Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1

So anyway. More about cherry picking evidence.

Matt's time & Russell's half eaten dinner evidence have the alarm raised slightly before 10pm.

The rest of the group seem to have 'around 10pm'

But Mr McCann has 10:13pm

So, what time was the alarm raised then?

Furthermore, how have Scotland Yard been able to rectify this issue, thus proving beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt for them, that Gerry couldn't possibly have time to have been seen by the Smiths?

Any suggestions anyone?  Can anyone come up with an explanation that doesn't resort to simply attacking or completely dismissing the Smiths?
2
I know what I said Faithlilly, I wrote it.  Nowhere did I make the claim that anyone would give a shit what you thought , only that you probably would  find some spurious reasons to keep on doubting the veracity of anything they corrected - comprehension is not your strong point is it.
If you claim to know for a fact that the Met have never discussed any elements of the case with the McCanns then clearly you have insider information on Operation Grange which a mere mortal like me is not privy to.  I bow as always to your superiority.

You are right, I would doubt the veracity of any changes the parents made at this juncture to their statements, as would any competent police officer. It has nothing to do with comprehension.

3

If we believe Mr McCann, that Kate came screaming at 10:13. Then try & make that fit with Russell's evidence, that his meal was reheated 9:45, & he'd only taken a couple bites before the chaos, incredibly, it must have taken Russell nearly 30 minutes to eat half a steak!
4

We've also discovered that if we wish to believe the alarm was raised at 10pm, we have to dismiss Mr Mccanns evidence the alarm was raised at 10:13!
5

It is clear that if the, Gerrylike coincidental trousers wrong pyjamas, evidence doesn't suit some people, they will attack & dismiss the evidence altogether. This is a criticism aimed at sceptics, that we cherry pick our evidence. When supporters do exactly the same to avoid a very obvious explanation for the small detail & reinforce their belief in abduction.
6
Operation Grange assigned the McCanns a Family Liaison Officer who they still have apparently.  One of the roles of a FLO is as a conduit of information between victims? families and the gathering and dissemination of information regarding the investigation.  Moreover we know that the Met also spoke to The Smiths as part of their investigation so to claim that the Met has not sought any further clarity about points raised in the initial investigation is a load of crap imo.

Well, in the absence of evidence that they have been, we just have to believe the McCanns have been thoroughly re-interviewed by detectives. It appears. Just like we have to believe the MET found some evidence of abduction. The only evidence of abduction they have shown however is the Smith sighting.
7

I guess the Gerrylike abductor, who carried out an earlier recon before the pre-planned abduction, decided that it would be best, rather than bundling Maddie into a car, he thought he'd walk through town with her?

We know the McCanns had no car, so they'd have no choice but for her to be moved on foot.
But Brueckner, who had access to multiple vehicles, decided to disguise himself as Gerry & do an abduction on foot?
8
Operation Grange assigned the McCanns a Family Liaison Officer who they still have apparently.  One of the roles of a FLO is as a conduit of information between victims? families and the gathering and dissemination of information regarding the investigation.  Moreover we know that the Met also spoke to The Smiths as part of their investigation so to claim that the Met has not sought any further clarity about points raised in the initial investigation is a load of crap imo.
9
Spam has asserted in his earlier post today that the Portuguese came to the conclusion that Madeleine died and an abduction staged.  That was their working premise while Amaral was in charge, but after he left they took a more broad minded approach and their actual conclusion was they hadn't got a scooby do what happened to her and that there was a lack of any evidence against the McCanns (and that's despite the buttons, the sleeves, the dogs, the blood splatter, the frozen cadaver fluids, etc).  That's not an appeal to authority btw, it's just a fact. 
Also, there are explanations for Smithman within an abduction theory - 1) he was the abductor 2) he was an innocent father like Dr Totman.  Descriptions of his appearance by the Smiths were vague and likely to be inaccurate considering the long period of time between sighting and reporting and/or influenced media reports.   Anyone who dismisses this as possible or likely isn't thinking straight or being honest with themselves.

1) OK so we're back to an abductor who could be mistaken for Gerry. Happened to have trousers like Gerry's, had changed Madeleine's pyjamas & drugged her, then decided to carry out a child abduction on foot.

Or

2) Innocent man, who could be mistaken for Gerry, Happened to have trousers like Gerry?s & Happened to be in the area with his inert daughter closely matching Madeleine?s description.

Either of these 2 possibilities are occurring around the time the McCanns are suspected to be faking an abduction.
It more than crosses the boundaries of plausibility for me.
10
I know what I said Faithlilly, I wrote it.  Nowhere did I make the claim that anyone would give a shit what you thought , only that you probably would  find some spurious reasons to keep on doubting the veracity of anything they corrected - comprehension is not your strong point is it.
If you claim to know for a fact that the Met have never discussed any elements of the case with the McCanns then clearly you have insider information on Operation Grange which a mere mortal like me is not privy to.  I bow as always to your superiority.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10