Would you agree that just because clear evidence was not found - that does not preclude the possibility that evidence of an abductor may have existed - but could have been missed by the PJ officers, or was simply not retrievable as a result of traffic through 5A before the forensics team arrived?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as a yes or no, but you know that, as you want to try and trap me into stating abduction is the likelt scenario, but NOTHING I have seen to date will convince me of that.
Now what do you precisely mean by clear evidence in this context ?
Fingerprints ?
The only ones identified were kate mccanns.
We only have the mccanns word the apartment was locked. They changed the story on that one as well.
The damaged crime scene, clearly contaminated by the mccanns and associates rummaging through the apartment ?
There in lies another question, if the mccanns believed Madeleine was abducted, why were they searching the apartment ?
Unless of course, that became part of the 'story' later.
It doesn't make any sense.
The un-slept in bed ?
Why an 'abductor', why not more than one ?
Why take Madeleine, when her sister was younger and easier to carry ?
lastly for now, the dogs indications, after watching three programs today showing dogs at work, what I have seen of Grime's deployment of Eddie and Keela is par for the course, and watching a video of it and nit-picking which several posters on here and elsewhere are notorious for, is no substitute for being on the crime scene.
