Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[Brietta]

Nothing for abduction.

and without that, all roads lead back to the mccanns.

Please do not be so silly.  If all roads lead back to the Drs McCann why are SY and the PJ interviewing arguidos and persons of interest in Portugal??

[stephen25000]

Please do not be so silly.  If all roads lead back to the Drs McCann why are SY and the PJ interviewing arguidos and persons of interest in Portugal??

As I said, once the abduction scenario is seen for what it is...........................

[Brietta]

As I said, once the abduction scenario is seen for what it is...........................

The abduction scenario has indeed been seen for what it is ... even by the Portuguese authorities who required by law new evidence to re-open Madeleine's case ... remiss of them not to have told you what that is.


** snip
LISBON, Portugal -- LISBON, Portugal (AP) — More than six years after British girl Madeleine McCann vanished from her bedroom during a family vacation in Portugal and five years after Portuguese police gave up trying to find her, authorities reopened the case Thursday, citing new evidence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/new-leads-in-madeleine-mccann-case_n_4158376.html

[Lace]

The evidence in the Madeleine McCann case is that Madeleine is missing and hasn't been found,   no body found.  Warning bells should have rang with Amaral when Madeleine wasn't found after an extensive search,  he should have thought of abduction and sealed off 5a,   notified borders etc.     Instead the police didn't arrive until late morning of May 4th.

SY have accomplished the fact that a group of people were going door to door pretending to be collecting for a charity that didn't exist.

A group of men were ringing each other,  calls lasting a minute or so at times,   pointing out each move the McCann's made on the 3rd of May,  when Madeleine was collected from the crèche etc.

[Mr Gray]

Are you trying to change the subject? Davel says there is evidence which supports the abduction theory. He/she is clearly unwilling or unable to produce that evidence, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to conclude there is none.

I will ask you again as you failed to reply...how do you define evidence..earlier in the thread you used the word proof and evidence as though they are interchangeable...they are not

[Brietta]

Yes they were drinking and eating.

Try to get the facts right.

The fact is that Madeleine McCann is missing and after a period of years with no official investigation into her disappearance taking place the police have been interviewing people of interest who may or may not provide the key to what happened to her.

I would have thought that the logical position for all truth seekers whatever their opinion of Madeleine McCann's parents may be ... would be to welcome that situation with open arms.

[stephen25000]

No you get the facts right,  they had a drink with their meal,  you make it sound as if they were out for a night on a drinking spree.

No one said they were drunk,   not the waiters not the other people who ate in the OC.

It wasn't one drink and it wasn't just one night.

[Lace]

It wasn't one drink and it wasn't just one night.

No,   they would have had to eat every day that is true Stephen,   the fact that they had more than one drink with their dinner is neither here nor there,  they were not drunk.

[Mr Gray]

How can you eliminate someone if the discrepancies in their starements lead them to be suspected ? Lest we forget the McCanns's own PIs flagged up the anomalies in their starements.

because the discrepencies are investigated and found to be of no value

[G-Unit]

I think we are well aware what evidence for and against an assertion is.

Time for you to show us yours.

High time for davel to show his. He rubbishes everything everyone else says but has nothing with which to support his assertions in my opinion. I refuse to be diverted by either of you.

[stephen25000]

High time for davel to show his. He rubbishes everything everyone else says but has nothing with which to support his assertions in my opinion. I refuse to be diverted by either of you.

Well said.

[G-Unit]

I will ask you again as you failed to reply...how do you define evidence..earlier in the thread you used the word proof and evidence as though they are interchangeable...they are not

It's you who insists that the evidence supports the abduction theory. You supply it and we'll see whether it's sufficient or not.

[DCI]

I should have specified that Kate was never interviewed without the presence of her husband until September 2007.

Ok, Gerry was allowed to attend, on the 4th May, but had to sit behind Kate.
She should have been interviewed again on the 10th May, but wasn't after sitting in the waiting area for 8 hours, she was told it was too late, and to come back the next day. It never happened.

September the 6th, Gerry was made to leave the room.

What happenned to the "Informal statements" from the 8th of August. Not in the files.

[pathfinder73]

Ok, Gerry was allowed to attend, on the 4th May, but had to sit behind Kate.
She should have been interviewed again on the 10th May, but wasn't after sitting in the waiting area for 8 hours, she was told it was too late, and to come back the next day. It never happened.

September the 6th, Gerry was made to leave the room.

What happenned to the "Informal statements" from the 8th of August. Not in the files.

I'll tell you what happened on 8 August. They didn't believe their story.

"Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events."

[DCI]

I'll tell you what happened on 8 August. They didn't believe their story.

"Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events."

Tried to make Kate confess. So why aren't these interviews in the files?