Is there now grudging but growing acceptance that the McCanns didn't do it?

[Alfie]

So we can say that supporters think Madeleine was the second coming?

If it pleases you to, we both know however that that is not an equivalent comparison.

[jassi]

So we can say that supporters think Madeleine was the second coming?

It'll certainly be a miracle if she returns.

[Alfie]

I assume you will provide cites from this forum for all that? Otherwise it's just another strawman.

BTW, read this thread, it might prove enlightening.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6981.0

[G-Unit]

It is claimed by sceptics that the Tapas 7 deliberately conspired with the McCanns to cover up the death of their daughter - and still maintain that conspiracy is still operating 10 years later.

Some sceptics explained away the SY statement that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest by suggesting that this was part of a conspiracy between SY and the Oporto team to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy between newspaper editors and the McCanns to publish articles to coincide with other news items.

I do not believe the McCann are so important they have to be protected by 'people in high places'.

I do not believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and that photographs proving otherwise have been photoshopped

There are a myriad of conspiracy theories amongst sceptics - thankfully most of the really barmy ones (like the substitute child) are not on this forum.

My point is that in my experience supporters are not conspiracy theorists by nature - but many sceptics are.

AIMHO

If 'sceptics' can be treated as a homogeneous group so can supporters. There do appear to be some who view G..... as a complete fraud and Amaral and his officers as plotting to entrap the McCanns from day one.

Then we have the 'elites' being protected, the belief some have that sceptics are trying to divert attention from the 'guilty', and the desperate attempts to pretend that leaving toddlers alone every night in an unlocked holiday apartment is something thousands of UK parents approve of and do themselves.

[G-Unit]

Joao Carlos contradicts himself. In one part of his report he gives Gerry McCann an alibi using the group timeline and in another part he refers to the need of a reconstitution. So the timeline is right/not right as convenient.

Martin Smith's last statement said he was 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann. The only other comment I can find is made after the Crimewatch programme in 2013;

"from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328

[Miss Taken Identity]

In reply to the thread question...No there is no acceptance they did or did not do it. Many still hold firm that they do not know what happened to little Maddie and don't guess or invent lies.

 I think you are getting confused with the reason for this part of the forum which is to discuss the case and those involved, to challenge the story as told by the Tapas, and look at different scenarios without committing to it as being what actually happened. The only way to get to the truth is to ask questions and hope truthful answers are forthcoming. Then it is down to what people believe. Discussing an abduction like other scenarios is not an acceptance of anything.

[G-Unit]

Here we go again, trying to make the evidence fit with beliefs. The range of crimes remain untouched, as the prosecutors noted;

the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.

They were;

the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[stephen25000]

[The prosecutors had no idea of what happened to Madeleine and still don't.

[stephen25000]

Forgotten?

Looks like a spoof article to me.

Don't be foolish.

We have been through all this before.

[ferryman]

They have adduced enough evidence to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was abducted.

The tricky bit is nailing the perpetrator(s).

[stephen25000]

They have adduced enough evidence to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was abducted.

The tricky bit is nailing the perpetrator(s).

Dear oh dear. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[John]

They have adduced enough evidence to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was abducted.

The tricky bit is nailing the perpetrator(s).

Really, what evidence?  SY no more know what happened to Madeleine than you or I do, that is why they are winding down the investigation.

[Lace]

Dear oh dear. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

You know differently do you?

They say they don't know where Madeleine is,   that is what they mean when they say they don't know what happened to her, that they don't know where she was taken.

[ferryman]

Really, what evidence?  SY no more know what happened to Madeleine than you or I do, that is why they are winding down the investigation.

"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).

Portuguese Prosecutors.

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

[stephen25000]

Portuguese Prosecutors.

i.e. They don't have evidence of abduction, never did.

Remember what Mitchell said ?