When people are innocent theres usually not enough evidence to charge....
Doesnt alter the fact the mccs could still be involved IMO.
- To go back to our conclusions, I am convinced that those who would like to refute them would have a hard time doing so.
- That's certain, since they rest on the facts, the clues and the concrete evidence.
A DISAPPEARANCE, A WINDOW AND A BODY
It is now important to present a summary of this case, based on our deductions: reject what is false, throw out what we can't show with sufficient certainty and validate that which can be proven.
1. The theory of abduction was defended from the start by Maddie's parents.
2. In their group, only the McCanns state that they saw the bedroom window open. The others cannot confirm it since they arrived at the apartment after the alert was raised.
3. The only person to have seen that window open with the shutters raised is Amy, one of the play workers from the children's centre of the Ocean Club. She made that observation at around 10.20/1030pm, which means well after the alert - which doesn't exclude that the window could have been closed at the time of the criminal act.
4. The witness statements raise a great number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions. Jane Tanner's witness statement in favour of the theory of abduction is probably false: little by little it has lost all credibility because of successive modifications introduced by Jane, modifications that have ended up invalidating it.
5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
