The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.

[Mr Gray]

As Stephen correctly pointed out a few days back the McCanns are in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity.

The mccanns are certainly in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham but there is NO evidence to support that claim

[Mr Gray]

You are wrong on every point but then you are posting opinion contrary to the established facts.

you have failed to show any established facts...lets start with the false  sightings ...evidence please

[Angelo222]

Angelo seems to be stating as fact that the McCanns are behind the conspiracy and the false sightings  *libel klaxon!!!*

Maybe you should read my post again.  I stated McCann private detectives ie Metodo 3.

[Alfie]

you have failed to show any established facts...lets start with the false  sightings ...evidence please

Careful you'll get done for disrespecting a mod before long - mod is God innit.

[Mr Gray]

Careful you'll get done for disrespecting a mod before long - mod is God innit.

it reminds me of johns post where he talks of reputaion not being a god given gift but has to be earnt.....so respect is teh same

[Robittybob1]

As Stephen correctly pointed out a few days back the McCanns are in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity.

I thought Stephen always says there is no evidence, so where is the evidence going to come from to prove "the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity".

[Angelo222]

Supporters are very good at distancing themselves from the facts when it suits.  There is an entire thread dedicated to "what evidence of abduction exists" and it is noticeably slim to say the least. A parent claiming that a shutter was up, a window was open and some curtains were billowing in the breeze is NOT EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.

[Mr Gray]

Supporters are very good at distancing themselves from the facts when it suits.  There is an entire thread dedicated to "what evidence of abduction exists" and it is noticeably slim to say the least. A parent claimed.king a shutter was up, a window was open and some curtain s were billowing in the breeze is NOT EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.

It is evidence that would be allowed in court for the jury to decide...your claim is your opinion and plainly wrong

[Robittybob1]

Supporters are very good at distancing themselves from the facts when it suits.  There is an entire thread dedicated to "what evidence of abduction exists" and it is noticeably slim to say the least. A parent claiming that a shutter was up, a window was open and some curtains were billowing in the breeze is NOT EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.

It is evidence none the less of something.

[Mr Gray]

It is evidence none the less of something.

it is evidence that would be allowed in court...that is fact...not opinion

[Robittybob1]

it is evidence that would be allowed in court...that is fact...not opinion

But under cross examination they would have to admit they don't know who raised the shutters etc.

[Mr Gray]

But under cross examination they would have to admit they don't know who raised the shutters etc.

the question is are the statements evidence....the answer is yes
so is ther evidence of an abduction....yes

[stephen25000]

No verification before Kate Mccann 'arrived' at the apartment.



That rings a bell.


So what value does unverified or non-corroborated information have ?

[Mr Gray]

No verification before Kate Mccann 'arrived' at the apartment.

That rings a bell.

never said there was..if we had verification we would have near proof of abduction...as it is we only have evidence

[Brietta]

Casting aside what Jane tanner saw on the 3rd May and the evidence trail currently being followed by the PJ and SY it is possible to accept that there may be no concrete evidence of abduction.
Nevertheless Madeleine is vanished.

The way I see it there must be absolute accuracy as far as everything goes which is posted on the forum.

No more daily innuendo ... for example, we all know whose fingerprints were on the window glass so a caveat as to the innocence of that would be required also.

No more interpretation of what Mrs Fenn may have said ... without caveat.

No more arguing about providing cites ~ which does occasionally happen.

In my opinion the actual forensic evidence as well as lack of it as detailed in the files has blown any argument about the value of the dogs ~ Eddie and Keela ~ way out the water and has killed any argument along the lines we have seen previously.

Nor is there a shred of substantive evidence of any kind against Kate and Gerry McCann of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

In effect I think there is a lot which for the sake of accuracy cannot be repeated at all and there is much which needs caveat.

All in all I don't think this result about the wording to be used about Madeleine's probable abduction has necessarily been the wrong one ... all things considered.