Author Topic: A look at what constitutes evidence of an abduction versus hearsay and gossip.  (Read 18467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

An opportunity to discuss the evidence which exists in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

Please note that evidence and proof are two different issues.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 06:31:47 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Come on then Stephen, how did these two ordinary doctors from Leicester manage to pull off the crime of the century in a foreign country, without a car or local knowledge?

How do you account for the total lack of proof of abduction ?

How do you account for not one sign of Madeleine after 6 years, with a considerable reward on offer ?

Your only piece of 'evidence' is a child being carried in someone's arms. Now I'd like to see that in court. @)(++(*

Meanwhile, how do you know this pair didn't conceal the death of their daughter ?

As to how, go to the source.


Rachel Granada

  • Guest
How do you account for the total lack of proof of abduction ?

How do you account for not one sign of Madeleine after 6 years, with a considerable reward on offer ?

Your only piece of 'evidence' is a child being carried in someone's arms. Now I'd like to see that in court. @)(++(*

Meanwhile, how do you know this pair didn't conceal the death of their daughter ?

As to how, go to the source.

I'll cut to the chase here, Stephen.  How could Kate and Gerry McCann have discovered that Madeleine had passed away, cleaned up, mourned, decided to dispose of her - and then gone on to have a meal with friends, all of whom said that they were their normal, chatty selves.  Roped their friends into a cover up, hidden Madeleine's remains successfully for  weeks, in a foreign country without access to a car, and then successfully disposed of Madeleine's remains 3 weeks later?

stephen25000

  • Guest
I'll cut to the chase here, Stephen.  How could Kate and Gerry McCann have discovered that Madeleine had passed away, cleaned up, mourned, decided to dispose of her - and then gone on to have a meal with friends, all of whom said that they were their normal, chatty selves.  Roped their friends into a cover up, hidden Madeleine's remains successfully for  weeks, in a foreign country without access to a car, and then successfully disposed of Madeleine's remains 3 weeks later?


First you answer my questions.

I'm not the one pushing abduction ?

So come on, PROVIDE THE PROOF.

As to how people commit crimes and appear 'normal'. History is littered with those.

Rachel Granada

  • Guest

First you answer my questions.

I'm not the one pushing abduction ?

So come on, PROVIDE THE PROOF.

As to how people commit crimes and appear 'normal'. History is littered with those.

If you can't come up with an explanation as to how I set things out in my post above then there is not a lot of point trying to debate with you any longer. 

Come on - two ordinary doctors from Leicester have not only managed to pull off the crime of the century but have also hoodwinked the Judicial systems and Governments of two European countries.  If you have a scintilla of intelligence, then you will know that this is just not possible.

stephen25000

  • Guest
If you can't come up with an explanation as to how I set things out in my post above then there is not a lot of point trying to debate with you any longer. 

Come on - two ordinary doctors from Leicester have not only managed to pull off the crime of the century but have also hoodwinked the Judicial systems and Governments of two European countries.  If you have a scintilla of intelligence, then you will know that this is just not possible.

You and your fellow acolytes believe it's not possible.

The bottom line remains, there is no proof of abduction and you know if that it was faked, there is only one place to go to.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 09:07:28 PM by stephen25000 »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Abduction, abduction, what kind of abduction ? No evidence of abduction in bed nor flat. What about abduction in the street ? Would the Smith carrier have found little Madeleine in the street, crying because she had left in search of Dad and Mum but the bloody wind had shut the door ? And she didn't protest when the carrier took her in his arms because she was freezing and his body was warm and he looked like Daddy, though he was a lonely woolf.

Offline sadie

The only ones stuck in the groove you and your fellow mccannites.

This is getting boring.

Provide proof of abduction.

Without it you have NOTHING.

Many pointers Stephen


Jane Tanner
Carolyn Carpenter
The Smiths

The AG of PT
SY

The increasingly frantic denials by certain peeps
The altering of evidence as in the Pat Brown Fiasco

Eight  attempted abductions over 16 years spaced roughly 2 years apart.  All in one of two small clusters. 
In the !990's four abductions in Porto (in a cluster no more than 32 miles across) + Rene Hasse on the Atlantic Coast of the Algarve.
In the 2000's, until Madeleine in 2007 there were another three abductions ( including Renes abduction, all in a cluster no more than 25 miles across)

The last one prior to Madeleine, was of Carolina Santos.  That was frustrated .  And it was less than 5 months before Madeleine and only about 18 miles away in Silves.  Joana Ciprianos abduction was less than 3 years before Madeleines and inly 7 miles away at Silves.

All the girls were 8 y.o. or younger and all pretty and fair haired/ blonde. 


Then there are a load of pointers that I am unable to share, because they might be ex judice



Planty of pointers Stephen.  Pointers that the police are aware of




Where are your pointers ... or proof that the Mccanns dunit?

Offline John

Abduction, abduction, what kind of abduction ? No evidence of abduction in bed nor flat. What about abduction in the street ? Would the Smith carrier have found little Madeleine in the street, crying because she had left in search of Dad and Mum but the bloody wind had shut the door ? And she didn't protest when the carrier took her in his arms because she was freezing and his body was warm and he looked like Daddy, though he was a lonely woolf.

You seem to confuse evidence with proof as usual.  There is lots of evidence of abduction.   A youngster put to bed disappears while her parents are dining nearby, the apartment window and shutter previously closed were opened, the youngsters favourite toy left on her bed, a sighting of an unknown man carrying a child away from the apartment in suspicious circumstances.  Have I missed anything?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Chinagirl

You seem to confuse evidence with proof as usual.  There is lots of evidence of abduction.   A youngster put to bed disappears while her parents are dining nearby, the apartment window and shutter previously closed were opened, the youngsters favourite toy left on her bed, a sighting of an unknown man carrying a child away from the apartment in suspicious circumstances.  Have I missed anything?

This comment applies equally to stephen25000 who also confuses evidence with proof.
A

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Have I missed anything?
Yes, corroborated evidence. Your list of evidences (shutters etc. open, toy on bed, suspicious carrier) is just hearsay.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 10:49:37 AM by AnneGuedes »

Offline Carana

Yes, evidence.
Shutters etc. open, toy on bed, suspicious carrier, all this is pure hearsay.

Hearsay would make an interesting thread...

Offline John

Yes, corroborated evidence. Your list of evidences (shutters etc. open, toy on bed, suspicious carrier) is just hearsay.

So let's see Anne has invented a new form of hearsay involving direct evidence, I have heard it all now, must be a French thing?

For your information Anne, the evidence which I have stated is not hearsay as it is first hand reported directly to the police by those who witnessed the events irrespective of whether they were directly  involved or mere spectators.   Had there not been evidence the PJ would not have been able to come to the conclusion they did.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
The PJ came to no conclusion precisely for lack of evidence.

Offline sadie

The PJ came to no conclusion precisely for lack of evidence.

just the same as they have not been able to convict, say Mrs Fenn, or Carolyn Carpenter, or even you, Anne, of the abduction.  Lack of evidence
NO EVIDENCE

You just cant go convicting peeps becos a few extremists dont like them.  Justice doesn't work like that, except occasionally in PT ?8)@)-) and some third world places like Guinea Bissau.