Was Madeleine McCann run over by accident and then carried off?

[Carana]

I don't see it that way at all.  Any parent given the circumstances would jump to the same conclusion that someone had abducted her.  Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the evidence does NOT support an abduction.

In fact, contrary to what you posted, there was no need for any lie.  Mistaken would be a more appropriate qualification.

In the final analysis, it was the guilt of having left her unattended and the possible legal consequences of having done so which concerned the tapas group more than anything else.  Thus we have the ass covering exercise in perfect parenting!

I'd thought about that, but then why would they all admit - at the first opportunity - that they'd all left the children unattended in between checks?

IFF they had all pretended that they'd ordered take-aways and had never left the kids alone ever... then, yes, I'd accept that they were in denial, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Alfred R Jones]

Well it is better than the abduction theory 
Now as I recall, all The Met ever said about the abduction theory was: "There was a window of opportunity when and abduction could have taken place. If it were abduction by stranger it would be a criminal offence" or some such. I am sure a diligent Googler could find the actual quotation. It'll be on one the YouTube videos I bet.
Shame about The Met greasing Tannerman The Abductor ( I have put that in as a test)

No they said after forensic examination of the timeline that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction and that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. 

[Angelo222]

You've contradicted yourself above.  Firstly you say you don't see it the way I described it, that Kate was mistaken not lying (and hence not evil), then you say that there actions subsequently were those of ass covering, implying that they have been lying (hence evil) after all - so which is it?

You have misread what I posted.  The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do.  As far as they are concerned she was abducted.  My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own.  Tannerman and Smithman are nothing more than convenient distractions.

[carlymichelle]

You have misread what I posted.  The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do.  As far as they are concerned she was abducted.  My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own.

could explain the daddy daddy  mrs fenn heard maddie screaming  she woke up and panicked looking for gerry then  got lost/into a accident

[Carana]

i struggle to understand why  mcann supporters only support   the abduction theory?? do they know what pedos do to children?? they are basically  wishing  maddie  harm by saying she is alive  with   a pedo  the denial by them is amazing

What exactly are you trying to say?

If you had been taken by a paedo (or indeed by anyone without such intentions), would you hope that your parents would give up trying to find you and encourage everyone to think that you were dead even if you were alive and screaming for someone to rescue you?

[Alice Purjorick]

No they said after forensic examination of the timeline that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction and that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

You have a link to that precise quotation I presume?

[Alice Purjorick]

When Kate McCann entered the bedroom of the children the window was open and the shutter pushed up. Are you of the opinion then that Madeleine did this?

The shutters were raised or lowered by a CDA inside the room. Do you have evidence the child could not operate the CDA?

[Alfred R Jones]

You have misread what I posted.  The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do.  As far as they are concerned she was abducted.  My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own.  Tannerman and Smithman are nothing more than convenient distractions.

Who opened the window Angelo?

[Alfred R Jones]

You have a link to that precise quotation I presume?

It isn't precise quotation hence I did not put it in quotation marks, however if you give me a moment I'll run off like an obedient little dog and fetch the stick you have thrown me.

[Angelo222]

No they said after forensic examination of the timeline that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction and that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

Just goes to show how far off the mark they really are.

[Alice Purjorick]

It isn't precise quotation hence I did not put it in quotation marks, however if you give me a moment I'll run off like an obedient little dog and fetch the stick you have thrown me.

I will take that as you posted your own interpretation of what "The Man At The Yard" said.
Are you the same guy that implied (if not stated outright) this morning that another poster was a liar for not posting a cite?
Naughty naughty.

[Alfred R Jones]

You have a link to that precise quotation I presume?

From the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call

"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.

He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.





Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".

[Carana]

You have misread what I posted.  The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do.  As far as they are concerned she was abducted.  My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own.  Tannerman and Smithman are nothing more than convenient distractions.

I've never totally discounted that possibility. However, I find it very unlikely. If she'd been a bit older, e.g. 5-6, then I would have found that more credible.

[Alfred R Jones]

Just goes to show how far off the mark they really are.

Would you care to explain to us how it is that you know better than the Met?  What access have you had to the evidence?  How well did you know Madeleine and her habits and behaviour?  Her parents?  Where is your evidence of an accident having befallen the child?  Why is the evidence of an accident much stronger in your view than evidence of an abduction?

[Alice Purjorick]

From the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call

"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.

He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.


Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".

Could not was, which is what I said. I am sure you understand the difference.
The Grauniad report is 25th April 2012. DCI Redwood kind of altered that timeline when he greased "Tannerman The Abductor" in October(?) 2013 and made some comment about our thinking is Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
So the question remains what do The Yard think now not what did they reportedly think in 2012 according to some posters. Unless of course you believe the investigation remains mired in 2012.