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

[Brietta]

Let's unpick this. There are two things being said above, in bold.

Kate's statement is evidence. In it she says the window was open. Therefore her statement is evidence that the window was open.

Kate's statement is proof. Proof of what? That she stated that the window was open.

If I'm misreading, please correct me.

As I see it the witness who saw Robert Black abducting a child is evidence ... the proof lies in the fact that the child was discovered in the van seen speeding off by the witness.

[G-Unit]

That's right

Phew! So there is no proof that the window was open, the only proof we have is that Kate McCann said it was.

[Angelo222]

Phew! So there is no proof that the window was open, the only proof we have is that Kate McCann said it was.

That's it in a nutshell.  You either believe her or you don't.  Isn't it strange she never went out the front door to look for Maddie on finding a window open and her gone??

[G-Unit]

As I see it the witness who saw Robert Black abducting a child is evidence ... the proof lies in the fact that the child was discovered in the van seen speeding off by the witness.

OK. So Kate McCann's statement is evidence that a window and some shutters were open. There is no proof that this is true. Even if it is true, all it means is that a window and some shutters were open. We don't know why they were open.
An open window and shutters is not evidence of an abduction.

[G-Unit]

[Quote removed]

Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.

Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool.
.
Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition.
Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

[Lace]

Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.

Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool.
.
Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition.
Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

I know what he said when he did his check.

He saw the window open when they went back to 5a after Kate give the alarm that Madeleine was missing.

So are you saying that Kate found Madeleine, then decided to fake an abduction?

[Brietta]

Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.

Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool.
.
Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition.
Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

Ah the vagaries of translators and translations.  Did it not occur to you that the two windows reference may be to the sliding nature of the window which had two panes of glass.
I think there is photographic evidence to support that fact.

The fact that the initial investigation pulled out all the stops to ensure a particular outcome in Madeleine McCann's case have already gone through all this with a fine toothcomb. 
They were thwarted in their attempt because there was NO evidence either hard or circumstantial ... so why do you suppose you can succeed where Amaral failed?

The failure to follow available evidence by concentrating on theoretical supposition probably cost the investigation the chance to determine those who may have been responsible for the crime against Madeleine McCann ... the one certain thing is that the person responsible was in Luz on the third of May 2007.

[G-Unit]

Ah the vagaries of translators and translations.  Did it not occur to you that the two windows reference may be to the sliding nature of the window which had two panes of glass.
I think there is photographic evidence to support that fact.

The fact that the initial investigation pulled out all the stops to ensure a particular outcome in Madeleine McCann's case have already gone through all this with a fine toothcomb. 
They were thwarted in their attempt because there was NO evidence either hard or circumstantial ... so why do you suppose you can succeed where Amaral failed?

The failure to follow available evidence by concentrating on theoretical supposition probably cost the investigation the chance to determine those who may have been responsible for the crime against Madeleine McCann ... the one certain thing is that the person responsible was in Luz on the third of May 2007.

My point is that there is no evidence to support the abduction thesis.

[Brietta]

[quote removed]

An eye witness was the only evidence that Robert Black had abducted a child ... prompt action by the police secured her recovery.
An eye witness saw a child being carried from the direction of an apartment from which a child was missing ... ???

What exactly did the police do?

They certainly did not trace him ... several years passed before that happened ... so why did it not happen in 2007?

[jassi]

My point is that there is no evidence to support the abduction thesis.

None that has been verified as true, at least.

Tannerman was considered to be   evidence of abduction, but that has now been shown to be incorrect - SY have identified him as an innocent tourist.

[Brietta]

My point is that there is no evidence to support the abduction thesis.

There is seldom evidence of abduction ... in that Madeleine McCann's case is archetypal.   

[Brietta]

None that has been verified as true, at least.

Tannerman was claimed as evidence of abduction, but that has now been shown to be incorrect - SY have identified him as an innocent tourist.

If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?

In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case. 

It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.

[Alice Purjorick]

If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?

In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case. 

It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.

I expect 18 months ago you were saying the Tanner sighting was the pukka gen and that anyone who disbelieved that "fact" was simple. Now the fact it was not so pukka is the fault of the PJ?
Nonetheless given that probably the most inept police force in the world came up empty handed after 14 months. How much further down the track are we after 3 groups of PIs, one of which group "really were the Big Boys", and probably the best police force in the world have been looking and investigating for more than 4 years in total?

[faithlilly]

If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?

In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case. 

It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.

You seem to be rather confused Brietta. Do you believe that, taking over from 'the amateurish approach' by the initial investigators the professional policeman who make up OG have now identified Tannerman as an ordinary father or that Tannerman was seen taking Madeleine away and OG are just as amateurish as the PJ and have got it wrong again ? You really can't have it both ways.

[jassi]

If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?

In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case. 

It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.

I'm afraid I've no answer as to why it took so long for Tannerman to be identified as a complete red herring.