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

[Mr Gray]

 deleted

[Eleanor]

When did they say that?

(I had to post this again because AnnaLor is here)

Too true, Mate.  Stick to The Topic.

[Eleanor]

Is there any hard evidence?

[mercury]

Is there any hard evidence?

There is hard evidence that posts have been deleted...I cannot find two of mine on this thread, pointless posting here, sometimes when posts are removed and youre not told why, lets have another go

the ONLY hard evidence  (for abduction) would be someone actually seeing Madeleine Mccann being abducted, that does not exist, therefore there is no hard evidence for an abduction

Am I wrong? i'm sure someone will run to tell me if I am

[Mr Gray]

there is no hard evidence but if we take all the evidence...witness statements....there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie was abducted...and this appears to be what SY believe. Strangely this on topic post of mine has been previously deleted

[G-Unit]

there is no hard evidence but if we take all the evidence...witness statements....there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie was abducted...and this appears to be what SY believe. Strangely this on topic post of mine has been previously deleted

That's a bit vague, don't you think? Perhaps you need to provide more detail. Which witness statements etc?

[Mr Gray]

That's a bit vague, don't you think? Perhaps you need to provide more detail. Which witness statements etc?

First posters talk about proof without defining what they mean...it makes a massive difference..
Absolute proof....beyond reasonable doubt...on the balance of probabilities...

It is possible to prove something...balance of probability...without hard evidence

As far as supplying more info...it's pointless....the posts will be deleted anyway...ignore it if you disagree

[G-Unit]

First posters talk about proof without defining what they mean...it makes a massive difference..
Absolute proof....beyond reasonable doubt...on the balance of probabilities...

It is possible to prove something...balance of probability...without hard evidence

As far as supplying more info...it's pointless....the posts will be deleted anyway...ignore it if you disagree

I agree that statements taken together can provide hard evidence, but unless you say which ones your post is meaningless.

[Mr Gray]

I agree that statements taken together can provide hard evidence, but unless you say which ones your post is meaningless.

it will be to the doubters....but not to others

[G-Unit]

it will be to the doubters....but not to others

Well, I tried. Your sole purpose it seems to me is to ridicule any evidence offered by others while refusing to provide anything to support your position.

Once again I am off topic, and once again it is due to trying to get some sense out of a 'believer'.

[stephen25000]

it will be to the doubters....but not to others

I'm not one into mystic sightings or beliefs. So please tell us all who saw Madeleine being 'abducted'.

I await a  logical response.

Not bluster.

[Wonderfulspam]

there is no hard evidence but if we take all the evidence...witness statements....there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie was abducted...and this appears to be what SY believe. Strangely this on topic post of mine has been previously deleted

That's because of this.....

This thread is not intended for speculation, as has already been pointed out.
 Please adhere to the topic. Thank you

Off topic posts will be deleted and repeated off topic posters will face sanctions as stated in the Forum rules

[Lace]

I'm not one into mystic sightings or beliefs. So please tell us all who saw Madeleine being 'abducted'.

I await a  logical response.

Not bluster.

Stephen a question for you.    Why did Amaral follow up sightings?

[Brietta]

We tend to get 'hung up' on the efits alleged to represent smithman because it is something we know about from the internet files to which we have access.

There are however files to which we are not privy because they were withheld for various reasons.  They remain evidence none the less.  The nature of some of those reasons for disallowing general release would probably exclude civilian access, but I would imagine that some of the content may very well have provided SY with the added information which enabled Madeleine McCann's case to be reopened for avenues not investigated at the time to be followed through.

I find it interesting that individuals who resembled an efit ~ which efit would that be? one description given by an individual witness or different witnesses' description of a different or the same person?

**snip

Volume XV
- Fls. 4085/4100: reference to a Portuguese citizen having physical similarities to the portrait (e-fit), with police record showing convictions for robbery, rape and kidnapping.

- Fls. 4102/4110: identification of an English individual having physical similarities to the portrait (e-fit).

- Fls. 4116/4127: work performed with an individual known through the practice of a crime of sexual abuse of minors, having a police record and convictions for that same crime.

Volume XVI, fls. 4130/4132: reference to a French citizen with physical similarities to the portrait (e-fit).

Regarding the material contained in those pages and for the reasons given, because we believe that, after their removal, the [rule of] judicial secrecy should remain, replacing it [the material] with a summary of what they [the pages] contained and the creation of an Appendix [Annexure file] to remain in the custody of an entity considered competent for its custody [safe-keeping], for the single purpose of demonstrating its existence, in terms of the requirement of Article 86 (7) of the CPP.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

[Mr Gray]

I'm not one into mystic sightings or beliefs. So please tell us all who saw Madeleine being 'abducted'.

I await a  logical response.

Not bluster.

another stupid question einstein