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

[stephen25000]

Perhaps reading through my posts would help.

Nothing has come from the SY investigation, IMO, other than cliches, and rehashing of one line of inquiry, which appears to have changed gender on a few occasions, as regards who they are 'looking' for.

I see nothing that will change my mind.

As I stated at the start of the investigation, nothing would come of it, but for the eventual shelving of the case.

[stephen25000]

Topic, Please, on this fine Sunday morning.

Yes, a beautiful Sunny morning.

Heavy rain and wind to follow late tonight, into tomorrow.

[Eleanor]

Yes, a beautiful Sunny morning.

Heavy rain and wind to follow late tonight, into tomorrow.

You can keep that.  Sunny again here tomorrow.

Now, about the alleged abductor.

[Mr Gray]

SY are looking for an abductor and it seem s that has upset posters here

[G-Unit]

It's usually separated parents who abduct their own child. As the McCanns weren't separated there's no reason why either or both should want to abduct her, so they are obviously not involved in any abduction. No need for a policeman to tell us that. Did he mention their friends?

However, until these various policemen and experts share the evidence which excludes the parents and their friends from any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance their words merely express their opinions.

A C Rowley said the archived investigation 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement, but it didn't. The possibilities remaining were;

Death due to neglect
Death due to murder
A targeted abduction
An opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[ferryman]

It's usually separated parents who abduct their own child. As the McCanns weren't separated there's no reason why either or both should want to abduct her, so they are obviously not involved in any abduction. No need for a policeman to tell us that. Did he mention their friends?

However, until these various policemen and experts share the evidence which excludes the parents and their friends from any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance their words merely express their opinions.

A C Rowley said the archived investigation 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement, but it didn't. The possibilities remaining were;

Death due to neglect
Death due to murder
A targeted abduction
An opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Only if you want to gainsay the Portuguese prosecutors, which you clearly do, for reasons I could certainly guess

The Prosecutors, who have read a set of reports much more accurate, and much fuller, than anything any of us on this board have read, are in no doubt Madeleine was abducted.

[Mr Gray]

It's usually separated parents who abduct their own child. As the McCanns weren't separated there's no reason why either or both should want to abduct her, so they are obviously not involved in any abduction. No need for a policeman to tell us that. Did he mention their friends?

However, until these various policemen and experts share the evidence which excludes the parents and their friends from any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance their words merely express their opinions.

A C Rowley said the archived investigation 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement, but it didn't. The possibilities remaining were;

Death due to neglect
Death due to murder
A targeted abduction
An opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

the archived investigation found no evidence of parental involvement...SY looked at and agreed. the mccanns will then have been interviewed as witnesses and if any evidence of involvement came to light would have been investigated

[stephen25000]

Only if you want to gainsay the Portuguese prosecutors, which you clearly do, for reasons I could certainly guess

The Prosecutors, who have read a set of reports much more accurate, and much fuller, than anything any of us on this board have read, are in no doubt Madeleine was abducted.

It is quite remarkable that yoiu have not leaned from experience.

Anyone can read through the shelving report and see quite clearly in the shelving, the cause of Madeleine's disappearance  remains unknown.

[G-Unit]

SY are looking for an abductor and it seem s that has upset posters here

OG  have been looking for an abductor for years, but what does that prove? It doesn't prove that an abduction happened, that's for sure.
 

[Mr Gray]

OG  have been looking for an abductor for years, but what does that prove? It doesn't prove that an abduction happened, that's for sure.

it proves thats what the experts think happened

[G-Unit]

Only if you want to gainsay the Portuguese prosecutors, which you clearly do, for reasons I could certainly guess

The Prosecutors, who have read a set of reports much more accurate, and much fuller, than anything any of us on this board have read, are in no doubt Madeleine was abducted.

Cherry-picking bits of the Legal Summary for your own ends fools no-one. The conclusion of the report is the important bit, and the conclusion left at least four possibilities on the table. It clearly states that they didn't know what crime had been committed.

[Mr Gray]

Cherry-picking bits of the Legal Summary for your own ends fools no-one. The conclusion of the report is the important bit, and the conclusion left at least four possibilities on the table. It clearly states that they didn't know what crime had been committed.

and they clearly stated that there was no evidence against the aprents

[G-Unit]

it proves thats what the experts think happened

You passionately defended the McCanns for questioning the expertise of the PJ. Now you are passionately defending the expertise of the Metropolitan Police. Could that be due to your passionate belief in the innocence of the McCanns, I wonder?

[ferryman]

Cherry-picking bits of the Legal Summary for your own ends fools no-one. The conclusion of the report is the important bit, and the conclusion left at least four possibilities on the table. It clearly states that they didn't know what crime had been committed.

I sincerely hope that your cherry-picking doesn't fool anyone.

[Mr Gray]

You passionately defended the McCanns for questioning the expertise of the PJ. Now you are passionately defending the expertise of the Metropolitan Police. Could that be due to your passionate belief in the innocence of the McCanns, I wonder?

no its because of the available evidence. I actually made a post 2 weeks before Rowleys article where I came to the same conclusions he did