a small number of people in a little corner of the internet who do follow the case who would pick up on that.    The idea that SY had some duty to make the appeal with those people uppermost in their minds is preposterous IMO.    They are of no importance to them whatsoever IMO.

[Carana]

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.

There are now currently two active police investigations.

Why would the Met or the PJ be interested in satisfying the curiosity of a handful of people on social media without a specific reason (e.g., a new appeal if they discover something new that requires the assistance of the public)?

[G-Unit]

To whom?
It's not that difficult to imagine that he may have had duly explained reasons as to why he was walking in that direction, is it?

I think the mass of PJ and other leaks may have made people imagine that they are entitled to scrutinise every snippet of information in a live investigation, irrespective of people's privacy.

Why on earth would the Met have detailed why he was where he was at the time? That's for the Met to know, not a few dozen people still following this case.

Or has the entire Met team invented crecheman to back down in a diplomatic moment of embarrassment to the world that Amaral was right all along and Tannerman never existed? I wouldn't bet my currently wilting parsley on that one.

You interpret it one way. I and others interpret it another. The difference between us seems to be that some accept what they're told and others wonder why we're being told something which doesn't make sense.

[ferryman]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I agree with your last point.

An example of the sort of thing Brietta might be referring to is that Amaral wrote his book without reference to Joao Carlos' final report on behalf of the PJ which (embarrassingly for Amaral's book) says that that the time of Kate's alert and the sighting of the Smiths, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant ...

Just one example ....

[G-Unit]

An example of the sort of thing Brietta might be referring to is that Amaral wrote his book without reference to Joao Carlos' final report on behalf of the PJ which (embarrassingly for Amaral's book) says that that the time of Kate's alert and the sighting of the Smiths, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant ...

Just one example ....

What has Amaral's book to do with the clumsy attempt by DCI Redwood to eliminate Tannerman? I don't know what you're talking about either, sorry.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I wonder just a little bit about the content in your post which seems to imply you and others of your ilk see yourselves as 'free thinkers' who have arrived at certain conclusions unaided.

I can see the parallels with what you have been told about Mr Amaral's theory ... which is even less than a half time report since he wasn't even allowed to sit on the benches after the manager pulled him off the field ... he was sent to the dressing room and an early exit from the team.


The final whistle hasn't been blown yet.

Oh but we are 'free thinkers' we do not follow orders or directions from people who seem to have scored too many 'own goals' and refusing to accept the referees red card following a off side reprimand.

In other words: The McCanns made a huge mistake, blamed everyone else, accusing many of incompetence, while all the time moving their versions of accounts which cannot  be forensically proved. And failing to answer serious but awkward questions. I do not think they told the truth about what happened, that doesn't mean I don't accept Maddie could have been abducted, just one of many theories.

[Brietta]

What has Amaral's book to do with the clumsy attempt by DCI Redwood to eliminate Tannerman? I don't know what you're talking about either, sorry.

               What has Mr Amaral's book to do with anything one might say.

I think its relevance to this thread might be that stated within its pages is that he is averse to any indication that Madeleine McCann was abducted.  Surprisingly there are others who claim to have reached that discarded conclusion too based on nothing more than reliance on their investigative skills ... aren't you one?

[G-Unit]

               What has Mr Amaral's book to do with anything one might say.

I think its relevance to this thread might be that stated within its pages is that he is averse to any indication that Madeleine McCann was abducted.  Surprisingly there are others who claim to have reached that discarded conclusion too based on nothing more than reliance on their investigative skills ... aren't you one?

As i haven't read Amaral's book I can't comment on it. My posts are the result of my research, yes. My conclusion? all options are possible, but some seem more improbable than others.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Amaral's book has nothing to do with the thread or the abduction theory... hot air and high wind... deflecting from not having ANY EVIDENCE of abduction.

 Thread:   So what is the evidence for abduction?   answer NONE.

[Anna]

Please try and adhere to the topic.
And  direct your remarks to the topic under discussion and not the poster. Thank you.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral's book has nothing to do with the thread or the abduction theory... hot air and high wind... deflecting from not having ANY EVIDENCE of abduction.

 Thread:   So what is the evidence for abduction?   answer NONE.

plenty of evidence for abduction for those of us who understand what evidence means

[pathfinder73]

didn't make them look silly.....its just a small group who want to pretend SY are useless because they support the McCanns innocence

“The McCanns have completely changed the way we now look for missing children—it used to be you go to the police; now it means you go to the media, to celebrities,” says a disapproving Scotland Yard specialist in abused children.

[Anna]

“The McCanns have completely changed the way we now look for missing children—it used to be you go to the police; now it means you go to the media, to celebrities,” says a disapproving Scotland Yard specialist in abused children.

What good is a quote from an unnamed person mentioned in  vanity fair? Pathfinder. Do you know who this person is?

I will add the link, but I would appreciate it if you included links in future. It will save me the trouble of google searching to find a person, only to find that he is not named.

 
Vanity fair on McCanns
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/02/mccanns200802?currentPage=1