Wandering Off Topic

[slartibartfast]

I certainly don't simply accept something just because they say so
I don't just believe the McCann's are innocent because they are not suspects
I've looked at the evidence and to me it is obvious they are not involved
SY have simply confirmed this

That appears to be classic confirmation bias.

[Mr Gray]

That appears to be classic confirmation bias.

It may appear to you

In your opinion..to me it's looking at the evidence and then

reaching a conclusion

[stephen25000]

What evidence is that then ?

Evidence of an intruder in the apartment ?

None has been found.

Can you remind me of what Clarence Mitchell said about that ?

[Mr Gray]

What ecvidence is that then ?

E

The evidence SY refer to

[John]

Let's be clear guys and gals, no topic is off-limit as long as all comments comply with our very strict forum rules.

A reminder to moderators that censorship is not a mod function. I have reinstated many posts over the last few days which would otherwise have been lost to the forum.  A little edit here and there works wonders. TY

[Eleanor]

The simple truth is the Mccanns still remain the last kmown people to have seen Madeleine alive.

There is no forensic evidence of a third party in the apartmenr that night, and rhe latest headlines in the MSM are quite frankly laughable.

I.M.H.O.

And as a Moderator, you should know better.

[pathfinder73]

I thought the PJ only made suspects known to the public when they are declared arguido. 

[John]

The fact is that SY believe Maddie was abducted. They are a highly respected police force with access to all the evidence. The PJ do not consider the McCanns suspects. Unless there is a giant conspiracy in place involving hundreds of professionals who would have to be acting dishonestly then according to SY the evidence points to an abduction.

They (SY) could also be completely wrong as has happened in the past.  According to SY, Tannerman has been accounted for, are they wrong in that too?

[stephen25000]

And as a Moderator, you should know better.

You need to explain that reply Eleanor.

I have given the situation as it stands.

[Mr Gray]

They (SY) could also be completely wrong as has happened in the past.  According to SY, Tannerman has been accounted for, are they wrong in that too?

Actually tannerman has not been accounted for so sorry John you are wrong.... Tannerman has not been totally ruled out

[Mr Gray]

What evidence is that then ?

Evidence of an intruder in the apartment ?

None has been found.

Can you remind me of what Clarence Mitchell said about that ?

I have discussed it at length..we don't agree ... further discussion is pointless..SY

 believe...based on the evidence Maddie was abducted

And I agree

[Mr Gray]

They (SY) could also be completely wrong as has happened in the past.  According to SY, Tannerman has been accounted for, are they wrong in that too?

As I have said...there is no evidence against the McCann's according to the archiving report
The pj agree the McCann's are not suspects
It's unrealistic to assume they are both wrong ...imo

[John]

As I have said...there is no evidence against the McCann's according to the archiving report
The pj agree the McCann's are not suspects
It's unrealistic to assume they are both wrong ...imo

The Archive is almost ten years out of date davel. Its anyone's guess what the PJ and SY really think.  Maybe if they got off their backsides and investigated the criminal conduct post disappearance, they might just get somewhere.

[Mr Gray]

The Archive is almost ten years out of date davel. Its anyone's guess what the PJ and SY really think.  Maybe if they got off their backsides and investigated the criminal conduct post disappearance, they might just get somewhere.

You are critical of both SY and PJ...yet you have no evidence to support that criticism...

[Eleanor]

You need to explain that reply Eleanor.

I have given the situation as it stands.

I am not required to explain anything.  You need to explain your remarks and your actions.