Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[G-Unit]

you have no evidence that either the PJ nor SY have not investigated the mccanns

The original investigation decided to do it but it was way too late, the birds had flown and they weren't coming back. OP and the PJ may have re-interviewed all those who were present on 3rd May and verified the timeline, which is the most important piece of the puzzle. If they have done so the media, who have been so interested in every move made by the investigators, have missed it.

[stephen25000]

No there isn't.

You don't have a clue ferryman.

[stephen25000]

This is silly.  Short of a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of complete strangers, of course The McCanns have been investigated and ruled out.

Conspiracies do occur.

[Eleanor]

Conspiracies do occur.

Not on this scale for a couple of middle class Doctors.  Why would it?

[stephen25000]

Not on this scale for a couple of middle class Doctors.  Why would it?

How would Blair, Brown and Cameron look if the abduction was made up ?

[G-Unit]

These people believe the dogs alerted to cadaver...false

and a lie detector would prove something...false again

that's the point I am making...the majority of people who do not believe teh mccanns do not understand the evidence and taht is easily proved by reading their posts

The majority of people who believe the McCanns can offer no evidence to support their belief. They think there's evidence to support their position, but there isn't.

[stephen25000]

The majority of people who believe the McCanns can offer no evidence to support their belief. They think there's evidence to support their position, but there isn't.

Precisely.

That's why they have to attack the 'sceptics'.

[Mr Gray]

The majority of people who believe the McCanns can offer no evidence to support their belief. They think there's evidence to support their position, but there isn't.

a ridiculous statement showing your skewed view of justice..........it is evidence to show their guilt which is important....

[G-Unit]

Precisely.

That's why they have to attack the 'sceptics'.

At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.

I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.

I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.

[Alfred R Jones]

At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.

I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.

I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.

what sort of evidence of abduction would you accept, save a sworn affadavit from the abductor saying he dunnit (and even then would you accept that I wonder,,,?)

[Mr Gray]

At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.

I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.

I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.

if the parents are ruled out which they have been out then abduction is odds on.....

[Brietta]

Here it is in capitals.............

'FAILED TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN SAFE'.

5 nights in a row, whilst they wined and dined.

Excellent parenting. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

When Scotland yard set up a review into Madeleine's disappearance I am certain they would have looked into the question of whether or not the Drs McCann failed to keep their children safe.

They probably noted the failure of the attempt to pursue them through the British courts with a private prosecution but the clincher would be the reasoning of the Portuguese prosecutors.

However they had more important things on their minds ... like the actual evidence which may have been unsurprisingly overlooked in what must have been one of the most intensive investigations into a missing child ever carried out in Portugal.
Evidence or avenues not developed which might possibly lead to the answer to the question of what exactly happened to Madeleine McCann.

I find it risible that the assumption has been made that at this stage of proceedings everything and everyone connected with Madeleine's case was not subject to the closest scrutiny by a very experienced team.
The fact that the review led to the reopening of Madeleine's case ... the fact that neither her parents nor their friends were declared persons of interest or suspects as a result of that review, quite the contrary in fact, should tell you something.

Then again perhaps it did ... but with the information not quite to your liking.

[stephen25000]

Excellent post G-Unit.

[Mr Gray]

Excellent post G-Unit.

the post was by Alfred

[stephen25000]

When Scotland yard set up a review into Madeleine's disappearance I am certain they would have looked into the question of whether or not the Drs McCann failed to keep their children safe.

They probably noted the failure of the attempt to pursue them through the British courts with a private prosecution but the clincher would be the reasoning of the Portuguese prosecutors.

However they had more important things on their minds ... like the actual evidence which may have been unsurprisingly overlooked in what must have been one of the most intensive investigations into a missing child ever carried out in Portugal.
Evidence or avenues not developed which might possibly lead to the answer to the question of what exactly happened to Madeleine McCann.

I find it risible that the assumption has been made that at this stage of proceedings everything and everyone connected with Madeleine's case was not subject to the closest scrutiny by a very experienced team.
The fact that the review led to the reopening of Madeleine's case ... the fact that neither her parents nor their friends were declared persons of interest or suspects as a result of that review, quite the contrary in fact, should tell you something.

Then again perhaps it did ... but with the information not quite to your liking.

The peoples mccann did not keep their children safe.

That's is why Madeleine disappeared.

Do keep up.

By the way, what are the SY team experienced in  ?

Ms. Hall is experienced in murder cases.