A look at what constitutes evidence of an abduction versus hearsay and gossip.

[stephen25000]

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 and some third world places like Guinea Bissau.

CFO....

'TYPE OF CRIME UNKNOWN'.

[AnneGuedes]

As the AG concluded.
The first requisite, though, listening to Mr Redwood, it doesn't seem politically correct, is to determine the nature of the crime. No way to bypass that whether sooner or later.

[AnneGuedes]

In France, every two days, 3 children die following a domestic accident. At home.
When they can walk and move about, children reach things that are higher up, climb and find hidden objects. Accidents can happen in a matter of seconds.
Here are some examples of domestic accidents :
Falls are by far the most common type of injury in the home. They account for 44% of all children’s injuries.
If you have a balcony, keep the door locked so your child cannot go on to it alone – if it has railings that your child could climb through, board them up or fit wire netting as a guard.
Domestic fires are one of the greatest risks to children. Children playing with matches and lighters frequently start house fires. The youngest children often hide from the danger and may not be found until it is too late.
Glass-related injuries
Glass can cause serious cuts. Many children end up in hospital every year because of injuries due to glass around the home. Many are also injured when glasses and bottles break.

[sadie]

You keep harping on an accident Anne, yet there is nothing to show it .... nowt, nada zilch

Yet there are a multitude of pointers to an abduction, including 3 little girls in the last three years in an area no more than about 18 miles across.  Three pretty  little girls and all fair haireed/blond. 

Also witnesses

No history of any wrong doing by the parents,



why are you so obsessed by an accident Anne?

[Angelo222]

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

Not in the least.    In his case he confuses gossip with evidence.  Stephens harpings don't even reach the pinnacle of being referred to as hearsay.

[Angelo222]

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

Yes, a lack of evidence as distinct from there being NO evidence., a big difference Anne.

[Mr Moderator]

I have tweaked the thread title slightly to reflect the expanding discussion.     If there is evidence of an accident as against abduction please feel free to post it.

[stephen25000]

Not in the least.    In his case he confuses gossip with evidence.  Stephens harpings don't even reach the pinnacle of being referred to as hearsay.

Rubbish.

You repeat the words abduction.

There is no proof.

As to harping, complete rubbish.

I leave that  to those who indulge in fantasies of abduction, whoever they may be.

[stephen25000]

Yes, a lack of evidence as distinct from there being NO evidence., a big difference Anne.

Seeing a child being carried in someone's arms is not evidence of anything. If you believe that so, then any sighting of a child being carried in someone's arms could be viewed in the same way, and that is plain ridiculous.

[Benice]

Rubbish.

You repeat the words abduction.

There is no proof.

As to harping, complete rubbish.

I leave that  to those who indulge in fantasies of abduction, whoever they may be.

Until you tell us what 'really' happened in your opinon Stephen - your comments are irrelevant, as you are offering no evidence to back them up nor offering any alternative scenario which proves there was no abduction.

[stephen25000]

Until you tell us what 'really' happened in your opinon Stephen - your comments are irrelevant, as you are offering no evidence to back them up nor offering any alternative scenario which proves there was no abduction.

I don't need to prove anything.

I am not in charge of any investigation.

There is not jot of evidence that would stand up in court and you know it.

The mccanns have said abduction from the start, and if that is false, there are very few alternatives.

Not a sign of Madeleine in over 6 years and Redwood asking people to look for Madeleine.

As I've said before, they literally don't have a clue, like you.

You clearly adore the Mccanns. As to why ??????

[Benice]

I don't need to prove anything.

I am not in charge of any investigation.

There is not jot of evidence that would stand up in court and you know it.

The mccanns have said abduction from the start, and if that is false, there are very few alternatives.

Not a sign of Madeleine in over 6 years and Redwood asking people to look for Madeleine.

As I've said before, they literally don't have a clue, like you.

You clearly adore the Mccanns. As to why ??????

What a silly childish comment.

The rest of your post is irrelevant for the reasons previously given.

Six years and not a single credible theory for anything other than an abduction has ever been witnessed on any McCann forum.     

After all this time that can only be because there isn't one. 

But if you know different Stephen then why are you so reluctant to share it with us?

 
 

[Albertini]

Yes, a lack of evidence as distinct from there being NO evidence., a big difference Anne.

And why was there a lack of evidence? - Becuase the investigation was incomplete.
Why was the investigation incomplete? - Because the Mccann's and their group refused to take part in the next stage of the investigation which was the reconstruction.

[stephen25000]

What a silly childish comment.

The rest of your post is irrelevant for the reasons previously given.

Six years and not a single credible theory for anything other than an abduction has ever been witnessed on any McCann forum.     

After all this time that can only be because there isn't one. 

But if you know different Stephen then why are you so reluctant to share it with us?

 

The childishness as you call it, is from people such as you, who are clearly devoted to the Mccann cause, without even a scrap of viable evidence to back it up.

Very sad.

[Benice]

The childishness as you call it, is from people such as you, who are clearly devoted to the Mccann cause, without even a scrap of viable evidence to back it up.

Very sad.

Then the SY team must be 'very sad' too in your eyes Stephen - as I accept their findings.

You obviously believe they've got it all wrong - but you can't come up with a single sensible reason why YOU are right and they are wrong.

All you can do is sneer and insult. 

Now that is sad - and also extremely childish.