Interpreting the facts using a different paradigm

[Brietta]

I know of no evidence that she urinated in closets, screamed or became violent at these times

The symptoms are desdcribed are offered as some, not all, and not directed at anyone specifically, but then you knew that didn't you? did you deliberatly miss the other symptoms? like driving a car, or taking part in behaviour not normally accosicated with a wakened person? many ,many symptoms. It would certainly be bad for the parents if this was the case, leaving a door unlocked for her to get out of the apartment- barefooted-leaving cuddle cat... So ofcourse you are going to protect the parents by suggesting I give evidence of Maddies Behaviour when I have none, just like I, and millions of others, have none for an abduction via a jemmied window.  bummer eh?

Can you detail any suggestion or evidence that Madeleine was a sleep walker?

No, can you detail, or suggest or show evidence this didn't happen to Maddie on this occasion?

It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine had a history of sleepwalking.

Bearing in mind that internet detectives only have a smidgen of the evidence available to the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard ... I'm going along with the fact that in Madeleine's case, both professional bodies are investigating abduction.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine had a history of sleepwalking.

Bearing in mind that internet detectives only have a smidgen of the evidence available to the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard ... I'm going along with the fact that in Madeleine's case, both professional bodies are investigating abduction.

It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted.

both professional bodies are investigating abduction not because they believe it, but because SY were given a remit to go and find an abductor...have they found one? is there any evidence of stranger abduction or are they looking for a known person to Madeleine removing her from the apartment- or have they not clarified that yet.

[ferryman]

It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted.

both professional bodies are investigating abduction not because they believe it, but because SY were given a remit to go and find an abductor...have they found one? is there any evidence of stranger abduction or are they looking for a known person to Madeleine removing her from the apartment- or have they not clarified that yet.

The absence of any other credible, sensible or viable explanation (of Madeleine's disappearance), in its own right, is evidence of abduction!

Ally that to the fact that Amaral's "explosive witness" (Martin Smith) has, long since, recanted of the view that he (and his family) might have seen Gerry (all Mr Smith's children insisted, from the outset, that they had not seen Gerry; and Mr Smith's wife, Mary, is on record, since release of the files, as saying that the Smiths stand ready to support Kate and Gerry in any way they can to find Madeleine) and you have potent evidence (in support of abduction).

[mercury]

The absence of any other credible, sensible or viable explanation (of Madeleine's disappearance), in its own right, is evidence of abduction!

Ally that to the fact that Amaral's "explosive witness" (Martin Smith) has, long since, recanted of the view that he (and his family) might have seen Gerry (all Mr Smith's children insisted, from the outset, that they had not seen Gerry; and Mr Smith's wife, Mary, is on record, since release of the files, as saying that the Smiths stand ready to support Kate and Gerry in any way they can to find Madeleine) and you have potent evidence (in support of abduction).

Utter rubbish all the way through

[Brietta]

It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted.

both professional bodies are investigating abduction not because they believe it, but because SY were given a remit to go and find an abductor...have they found one? is there any evidence of stranger abduction or are they looking for a known person to Madeleine removing her from the apartment- or have they not clarified that yet.

I hope you will forgive me if I take the opinion of the professional investigators of the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard and anyone else with a modicum of knowledge about child abduction, in preference to yours.

[mercury]

I hope you will forgive me if I take the opinion of the professional investigators of the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard and anyone else with a modicum of knowledge about child abduction, in preference to yours.

Neither have said they thnk t was an abudction

[Robittybob1]

Neither have said they thnk t was an abudction

What would you call it?

[slartibartfast]

The absence of any other credible, sensible or viable explanation (of Madeleine's disappearance), in its own right, is evidence of abduction!

Ally that to the fact that Amaral's "explosive witness" (Martin Smith) has, long since, recanted of the view that he (and his family) might have seen Gerry (all Mr Smith's children insisted, from the outset, that they had not seen Gerry; and Mr Smith's wife, Mary, is on record, since release of the files, as saying that the Smiths stand ready to support Kate and Gerry in any way they can to find Madeleine) and you have potent evidence (in support of abduction).

The dreaded recanted argument. Please cite.

[ferryman]

The dreaded recanted argument. Please cite.

The sole, and blindingly obvious, inference to be drawn from the fact that Mr Smith produced an efit (of a man he thought was Gerry?  Come on!)

[Robittybob1]

The sole, and blindingly obvious, inference to be drawn from the fact that Mr Smith produced an efit (of a man he thought was Gerry?  Come on!)

So do we have a fact That mr Smith produced an E-fit that was more like Jez rather than Gerry.  Was this prompted in any way?  Did they show My Smith photos of the OC guests prior to doing the e-fit?

[slartibartfast]

The sole, and blindingly obvious, inference to be drawn from the fact that Mr Smith produced an efit (of a man he thought was Gerry?  Come on!)

So no cite then. 2+2=5

[ferryman]

So do we have a fact That mr Smith produced an E-fit that was more like Jez rather than Gerry.  Was this prompted in any way?  Did they show My Smith photos of the OC guests prior to doing the e-fit?

We do, from an FOI answer given to Tony Bennett and posted on this board a while back.

[ferryman]

So no cite then. 2+2=5

Flawless logic represents 2+2=4

[mercury]

Thank you.  I have seen this before but it is always good to refresh one's memory.

As to K & G, this looks to me like a 100% normal way of getting off an aircraft with a small child.  Perhaps Mr Smith thought Smithman should have lobbed the child over one shoulder - fireman style?

But have a look at what Kate is wearing - lower half.  Shouldn't those be evidence?

All I can think  of is that despite the cadaver dog alerting, since the blood dog did not, they werent considered as evidence any more, same with the soft toy...

[Robittybob1]

Thank you.  I have seen this before but it is always good to refresh one's memory.

As to K & G, this looks to me like a 100% normal way of getting off an aircraft with a small child.  Perhaps Mr Smith thought Smithman should have lobbed the child over one shoulder - fireman style?

But have a look at what Kate is wearing - lower half.  Shouldn't those be evidence?

Could you explain to me what "look at what Kate is wearing - lower half.  Shouldn't those be evidence?" means ?  I am not certain what that means.