A Question of Propaganda.

[Brietta]

What evidence ?

You post here on a very regular basis ... why am I assuming that you do not read as well.
That link was posted very recently.

[stephen25000]

You post here on a very regular basis ... why am I assuming that you do not read as well.
That link was posted very recently.

Well funnily enough, I do not read every post, as I do have a life beyond this forum.

[stephen25000]

Enough time to follow entirely the wrong tack in relation to the disappearance of a child ... particularly not making sure the golden hours were given proper consideration.

That is a matter of opinion.

Nothing has been found to prove an abduction took place.

[Mr Gray]

That is a matter of opinion.

Nothing has been found to prove an abduction took place.

i would say it has

If SY have ruled out the parents...taht basically proves abduction

[stephen25000]

i would say it has

Cite.

[Mr Gray]

Cite.

its above ...pure logic

[stephen25000]

its above ...pure logic

Oh dear. *&*%£

[Mr Gray]

Oh dear. *&*%£

if you can't follow the simple logic that's your problem.....point any flaw if you are able...I rather doubt it

[stephen25000]

if you can't follow the simple logic that's your problem.....point any flaw if you are able...I rather doubt it

Cite the evidence for abduction.

Do not mention the other thread.  There is no evidence there.

[Mr Gray]

Cite the evidence for abduction.

Do not mention the other thread.  There is no evidence there.

i've just given you proof...on the balance of probabilities...or even beyond reasonable doubt...the fact you do not understand is your problem

[Alfred R Jones]

Always happy to expand your knowledge Alfred;


"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

- The assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court, in July 2008

For good measure;

"You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the [Ben] Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted."

- The Foreign and Commonwealth Office responding to a Freedom of Information request in connection with missing Ben Needham
http://www.mccannfiles.com

Thanks, I remember it now, though I don't recall seeing the full submission (if such a thing exists to read) nor what the submission was for specifically.  I guess then that there is no clear evidence which eliminates the Needham family from involvement in Ben's disappearance either, though I don't recall this fact being used to criticise and attack them in the manner that the McCanns have been.

ETA: I've checked out this quote from the assistant chief constable and it appears that this information has only come to light because Kate McCann herself chose to reveal it in her book.  Makes you wonder why she would share this information with the world if she truly was guilty, and not simply an indignant, perplexed mother of a missing child desperate to get their hands on any and all information concerning the investigation to enable their PIs to pursue their own lines of enquiry.

[Brietta]

That is a matter of opinion.

Nothing has been found to prove an abduction took place.

You appear to have issues with "abduction" at the moment ... this thread is actually mainly concerned with propaganda.

Unfortunately the ineptitude of the first forensic harvest might very well have destroyed evidence pointing to an abductor. 

Disregarding the GNR dogs would not have helped.

How difficult would it have been to bag the cigarette ends found at a possible vantage point to have the DNA recorded.

Jane Tanner's sighting wasn't taken to conclusion ~ and the man carrying a child right outside the building it was subsequently discovered a child had gone missing from ~ still probably has not been identified.

How many independent witness statements were followed up and the strange men lurking around the McCann apartment traced and eliminated?

Etc ... etc ...

However your insistence that no abduction occurred is consistent with Mr Amaral's much promoted, closed minded, theory which allowed no deviation ... and would lead me to determine that you are evidencing the efficacy of the propaganda system used to promote it.

[stephen25000]

i've just given you proof...on the balance of probabilities...or even beyond reasonable doubt...the fact you do not understand is your problem

No.

There is no evidence, let alone proof of abduction

Never has been.

[stephen25000]

You appear to have issues with "abduction" at the moment ... this thread is actually mainly concerned with propaganda.

Unfortunately the ineptitude of the first forensic harvest might very well have destroyed evidence pointing to an abductor. 

Disregarding the GNR dogs would not have helped.

How difficult would it have been to bag the cigarette ends found at a possible vantage point to have the DNA recorded.

Jane Tanner's sighting wasn't taken to conclusion ~ and the man carrying a child right outside the building it was subsequently discovered a child had gone missing from ~ still probably has not been identified.

How many independent witness statements were followed up and the strange men lurking around the McCann apartment traced and eliminated?

Etc ... etc ...

However your insistence that no abduction occurred is consistent with Mr Amaral's much promoted, closed minded, theory which allowed no deviation ... and would lead me to determine that you are evidencing the efficacy of the propaganda system used to promote it.

All that is evidently obvious, is that you are here defending abduction.

For which, there is no evidence to show one happened, which can't be explained by other scenarios.

Namely, Madeleine disappeared.

Meanwhile you post is hypocritical, since you ignore the other scenarios.

[misty]

Cite the evidence for abduction.

Do not mention the other thread.  There is no evidence there.

The facts...
"Officers have investigated more than 60 persons of interest, considered 650 sex offenders....."

That's an awful lot of possibilities considering there was no evidence of an abduction
                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then the propaganda.....

"That all seems clear enough, but to many sceptics who have followed the case closely it is all a show, a sham, a cover-up, a whitewash, a conspiracy to hide the truth. They allege the claim that Madeleine was abducted, which her parents have always been adamant about and which the police and mainstream press in the UK seem to accept, is a fabrication.
The Met, of course, will have none of it."

All courtesy of Len Port http://portugalresident.com/madeleine-case-slips-into-its-ninth-year