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

[Brietta]

You could say that about Galilieo Galilei, Nicolaus Copperknickers and the first white geezer who discovered the Duckbilled Platypus.

i.e were general folk too stupid to believe or too afraid to go off piste as you might say ?

No you could not.

Unless you can quote them making unfounded accusations of heinous crime?  In  either case I believe you may well be straying far off topic.

[ShiningInLuz]

(Partial) credit for citing the correct term (used by the prosecutors) demonstrate rather than prove.

It's a pity the prosecutors didn't add that there was no need for the McCanns to demonstrate their innocence. 

Also a pity that they didn't record (even if they did think it) that the disgraceful modus operandi of the PJ's questioning of the McCanns during their arguido interviews (including either incompetent or fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence) left the McCanns ample and justified reason to suspect the motive behind this so-called 'reconstitution' which, in any event, could never have shed light on anything, since you can never recreate in retrospect a sequence of events that have already come to pass in real-time.

Human memory (including honest human memory) is too fallible and unreliable for that.

Totally disagree.

The Smiths managed it, and thank goodness they did.  Without the photo recon, we would have another dog's dinner to debate.

I guess the PJ must have some belief in the method if they did it with the Smiths, and wanted to do it with the T9.  And it appears to be a part of Portuguese law.

[ferryman]

Totally disagree.

The Smiths managed it, and thank goodness they did.  Without the photo recon, we would have another dog's dinner to debate.

I guess the PJ must have some belief in the method if they did it with the Smiths, and wanted to do it with the T9.  And it appears to be a part of Portuguese law.

I'm not quite with you.

What did the Smiths manage?

[Brietta]

Totally disagree.

The Smiths managed it, and thank goodness they did.  Without the photo recon, we would have another dog's dinner to debate.

I guess the PJ must have some belief in the method if they did it with the Smiths, and wanted to do it with the T9.  And it appears to be a part of Portuguese law.

The only known incidence I have read about concerning reconstitution of an alleged crime was in the Cipriano case.

I must confess to being dumbfounded.

[John]

Awareness?

The term 'abduction' should be used without caveat or qualification, unless or until someone both competent (ie having read the files, and formed an informed opinion) and qualified steps forward to do so.

Or unless Operation Grange brings into the public domain previously unknown information (at least publicly) to cast (genuine!) doubt on abduction.

All else (that questions abduction) is ill-informed conjecture.

The term abduction applied to Madeleine McCann is merely a supposition so posts should be crystal clear in regard to this.

[Alice Purjorick]

this IS a definition of circumstantail evidence....

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out

OK so if we concentrate on the salient points we have two types of evidence:
Direct Evidence which proves or disproves a fact directly; commonly  eye witness testimony, where a witness describes exactly what  he/she saw, heard, or experienced.
Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence which is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Indirect evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating an event happened or did not happen.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-circumstantial-evidence-what-is-direct-evidence/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/direct+evidence

[John]

I can't be bothered (yet again!) to quote what the Portuguese prosecutors made very clear did NOT happen.

That Gerry was proved to be at the Tapas Restaurant at the moment of the Smith sighting (and also the moment of Kate's alert) scuppers all notion of parental involvement in anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

If true it certainly scuppers the Smithman is Gerry claim but then that has little to do with abduction and parental involvement can take many forms.

[Alice Purjorick]

No you could not.

Unless you can quote them making unfounded accusations of heinous crime?  In  either case I believe you may well be straying far off topic.

You misunderstand as usual. Either by lack of knowledge or by design to have a biased pop.
I don't care which.

[jassi]

If true it certainly scuppers the Smithman is Gerry claim but then that has little to do with abduction and parental involvement can take many forms.

Indeed it can

[ferryman]

The McCanns announced their departure date.

The Portuguese chose to interview them before their departure date.

Because of what was to be covered, they were interviewed as arguidos, as per the legal requirements.

If you are implying that the McCanns chose a departure that they knew pre-dated a change in legal requirements, I'm going to ROFL.

If you think the McCanns would not have been made arguidos under the new requirement, we have plenty of evidence now that this is nonsense.

It was (presumably) Amaral and his cohorts who knew about impending changes in Portuguese law.

The McCanns wouldn't have known the first thing about Portuguese law.

Nor is there the slightest reason why they should have.

[Brietta]

You misunderstand as usual. Either by lack of knowledge or by design to have a biased pop.
I don't care which.

Please concentrate on the thread topic future off topic posts are going to be consigned to the cutting room floor.
Thank you

[John]

(Partial) credit for citing the correct term (used by the prosecutors) demonstrate rather than prove.

It's a pity the prosecutors didn't add that there was no need for the McCanns to demonstrate their innocence. 

Also a pity that they didn't record (even if they did think it) that the disgraceful modus operandi of the PJ's questioning of the McCanns during their arguido interviews (including either incompetent or fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence) left the McCanns ample and justified reason to suspect the motive behind this so-called 'reconstitution' which, in any event, could never have shed light on anything, since you can never recreate in retrospect a sequence of events that have already come to pass in real-time.

Human memory (including honest human memory) is too fallible and unreliable for that.

It wasn't for the McCann's to second guess their interrogators, they should have afforded them the simple courtesy of answering all of their questions and persuaded their friends to actively take part in any reconstruction necessary in order to establish exactly who was where and who did what that night. Thwarting a police enquiry into the disappearance of your own child is a no no in police circles I can assure you.

One question which never seems to get asked is, why didn't the McCann's ask to speak to the head honcho directly?

[Mr Gray]

It wasn't for the McCann's to second guess their interrogators, they should have afforded them the simple courtesy of answering all of their questions and persuaded their friends to actively take part in any reconstruction necessary in order to establish exactly who was where and who did what that night. Thwarting a police enquiry into the disappearance of your own child is a no no in police circles I can assure you.

It does complicate matters when the police don't understand the evidence

[Angelo222]

Do you mean Metodo3 'created false sightings'?

Or do you mean that sightings, reported by Metedo3, turned out not to be Madeleine?

That's what I posted, MP3 created false everything in order to impress their clients.  Their boss Marco even claimed he knew who took the girl and that she would be home for Christmas..  what a liar!!

[ferryman]

The term abduction applied to Madeleine McCann is merely a supposition so posts should be crystal clear in regard to this.

The view of the Portuguese prosecutors (written as fact) carries more weight than that, and can/should only be supplanted if something, at present, not in the public domain comes to light conclusively demonstrating that there is genuine reason to doubt abduction.