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

[G-Unit]

Even when two police forces think there is a pigeon hold where an abduction could have taken place?   The fact that a child is missing and hasn't been found is evidence of abduction.

It looks like it's going to be more difficult than it seemed.

Please provide cites from the two police forces then we know what quotes you are basing your statement on.

Please note that there are various reasons why a child might disappear and not be found; abduction being just one of them, so that's not evidence pointing to just one scenario.

[stephen25000]

Under the new rules are you allowed to say that a full and open review has never happened?

We already know that didn't happen.

From Rowley.

[Eleanor]

I think you should have added IMO there carly.

Yes, she should.

[Robittybob1]

I am not sure.  It probably depends on the content of the comment.

I don't think "Madeleine was abducted, in my opinion" quite cuts the mustard.

But "I think Madeleine might have been abducted" probably would.

Exactly the same IMO , so I think.

[Benice]

i think john rightly  wants  an open minded forum  and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just  what  i think because  there is no evidence of  abduction

Just because no evidence was identified by the Forensic bods, does not prove it never existed.  Especially as we know that the crime scene was not cordoned off for a long time and so existing evidence could have been destroyed or contaminated by the many people/dogs who had been present.

To say ''there is no evidence of abduction'' infers that it is a proven fact that there never was any evidence. That is not the case imo.

As no-one can claim as a fact that the unidentified hairs/partial fingerprints do not belong to an abductor then the correct statement should be ..  'No evidence of abduction has yet been identified. '  IMO

AIMHO

[Erngath]

If and its looks as if it was done to the letter of the remit then it was full and open in only treating as if it was an abduction,what is clear all the resources available costing upward of £12 only eliminates people.

If this is the case, then do you believe that in the course of all the investigation and inquiries which have taken place any evidence which would implicate Kate and Gerry would  be ignored or dismissed.

[Erngath]

We already know that didn't happen.

From Rowley.

Where has he said that " a full and open review has never happened"?

[Lace]

abduction would  be   at the bottom of the list of most police   forces  around the world i would  think    childrens abductions are    like  90%   usally  parental  abduction  IE  custody battles  etc

Eh,  is that why we have 'Amber alert' then?

[stephen25000]

Where has he said that " a full and open review has never happened"?

When did they investigate the McCann's ?

Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.

Have you forgotten already ?

[Lace]

As John has said, as have others.

What Rowley said is full of contradictions.

For a very simple reason, he doesn't know what happened.

They had come to the conclusion the McCann's weren't involved and so have the Portuguese.

[Eleanor]

When did they investigate the McCann's ?

Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.

Have you forgotten already ?

The McCanns were not interviewed Under Caution.  There is a difference.

[carlymichelle]

i dont believe anything the mainstream media  says at  all   journalists are paid to  print what people  want to hear  imo  i make my own mind   up     with the media some people are gullible  though

[Erngath]

When did they investigate the McCann's ?

Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.

Have you forgotten already ?

No need to be rude.
No where has  Rowley  used those words.
You should have added  in my opinion there has not been a full and fair review.

[Erngath]

i dont believe anything the mainstream media  says at  all   journalists are paid to  print what people  want to hear  imo  i make my own mind   up     with the media some people are gullible  though

I'm not.
Are you implying supporters are gullible but sceptics are not?

[Robittybob1]

I'm not.

I think you would have to use a caveat after that statement, for it can't be proven as a fact.