No evidence of any crime by the parents and no evidence of an abduction?

[jassi]

I disagree.

The police are quite capable of being vague when someone may still be a suspect: e…g, "All possibilities are still under investigation...".

In the Jo Yeates case, the police stated that the boyfriend was not a suspect - they had somehow eliminated him.

I think that in his case, he did have a very solid alibi - witnesses and CCTV footage of his journey north.

[Mr Gray]

I never said it was a fact, of course it is an opinion. Where do I state something as a fact which is actually an opinion?

You said the same about my previous post but didn't comment on that post.

So point not proved as usual.

of course its an opinion...thats what I said..remember...it certainly isn't fact

[Alfred R Jones]

I suppose it depends on whether you believe Smithman was carrying Madeleine, which would tie the time in pretty accurately.

I feel we're straying off the point.  My original point was that for the McCanns to have been complicit in the disapearance of their child it would mean that most if not all of the people they went on holiday with must also be involved in a cover-up - whether or not Smithman was carrying Madeleine is moot.  Please explain how it could be any other way?

[stephen25000]

and what is that

Read back, you will find it. >@@(*&)

[Carana]

I think that in his case, he did have a very solid alibi - witnesses and CCTV footage of his journey north.

Yes, I agree, but that's not my point about the McCann case which is that they could have come out with some police waffle that all options were still under investigation if the McCanns (or Jo's boyfriend) were still considered suspects.

[stephen25000]

OK, perhaps you could answer my question to you concerning the McCanns' friends' statements - do you accept that they are truthful accounts of events as they remembered them?

A true test of their statements would be in a court of law.

Don't you agree ?

On here it is a matter of opinion.

[slartibartfast]

OK, perhaps you could answer my question to you concerning the McCanns' friends' statements - do you accept that they are truthful accounts of events as they remembered them?

Do you believe an accurate timeline being produced by a group of friends relaxing, having a good time and not really keeping a eye on the time?

[Alfred R Jones]

Do you believe an accurate timeline being produced by a group of friends relaxing, having a good time and not really keeping a eye on the time?

I' m not sure I really understand your question.  I don't believe the timeline was fabricated if that's what you mean.  I do believe if you were to sit down with 8 other people after an eventful night and hurriedly attempt to write down a timeline you could come up with a consensus version of events albeit maybe after a couple of attempts.

[stephen25000]

The bottom line remains Mr. Jones, it has yet to be tested whether they have told the truth or not.

Don't you agree ?

[Wonderfulspam]

They could easily be fooled into believing they were getting their story straight for one reason, whilst in reality it was being done for something entirely different.

[Alfred R Jones]

Easily.

It's easy to say "easily", harder I would venture to explain in any detail how.

[peter claridge]

I' m not sure I really understand your question.  I don't believe the timeline was fabricated if that's what you mean.  I do believe if you were to sit down with 8 other people after an eventful night and hurriedly attempt to write down a timeline you could come up with a consensus version of events albeit maybe after a couple of attempts.

You would have no difficulty in remembering the events directly related to yourself, something that the writer of the timelines Russell O'Brien seemed to have a problem with.  They had three attempts at a timeline, it still doesn't work to this day.

[Brietta]

Calls to mind the discussion on a current thread regarding the manner in which the PJ files were released and the questions regarding the 'journalist' responsible for putting them in the public domain and whether or not he 'doctored' some statements for his own ends.
Particular comment was made regarding a delay in releasing the 'Tapas' interviews.

I recall there was no suspicion the friends had altered their own statements, but doubt was expressed about Levy's role.

I knew nothing about this man's role in releasing the files and only had concerns that innocent mistakes might have been made in translation, as happens when a nuance can matter and mean different things to different people.
Now I have serious doubts about the files as a resource, particularly when recalling Joanne Morais warning about him, and would not call the friends to task on their basis. 

[jassi]

Calls to mind the discussion on a current thread regarding the manner in which the PJ files were released and the questions regarding the 'journalist' responsible for putting them in the public domain and whether or not he 'doctored' some statements for his own ends.
Particular comment was made regarding a delay in releasing the 'Tapas' interviews.

I recall there was no suspicion the friends had altered their own statements, but doubt was expressed about Levy's role.

I knew nothing about this man's role in releasing the files and only had concerns that innocent mistakes might have been made in translation, as happens when a nuance can matter and mean different things to different people.
Now I have serious doubts about the files as a resource, particularly when recalling Joanne Morais warning about him, and would not call the friends to task on their basis.

I'm sure they will be very gratified   

[Brietta]

I'm sure they will be very gratified   

You are correct, Jassi, that does sound a bit pretentious.  I shall try to word statements of opinion more carefully in future.