More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Venturi Swirl]

Veiled?  I must have missed that.  Nothing veiled about them.

Quite - she rather gave the game away when she liked Spam's post in which he claimed Amaral solved the case in May 2007.  There is absolutely nothing objective or even-handed about this poster. IMO.

[Eleanor]

Quite - she rather gave the game away when she liked Spam's post in which he claimed Amaral solved the case in May 2007.  There is absolutely nothing objective or even-handed about this poster. IMO.

Some people give themselves away without even meaning to.

[Brietta]

So I make veiled accusations, do I? On the other hand these veiled accusations may exist only in the minds of the readers.

What the reader takes from a post is very important.  Ask 😁 Sally Bercow

[Eleanor]

We all know what is going on here at the moment.  But hardly worth talking about.  And I don't care anyway.

It isn't going to happen.

[G-Unit]

You obviously take some of us for complete fools.  It's blatantly obvious to me (and I would suggest also to any neutral or supporter) from your posting history that you think (at the very, VERY least) that the McCanns and their friends lied in their statements.  You are a sceptic are you not?  Which means that at the very least you are sceptical about the McCanns and their friends' version of events.  Now, you may CLAIM that you think it's possible that this is due to mistakes on all their parts but do you really expect us to believe you seriously entertain that possibility?  You've made it absolutely plain you won't accept translation errors for any of the discrepancies so its not a stretch for me to come to the conclusion that you don't accept plain old human fallibility either - in fact you said as much yesterday IIRC.  You have also made the claim that IYO abduction was virtually impossible so please stop trying to play the *innocent face* card - it's very very boring now.

If the McCanns and their friends were so traumatised that their memories were  adversely affected how can anyone know what is correct?

[barrier]

If you say there is no evidence of a break in then obviously you are assuming that Kate McCann is lying.  Now tell me I'm wrong.

Clarence Mitchell:"There was no evidence of a break-in,"

[Brietta]

If the McCanns and their friends were so traumatised that their memories were  adversely affected how can anyone know what is correct?

Let's start with the fact Madeleine vanished then take it from there not with 'theories' but with EVIDENCE.  Which is precisely what Wolters is doing at the moment.  He has access to most of it enabling an informed opinion and you know nothing so like the rest you will have to wait.

You ask "how can anyone know what is correct?"don't you think trained police investigators are far more qualified than you to form opinions.
At the moment no-one except perhaps you is interested in rehashing Amaral's disastrous mistakes of 2007 - they are all far too busy waiting to see what Wolter's witnesses are saying in the here and now of 2021.

[G-Unit]

Let's start with the fact Madeleine vanished then take it from there not with 'theories' but with EVIDENCE.  Which is precisely what Wolters is doing at the moment.  He has access to most of it enabling an informed opinion and you know nothing so like the rest you will have to wait.

You ask "how can anyone know what is correct?"don't you think trained police investigators are far more qualified than you to form opinions.
At the moment no-one except perhaps you is interested in rehashing Amaral's disastrous mistakes of 2007 - they are all far too busy waiting to see what Wolter's witnesses are saying in the here and now of 2021.

Yes, she vanished and no-one knows why. Abduction is a theory, whether you accept that or not. The trained Portuguese police investigators didn't find enough evidence to identify the crime. The Portuguese authorities made that plain when they archived the case in 2008.

Operation Grange seem to have decided Madeleine was abducted, but their reasons have never been made clear. We do have A C Rowley's comment, that she was too young to have gone off to start a new life, but no-one ever thought she had anyway. It seems like a very weak reason to assume abduction, but no doubt someone shared it with Wolters and he agreed.

I wonder if Wolters has found any witnesses who haven't shared their knowledge with the media?

[Venturi Swirl]

If the McCanns and their friends were so traumatised that their memories were  adversely affected how can anyone know what is correct?

But you’ve already said you find it  hard to believe 9 people could all have remembered differently so I think we can make a very reasonable assumption regarding your views about it. Don’t bother responding unless it’s to reply honestly and without fudge and deflection.

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes, she vanished and no-one knows why. Abduction is a theory, whether you accept that or not. The trained Portuguese police investigators didn't find enough evidence to identify the crime. The Portuguese authorities made that plain when they archived the case in 2008.

Operation Grange seem to have decided Madeleine was abducted, but their reasons have never been made clear. We do have A C Rowley's comment, that she was too young to have gone off to start a new life, but no-one ever thought she had anyway. It seems like a very weak reason to assume abduction, but no doubt someone shared it with Wolters and he agreed.

I wonder if Wolters has found any witnesses who haven't shared their knowledge with the media?

You think Wolters is investigating CB because of Rowley’s comment about Madeleine being too young to go off on her own?  Please don’t be silly.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

One of the tactics of the typical conspiracy theorist is to focus on minor discrepancies between witness statements or in accounts given months or years after the event and blow their relevance or importance out of all proportion.   Do you recognise this sort of behaviour?  I have seen it time and again in this case, and in most other conspiracy theorists' arguments whether it be 9/11, Sandy Hook, moon landings whatever.  It's a bit sad really, don't you think, that such people have to rely on such tactics in order to try and convince the rest of the world that they are right and cleverer and more perceptive than the majority?  I definitely recognise this in this case and think it's quite pathetic behaviour.

How about you just look at the very first statements (rehearsed on a book cover) given in the first few days... and before you say "lost in translation" don't forget they willingly signed them. The fact is (as even Clarence admitted at one point) there was no evidence found to suggest a break in and abduction. There did, however, seem to be a very public campaign to promote this version of events. Forget "conspiracy theories". That's just lazy sloganeering. Concentrate on the evidence.... and remind us again what evidence is there to suggest a break in and stranger abduction?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The first appearance upon looking in was that the curtains were normal, but then a gust of wind came and they were open. 

Simples, Gunit

Normal as in open or normal as in closed?!!

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Indeed it is - it is still evidence however, no matter what you say.   In the same way that Smith's statement is evidence that Gerry McCann paraded a corpse through PdL that night.  You have decided he is 100% accurate and that Kate is 100% lying - that is a choice you have made but your opinion doesn't necessarily bear any relation to the actual truth of the matter.

I agree - but have the sense to understand that works two ways|!!

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Yes there is - if you keep an open mind and don’t automatically assume everyone is lying about everything.

I don't assume they are lying. I just don't know which of their accounts is anywhere near accurate.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Billy Whizz isn't here to keep an open mind, but only to disrupt and present half baked theories that suit the Sceptic Agenda.

There are several ways in which the abductor could have got in and out of the appartment and more than one reason for why the window was open.

Why does expressing my opinion automatically go down as disruption in your eyes? Would you prefer an echo chamber where everyone just agrees CB, or the latest paedophile suspect, is the guilty party?