Little Moroccan girl Bushra Binhisa mistaken for Madeleine McCann revisited.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That would suit you wouldn't it?  Then all the observations would not be there for thinking people to see

What is it with you guys?  seems that anything that makes a serious attempt to unravel the mysteries is instantly ridiculed. 

Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids?  Surely not.

This is a point that is not made often enough.

Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families.

[AnneGuedes]

This is a point that is not made often enough.

Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families.

This was a threat used by the McCanns years ago, in order to give some consistence to their abductor, turning him into public enemy number one when interest and fund's money were running down.
Madeleine is still the unique child abducted from bed in Europe since Savile Kent, who wasn't abducted in fact..

[Sherlock Holmes]

This was a threat used by the McCanns years ago, in order to give some consistence to their abductor, turning him into public enemy number one when interest and fund's money were running down.
Madeleine is still the unique child abducted from bed in Europe since Savile Kent, who wasn't abducted in fact..

The point may have been 'used' by the McCanns, to use your words, Anne, but in nonetheless remains a fact that there is a possibility of abduction in this case.

Ergo the possibility of an abductor.

[AnneGuedes]

The point may have been 'used' by the McCanns, to use your words, Anne, but in nonetheless remains a fact that there is a possibility of abduction in this case.

Ergo the possibility of an abductor.

Before crying wolf, rationality requires evidence of abduction first thing. The one and only possible evidence, Tannerman, is now extinct...

[Wonderfulspam]

The point may have been 'used' by the McCanns, to use your words, Anne, but in nonetheless remains a fact that there is a possibility of abduction in this case.

Ergo the possibility of an abductor.

And what other possibilities do you believe there are in this case SH ?

Murder seems to be one possibility according to Hulk. 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Before crying wolf, rationality requires evidence of abduction first thing. The one and only possible evidence, Tannerman, is now extinct...

Wait a minute..

For years, people were saying that Jane Tanner's 'evidence' did not amount to anything.

Now that her sighting has been officially ruled out as significant in the inquiry, and another sighting as the focus, Jane Tanner's account is being referred to as 'the one and only possible evidence'

Does that make sense?

[AnneGuedes]

Wait a minute..

For years, people were saying that Jane Tanner's 'evidence' did not amount to anything.

Now that her sighting has been officially ruled out as significant in the inquiry, and another sighting as the focus, Jane Tanner's account is being referred to as 'the one and only possible evidence'

Does that make sense?

What people ? The PJ, yes, but not the McCanns, who claimed that Tannerman was evidence of abduction (the pjs matched). After they had to admit that no breaking-in through shutters/window occurred, Tannerman was the "one and only" evidence (read "Madeleine").
I personally never suspected Ms Tanner of having built up Tannerman and I'm not sure she saw Innocentman. But I don't believe the abduction from bed orthodoxy.

[Cariad]

This is a point that is not made often enough.

Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families.

Where is he then? No similar crime has been committed since, so I guess he either never existed or has taken early retirement from child snatching.

Maybe the point that there has been no repeat crime is one that's worth making.

[AnneGuedes]

Where is he then? No similar crime has been committed since, so I guess he either never existed or has taken early retirement from child snatching.

Maybe the point that there has been no repeat crime is one that's worth making.

The most plausible explanation for no other abduction from bed having occurred either in PDL or in Europe pleads for a ghost abductor.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Where is he then? No similar crime has been committed since, so I guess he either never existed or has taken early retirement from child snatching.

Maybe the point that there has been no repeat crime is one that's worth making.

How do we know there has been no repeat crime?

The criminal is flexible. Such a person is  not exactly likely to be operating within the cream of society. He may have committed different types of crime since then, perhaps in another place, and no -one will have connected  the dots.

[slartibartfast]

How do we know there has been no repeat crime?

The criminal is flexible. Such a person is  not exactly likely to be operating within the cream of society. He may have committed different types of crime since then, perhaps in another place, and no -one will have connected  the dots.

You mean connected the dots, commas, asterisks, dashes and colons.

[Cariad]

How do we know there has been no repeat crime?

The criminal is flexible. Such a person is  not exactly likely to be operating within the cream of society. He may have committed different types of crime since then, perhaps in another place, and no -one will have connected  the dots.

But we are being told to fear a man who enters our homes and steals our children. That is what both you and Sadie have said in this thread!

Sadie "Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids?  Surely not"

Sherlock "This is a point that is not made often enough.

Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families."

You're both using emotive language, conjuring up images of men hiding in wardrobes, waiting to pounce on our children.

I think that a point worth making is:

There has been no repeat crime with the same M.O.

There is no evidence that "this gawd awful guy"  has ever offended again. In fact there is no evidence that he ever existed at all!

[Benice]

But we are being told to fear a man who enters our homes and steals our children. That is what both you and Sadie have said in this thread!

Sadie "Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids?  Surely not"

Sherlock "This is a point that is not made often enough.

Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families."

You're both using emotive language, conjuring up images of men hiding in wardrobes, waiting to pounce on our children.

I think that a point worth making is:

There has been no repeat crime with the same M.O.

There is no evidence that "this gawd awful guy"  has ever offended again. In fact there is no evidence that he ever existed at all!

There are thousands of criminals out there who have never been caught and may never BE caught.   Why would you exclude this possibility from the McCann case?  That's illogical imo.

And there is evidence that this criminal exists.  The open shutter and window are evidence that a stranger was involved in this crime.     Choosing not to believe that is not proof that it didn't happen.    SY believe it.   Does their expertise and the means they have at their disposal  to establish the veracity of the McCanns mean nothing?    Why would anyone believe people who have never met the McCanns over people who are specifically trained and qualified to make such evaluations and who have spent hours with them?   IMO that is what we are being asked to do and that makes no sense to me at all.

To me that's  like saying someone with no training and who has only read a pamphlet on dentistry is far more qualified to extract a tooth than a professionally qualified dentist.   I know which one I'd avoid like the plague.

[colombosstogey]

But we are being told to fear a man who enters our homes and steals our children. That is what both you and Sadie have said in this thread!

Sadie "Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids?  Surely not"

Sherlock "This is a point that is not made often enough.

Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families."

You're both using emotive language, conjuring up images of men hiding in wardrobes, waiting to pounce on our children.

I think that a point worth making is:

There has been no repeat crime with the same M.O.

There is no evidence that "this gawd awful guy"  has ever offended again. In fact there is no evidence that he ever existed at all!

Great post.

Actually has there actually been ANY child in area of PDL etc, where a child has been snatched from their bedroom and proven as such?

[Estuarine]

Great post.

Actually has there actually been ANY child in area of PDL etc, where a child has been snatched from their bedroom and proven as such?

You beat me too it Colombo'. Hats off to Cariad.