Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine

[G-Unit]

In the Panorama programme the talking head from the Met (Stephenson?) said that the very first thing they did as part of Op Grange was to revisit all the (non existent) evidence against the parents and made a value judgement on whether or not they should be treated as suspects.  Based on the complete absence of evidence they decided that they would not investigate them further.  Same with Murat presumably.  What do you have a problem with, exactly?

Commander Simon Foy, the man who agreed the remit (which was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011), seems to say that the McCanns weren't there when Madeleine went missing. (Panorama 36:05). Did they know what time she went missing at the very beginning then? I think not.

[Mr Gray]

Let's keep the tone friendly please Dave.

If you look at gunit post to me it is on a similar tone dismissing my opinion as irrelevant
I'm simply returning the compliment

[Mr Gray]

Commander Simon Foy, the man who agreed the remit (which was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011), seems to say that the McCanns weren't there when Madeleine went missing. (Panorama 36:05). Did they know what time she went missing at the very beginning then? I think not.

Simon Foy may have agreed it but who wrote it and when
It did not appear until Jan 2012 six months after the review started
Time to rule out the mccanns

[Alfie]

Commander Simon Foy, the man who agreed the remit (which was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011), seems to say that the McCanns weren't there when Madeleine went missing. (Panorama 36:05). Did they know what time she went missing at the very beginning then? I think not.

What he seemed to say was the polce looked at ALL the accumulated evidence and ruled out the parents.  The programme maker investigative reporter Bilton has also been living and breathing the case for the last 10years and he too is convinced of the parents innocence, anyone who can think logically and clearly couldn't fail to come to the same conclusion. 

[Alice Purjorick]

What he seemed to say was the polce looked at ALL the accumulated evidence and ruled out the parents.  The programme maker investigative reporter Bilton has also been living and breathing the case for the last 10years and he too is convinced of the parents innocence, anyone who can think logically and clearly couldn't fail to come to the same conclusion.

OK so let's work on the premise the parents had nothing to do with it.
What happened ? The little girl vanished into thin air.
Will some nice kind supporter explain how that happened in detail using witness statements known evidence and for preference using somekind of reality charting ?

[Mr Gray]

OK so let's work on the premise the parents had nothing to do with it.
What happened ? The little girl vanished into thin air.
Will some nice kind supporter explain how that happened in detail using witness statements known evidence and for preference using somekind of reality charting ?

Family had been watched by a group who wanted to abduct a child fitting Maddies description
Understood the 30 min checking routine
After check someone raises shutters from outside and opens the unlocked window
Climbs in
Lifts up the sleeping Maddie with hand over mouth
Leaves through the front door
Waiting car

[Alice Purjorick]

Family had been watched by a group who wanted to abduct a child fitting Maddies description
Understood the 30 min checking routine
After check someone raises shutters from outside and opens the unlocked window
Climbs in
Lifts up the sleeping Maddie with hand over mouth
Leaves through the front door
Waiting car

1. Speculation on your part.
2. There is no evidence the window was unlocked.
3. Speculation on your part.
4. Speculation on your part.
5. Where is there evidence of a waiting car.

I said preferably using some kind of reality charting.

[Alfie]

Family had been watched by a group who wanted to abduct a child fitting Maddies description
Understood the 30 min checking routine
After check someone raises shutters from outside and opens the unlocked window
Climbs in
Lifts up the sleeping Maddie with hand over mouth
Leaves through the front door
Waiting car

There's been a whole thread about this recently.  Sceptics simply won't have it though.  As far as most of them are concerned they are in Amaral's camp ie: abduction is "materially impossible" (what a complete crock).

[Mr Gray]

1. Speculation on your part.
2. There is no evidence the window was unlocked.
3. Speculation on your part.
4. Speculation on your part.
5. Where is there evidence of a waiting car.

I said preferably using some kind of reality charting.

Of course it's speculation
What else did you expect
I have given a scenario of how it may have happened
Of course you can pick holes in it but there are much bigger holes in the accident theory

[Alice Purjorick]

Of course it's speculation
What else did you expect
I have given a scenario of how it may have happened
Of course you can pick holes in it but there are much bigger holes in the accident theory

What a quaint idea.
@davel & @Alfie.
I am not interested in what Sr Amaral may or may not have said or what his theories were. I am asking for supporters to come up with a theory based on the evidence. After all you are ones who are hot on the evidence.
Put to the test the best you can manage so far is to speculate.
So what happened to the bit about how you understand the evidence better that all sceptics put together, then ?

[Mr Gray]

What a quaint idea.
@davel & @Alfie.
I am not interested in what Sr Amaral may or may not have said or what his theories were. I am asking for supporters to come up with a theory based on the evidence. After all you are ones who are hot on the evidence.
Put to the test the best you can manage so far is to speculate.
So what happened to the bit about how you understand the evidence better that all sceptics put together, then ?

It's quite simple
The evidence tells us what didn't happen and abduction is virtually proved by default

[Alfie]

65 pages of discussion here  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7884.0

[Brietta]

65 pages of discussion here  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7884.0

LOL  @ Robbity
I'd forgotten about that one. I really tore a strip off you Robbity I certainly had a cob on about something ... very sorry about that.

[Robittybob1]

LOL  @ Robbity
I'd forgotten about that one. I really tore a strip off you Robbity I certainly had a cob on about something ... very sorry about that.

I think this has become quite a plausible theory (currently anyway), but I would include the failed burglary attempt as the reason the window was up and Madeleine woke.

So now I would write:

Who goes for an abduction as a possible solution?
I do, and I know Sadie does,
I know Stephen doesn't.
Alfie must think it is likely.

My theory was a two stage abduction.  There was the walking and wandering part, and that is followed by the abduction.  So my initial thoughts were along the line that the "abductor" was never in the apartment.  It is really hard to build a workable scenario around these initial thoughts.

As I am exploring in another thread my findings so far are that none of the Tapas 9 (excluding Kate) initially thought Madeleine had been abducted.  Their initial thoughts were that she would be around the buildings or grounds somewhere, so they must have been thinking something like the woke and wandered scenario.
This is their thoughts even though they are generally aware that Kate and others had seen the window open and the shutters up due to the failed burglary attempt.  (That in itself has still quite contradictory thoughts for why would they all not think like Kate?)

[Carana]

Not available in my country. 
Thanks for trying.