A reasonable viewpoint

[Carana]

Len Port wrote this 7 years ago and you (and he) now need to move on.  Furthermore, citing Amaral’s claim of MI5:involvement in his closing paragraph as if it lends some weight to his argument rather shoots his supposedly balanced approach in the foot.  It ends the article on a seriously curly wurly cuckoo note.

Lol. Len Port is on the sceptic side, isn't he? Although I wonder if he was actually serious in mentioning Amaral's MI5 allegation.

[G-Unit]

Lol. Len Port is on the sceptic side, isn't he? Although I wonder if he was actually serious in mentioning Amaral's MI5 allegation.

Len Port said;

"One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter."

Despite all the arguments and discussion he is correct to say;

"This heartfelt standpoint exemplifies one of the most contentious features of this extraordinary case. In the absence of indisputable evidence, two conflicting schools of thought have developed about what happened to Madeleine: one that she was abducted, the other that she died inadvertently in the apartment and her parents were somehow involved in a cover-up.

There was no proof either way in 2007 and there is none today, but it is human nature to adopt a preferred line of probability depending on one’s logical and emotional approach."

In my opinion he is neither supporter nor sceptic. As he says, neither position can be supported by indisputable evidence.

[Venturi Swirl]

Len Port said;

"One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter."

Despite all the arguments and discussion he is correct to say;

"This heartfelt standpoint exemplifies one of the most contentious features of this extraordinary case. In the absence of indisputable evidence, two conflicting schools of thought have developed about what happened to Madeleine: one that she was abducted, the other that she died inadvertently in the apartment and her parents were somehow involved in a cover-up.

There was no proof either way in 2007 and there is none today, but it is human nature to adopt a preferred line of probability depending on one’s logical and emotional approach."

In my opinion he is neither supporter nor sceptic. As he says, neither position can be supported by indisputable evidence.

He has never said that stranger abduction in his view was virtually impossible though has he?  That’s your view isn’t it?  That stranger abduction is the least plausible, logical explanation?  That IMO is a very odd view to hold.

[G-Unit]

He has never said that stranger abduction in his view was virtually impossible though has he?  That’s your view isn’t it?  That stranger abduction is the least plausible, logical explanation?  That IMO is a very odd view to hold.

I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.

[Venturi Swirl]

I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.

You started this thread with YOUR opinion.  You continue to express YOUR opinion on Len Port.  I am commenting on that.  How can you think Len Port’s views are reasonable when you have all but dismissed stranger abduction as virtually impossible?

[faithlilly]

I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.

I think commentators become blinded by what they would do in a certain situation. They can’t envision their child dying in their care and them trying to cover it up. That doesn’t, however, mean it can’t or doesn’t happen.

[Brietta]

I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.

Speaking for myself - I have reached the firm conclusion of the McCann innocence - for the tremendously simple reason that despite their best efforts - the Policia Judiciaria investigation found no evidence against them and conceded that fact clearly in their report to the Portuguese Public Prosecutors.

Also I harbour a firm disregard for evil kangaroo courts motivated only by disregard and contempt for the presumption of innocence.
Except for that of rapists - child molesters - and career criminals.

[Mr Gray]

I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.

Why di you feel she ows you an explanation.. You wouldnt accept it anyway.  The whole scientific community accepts that smoking causes cancer but you don't accept it.  I'm convinced the McCanns are innocent based in all the available evidence. You have shown that what you beoueve sre facts, are just your opinion... That muddles your opinions and conclusions... All my very well informed opinion

[Venturi Swirl]

I think commentators become blinded by what they would do in a certain situation. They can’t envision their child dying in their care and them trying to cover it up. That doesn’t, however, mean it can’t or doesn’t happen.

Really?  Does it happen?  I never knew.  I thought all parents were loving, good and kind just like me.  What a shock.  Well, now that you've informed me of this I may have to think again about the McCanns.  Wow.  Major revelation. 

[G-Unit]

I think commentators become blinded by what they would do in a certain situation. They can’t envision their child dying in their care and them trying to cover it up. That doesn’t, however, mean it can’t or doesn’t happen.

That's understandable, but journalists and policemen know that people can do things which seem unthinkable. Yet many of them seem to have decided to ignore that fact.

[Venturi Swirl]

That's understandable, but journalists and policemen know that people can do things which seem unthinkable. Yet many of them seem to have decided to ignore that fact.

This is such a bogus argument IMO.  It verges on conspiracy nonsense.  You appear to be suggesting that the police and journalists are ignoring the possibility of parental involvement in this case.  We know this is nonsense as the papers were full of parental involvement in the early days.  As for the police ignoring the possibility of parental involvement you'd really have to ask yourself why two leading police forces have chosen to do so.  Perhaps you can come up with a logical, plausible explanation but I very much doubt it!

[G-Unit]

This is such a bogus argument IMO.  It verges on conspiracy nonsense.  You appear to be suggesting that the police and journalists are ignoring the possibility of parental involvement in this case.  We know this is nonsense as the papers were full of parental involvement in the early days.  As for the police ignoring the possibility of parental involvement you'd really have to ask yourself why two leading police forces have chosen to do so.  Perhaps you can come up with a logical, plausible explanation but I very much doubt it!

Perhaps commentators should begin by offering logical plausible explanations for their positions?

[Brietta]

Perhaps commentators should begin by offering logical plausible explanations for their positions?

Do you have a 'logical plausible explanation' for why SY - BKA - PJ after only fourteen years of intensive investigation, have settled on Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.  Or do you subscribe to the Amaral school of thought that he is a 'patsy'.

[G-Unit]

Do you have a 'logical plausible explanation' for why SY - BKA - PJ after only fourteen years of intensive investigation, have settled on Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.  Or do you subscribe to the Amaral school of thought that he is a 'patsy'.

I'm not convinced they're all agreed on that.

[Brietta]

I'm not convinced they're all agreed on that.

Some are far better at it than others it has to be said.  But I think everyone can see what way the wind is blowing and are adjusting accordingly.