What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[barrier]

Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law as "evidence" of what the eye witness saw ... therefore it is entirely wrong to say there is no evidence supporting Madeleine's abduction.  Jane Tanner saw it and what she saw would have been evidence in a trial.

Whether such evidence stands up under cross examination by either the defence or prosecution in a court of law in another point entirely.

[stephen25000]

Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law as "evidence" of what the eye witness saw ... therefore it is entirely wrong to say there is no evidence supporting Madeleine's abduction.  Jane Tanner saw it and what she saw would have been evidence in a trial.

A parent carrying a child home...........

[stephen25000]

It seems to be a question of which policeman with a lot of experience you want to believe?

Indeed Slarti.

SY weren't on the scene when Madeleine disappeared.

The local police were. They witnessed the behaviour and reactions of the Mccanns.

[barrier]

I'd love it to come to trial for SY would have to produce their witness and we'd see proof of the route he took back from the night creche, his name and the child's name, where he was staying, and the direction he was walking.

Strange isn't it Brunt door steps some one not connected,the beeb reporter sticks his mike under the nose of a couple of Portuguese not connected,SY are supposedly hot on the heels of purple haze yet this fella who could hold important info is barely mentioned,hmmm.

[Alfie]

It seems to be a question of which policeman with a lot of experience you want to believe?

The ones with the plausible, logical theories get my vote.

[stephen25000]

The ones with the plausible, logical theories get my vote.

Well, that's abduction out of the window.

[Alfie]

Well, that's abduction out of the window.

OK then let's hear a plausible and logical theory by a cop that isn't abduction.

[stephen25000]

OK then let's hear a plausible and logical theory by a cop that isn't abduction.

That has been done already.

...and of course, you wouldn't want me to 'libel' anyone, would you.

As I said  yesterday, and several times before, there is no evidence to put one scenario above another.

..and if you really believe in abduction, let's see evidence to support it.

[Eleanor]

The fact that they haven't found Madeleine's body is a good sign.

[G-Unit]

The fact that they haven't found Madeleine's body is a good sign.

Not when the sea is so close it isn't.

[John]

tracker dogs aren't limited to only being able to follow the trail of barefooted pedestrians as far as I'm aware.

You miss the point.  Someone who is barefooted will leave a solid scent trail, someone wearing shoes will still leave a trail but a much weaker one and someone being carried at a height of four feet will leave very little of a trail.  I believe Madeleine was barefooted when she disappeared.

[Robittybob1]

That has been done already.

...and of course, you wouldn't want me to 'libel' anyone, would you.

As I said  yesterday, and several times before, there is no evidence to put one scenario above another.

..and if you really believe in abduction, let's see evidence to support it.

The situation led her to believe Madeleine had been abducted.  Kate could read the signs present. 
1. Cuddle Cat was there,
2. Madeleine's shoes were still in the apartment,
3. the two gates and sliding door were all shut when she arrived,
4. the window was open and the exterior shutters were up. 

That was enough clues for Kate to consider abduction was the reason Madeleine was missing.  Taken together with the reaction of the parent is evidence of abduction.

[Eleanor]

Not when the sea is so close it isn't.

Short of going some distance out to sea in a boat, for which there is no sighting or evidence whatsoever, any body would have been shortly washed back up.

[stephen25000]

The situation led her to believe Madeleine had been abducted.  Kate could read the signs present. 
1. Cuddle Cat was there,
2. Madeleine's shoes were still in the apartment,
3. the two gates and sliding door were all shut when she arrived,
4. the window was open and the exterior shutters were up. 

That was enough clues for Kate to consider abduction was the reason Madeleine was missing.  Taken together with the reaction of the parent is evidence of abduction.

I'm afraid Rob, there is no verification of 3 or 4.

1 and 2 can be explained by other means.

Can you remember what she said outside the Portuguese Court when she and her husband were questioned by a local reporter , as to what evidence there was of abduction ?

She replied, ''I know, I was there''.

Followed by ''I know more than you do''.

7 minutes in.

She wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she Rob. 8)-)))

How could she know more ?

[John]

I would go further and say it is most likely. It is what the dog was trained to alert to.

Normally I would tend to agree but there was so much cross contamination with items to be tested in this case that I feel the results were greatly compromised. If Eddie did detect cadaver scent there are innocent reasons already discussed why it could have been in apartment 5a.