Witnesses claimed to have seen Robert Murat the night Maddie disappeared.

[mercury]

If RM was there that night, then the question of why he elected to distance himself from the scene as far as the PJ were concerned would need to be addressed.
Whilst not being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, he may hold information about others who were on the scene at the time.

CP - there are various newspaper reports, none of which provide a precise version of what she witnessed, & when.

Thanks for agreeing paper reports/ Metodo 3s statements are total bollocks vis a vis Charlotte

As for Murat potentially hiding an abductor, honestly, misty! Get real! What for???

[misty]

You do realize that if people such as yourself didn't repeat the abduction mantra ad nauseum, then I would not be doing the reverse.

The offer has been made several times before, and ignored.

If we didn't discuss the abduction scenario then we would merely be kowtowing to the masses who profess to know far more about the troof than SY or the PJ.
It would be far more stimulating for everyone if you engaged in proper debate than maintained a one-dimensional stance.

[misty]

Thanks for agreeing paper reports/ Metodo 3s statements are total bollocks vis a vis Charlotte

As for Murat potentially hiding an abductor, honestly, misty! Get real! What for???

I said nothing about RM hiding any abductor. I merely said, had he been there, he may have held information about others who were there that the PJ weren't aware of. He may have had a jolly good reason, legal or illegal, for not wanting to engage further with the PJ.
The important issue is primarily to establish if he really was there that night. Isn't that what the investigation was supposed to do - or did the PJ just fly the Tapas 3 back for the sake of it?

[stephen25000]

If we didn't discuss the abduction scenario then we would merely be kowtowing to the masses who profess to know far more about the troof than SY or the PJ.
It would be far more stimulating for everyone if you engaged in proper debate than maintained a one-dimensional stance.

One dimensional ?

There lies an irony with the nature of the mccann supporters such as yourself.

Abduction, abduction, abduction, and of course Murat.

[misty]

One dimensional ?

There lies an irony with the nature of the mccann supporters such as yourself.

Abduction, abduction, abduction, and of course Murat.

Unlike BoJo, I am unable to debate a topic from 2 different viewpoints at the same time.
In the absence of definitive evidence of means, motive & opportunity in relation to the parents, alternative ideas have to be explored and I consider abduction to be the most likely scenario.
If you don't like the fact that I see the case rather differently to you - tough.

[stephen25000]

Unlike BoJo, I am unable to debate a topic from 2 different viewpoints at the same time.
In the absence of definitive evidence of means, motive & opportunity in relation to the parents, alternative ideas have to be explored and I consider abduction to be the most likely scenario.
If you don't like the fact that I see the case rather differently to you - tough.

Is that what is called a strop ?

[mercury]

I said nothing about RM hiding any abductor. I merely said, had he been there, he may have held information about others who were there that the PJ weren't aware of. He may have had a jolly good reason, legal or illegal, for not wanting to engage further with the PJ.
The important issue is primarily to establish if he really was there that night. Isn't that what the investigation was supposed to do - or did the PJ just fly the Tapas 3 back for the sake of it?

If he was lieing because of other "interests" then he has NOTHING to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann  so why are you labouring him so much?

[misty]

Is that what is called a strop ?

Don't be ridiculous. Strops are for real issues, like bad hair days.

[mercury]

Unlike BoJo, I am unable to debate a topic from 2 different viewpoints at the same time.
In the absence of definitive evidence of means, motive & opportunity in relation to the parents, alternative ideas have to be explored and I consider abduction to be the most likely scenario.
If you don't like the fact that I see the case rather differently to you - tough.

They had all those

Means - didnt need them if was an accident whilst away
Motive - life/ family being destroyed
Opportunity - Was there for removal

Edited

[misty]

If he was lieing because of other "interests" then he has NOTHING to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann  so why are you labouring him so much?

This is a discussion forum.
It is the subject of the thread, Mercury.
There is a lot of information in the public files & media about him.
He, inadvertently or otherwise, has a lot to do with the MM case.
Why are you so touchy about it?

[pegasus]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256

"The day after she vanished they told police about two suspicious men they had seen in a ground floor apartment overlooking the tapas bar ... A source close to the investigation said: "An officer went with them to the apartment to check it. Murat appeared and acted as an interpreter. Annie assumed he was working for police. That night Murat ... was passing and enquired if everyone was OK ... He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans ... and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'. They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier."

Let's get this straight - RM claims he had been wearing a blue tshirt and jeans all day - but the two lady witnesses claim that for the first part of the day he was wearing a striped shirt and trousers.

So let's go back and find probably the first photo we have of morning 4th - taken about 9.30am - and we'll see who is lying.

Striped shirt and trousers = the witnesses are correct.

Blue tshirt and jeans = RM is telling the truth and the witnesses are very seriously mistaken.

What do you think?
Looks like blue tshirt and jeans to me.

[mercury]

This is a discussion forum.
It is the subject of the thread, Mercury.
There is a lot of information in the public files & media about him.
He, inadvertently or otherwise, has a lot to do with the MM case.
Why are you so touchy about it?

Not touchy at all Misty, I couldn't care less,  just don't see a connection, perhaps you have it but won't tell what you think and btw   discussion forums mean discussing , not just casting aspersions, so spit it out, I'm sure Murat wont Sue you

[misty]

They had all those

Means - no one checking on  them
Motive - life/ family being destroyed
Opportunity - same as means

That is only applicable to a death scenario.

[misty]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256

"The day after she vanished they told police about two suspicious men they had seen in a ground floor apartment overlooking the tapas bar ... A source close to the investigation said: "An officer went with them to the apartment to check it. Murat appeared and acted as an interpreter. Annie assumed he was working for police. That night Murat ... was passing and enquired if everyone was OK ... He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans ... and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'. They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier."

Let's get this straight - RM claims he had been wearing a blue tshirt and jeans all day - but the two lady witnesses claim that for the first part of the day he was wearing a striped shirt and trousers.

So let's go back and find probably the first photo we have of morning 4th - taken about 9.30am - and we'll see who is lying.

Striped shirt and trousers = the witnesses are correct.

Blue tshirt and jeans = RM is telling the truth and the witnesses are very seriously mistaken.

What do you think?
Looks like blue tshirt and jeans to me.

Maybe the source close to the investigation got it wrong?
How were AW & [Name removed] able to first take a PJ officer to the apartment without the use of an interpreter?

[mercury]

That is only applicable to a death scenario.

I mixed up/misunderstood means and opportunity and had amended my post but still a death scenario, so where's the evidence there was nodeath, nowhere, in fact most statistics point to it in stranger abductions