Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

What you have done though is rely on the evidence of Madeleine's parents and their friends to support your belief that she was abducted. If it's possible that they were involved it's probable that their evidence can't be relied upon imo.

You are wrong.. I don't simply rely on the evidence of Madelienes parents. You sem to be claiming its probable their evidence cannot be relied upon which is absolute rubbish

[barrier]

Do you actually believe that I think it’s in any way likely?  Clearly you have never read any if my posts in which I make it quite clear that I believe Madeleine died a long time ago, probably on the 3rd May 2007 or shortly thereafter.  So, I will not be “bitterly disappointed “, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be absolutely delighted to be proven wrong.

I was commenting more on CB  not being the culprit.

[G-Unit]

You are wrong.. I don't simply rely on the evidence of Madelienes parents. You sem to be claiming its probable their evidence cannot be relied upon which is absolute rubbish

I have seen your attempts at presenting evidence of abduction and have seen nothing which doesn't rely on the testimony of her parents.

What I said was that if they were involved that would make their testimony unreliable imo.

[Mr Gray]

I have seen your attempts at presenting evidence of abduction and have seen nothing which doesn't rely on the testimony of her parents.

What I said was that if they were involved that would make their testimony unreliable imo.

I've put forward evidence which does not rely on the parents testimony but I remember you saying you don't read all the posts.
Obviously  if they erre involved it would make their evidence unreliable... The police seem to think they are not which means they would see their evidence and reliable

[G-Unit]

I've put forward evidence which does not rely on the parents testimony but I remember you saying you don't read all the posts.
Obviously  if they erre involved it would make their evidence unreliable... The police seem to think they are not which means they would see their evidence and reliable

You have relied heavily on the McCanns testimony, on your belief that they have been eliminated (no evidence of that) and on the fact that OG are not investigating them (because of their remit).

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was commenting more on CB  not being the culprit.

I’m not invested in CB being the culprit either. 

[Eleanor]

I’m not invested in CB being the culprit either.

Nor is anyone else around here.  But The Sceptics have to think that we are, which is why they keep on about it.
 
We have all been saying that we don't know, but there you go.  They hear what they want to hear because they can't deal with their own hypocrisy.

[Mr Gray]

You have relied heavily on the McCanns testimony, on your belief that they have been eliminated (no evidence of that) and on the fact that OG are not investigating them (because of their remit).

More opinion as fact but it's of no importance.  Neither the Germsns or the PJ are investigating the McCanns.... But you cling to your discredited beliefs... Imo

[Vertigo Swirl]

You have relied heavily on the McCanns testimony, on your belief that they have been eliminated (no evidence of that) and on the fact that OG are not investigating them (because of their remit).

There is plenty of evidence that the McCanns are not suspects.  How can they both not be suspects but not eliminated?  Who (of any consequence) has not eliminated them and please provide your evidence of this “non eliminated “ status you believe they hold.

[G-Unit]

There is plenty of evidence that the McCanns are not suspects.  How can they both not be suspects but not eliminated?  Who (of any consequence) has not eliminated them and please provide your evidence of this “non eliminated “ status you believe they hold.

So you believe that because the McCanns aren't suspects they must have been eliminated? In my opinion there is no evidence of elimination.

[jassi]

Nor is anyone else around here.  But The Sceptics have to think that we are, which is why they keep on about it.
 
We have all been saying that we don't know, but there you go.  They hear what they want to hear because they can't deal with their own hypocrisy.

There are several supporters who seem certain that the Germans are on the right track and the Germans are only publicising one suspect - CB -as being in the frame, so make of it what you will.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you believe that because the McCanns aren't suspects they must have been eliminated? In my opinion there is no evidence of elimination.

What does "being eliminated" mean?  Eliminated from what?  Please explain.

[G-Unit]

What does "being eliminated" mean?  Eliminated from what?  Please explain.

Major incident investigations in the UK use a TIE strategy; trace/interview/eliminate. Those eliminated/not eliminated are marked in HOLMES2 by a code. The possibilities are;

1. Forensic elimination, eg, DNA, footwear impressions, fingerprints
2. Description (suspect parameters)
3. Independent witness (alibi)
4. Associate or relative (alibi)
5. Spouse or common law relationship (alibi)
6. Not eliminated.

Imo the only possibilities for the elimination of the McCanns are 4 & 5, which are not the most reliable. As the time of the crime isn't known, it's difficult to see how they could be recorded as eliminated.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#elimination-criteria

[Vertigo Swirl]

Major incident investigations in the UK use a TIE strategy; trace/interview/eliminate. Those eliminated/not eliminated are marked in HOLMES2 by a code. The possibilities are;

1. Forensic elimination, eg, DNA, footwear impressions, fingerprints
2. Description (suspect parameters)
3. Independent witness (alibi)
4. Associate or relative (alibi)
5. Spouse or common law relationship (alibi)
6. Not eliminated.

Imo the only possibilities for the elimination of the McCanns are 4 & 5, which are not the most reliable. As the time of the crime isn't known, it's difficult to see how they could be recorded as eliminated.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#elimination-criteria

Are you suggesting then that Operation Grange has not eliminated the McCanns but has been instructed by the High Ups to ignore it? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Major incident investigations in the UK use a TIE strategy; trace/interview/eliminate. Those eliminated/not eliminated are marked in HOLMES2 by a code. The possibilities are;

1. Forensic elimination, eg, DNA, footwear impressions, fingerprints
2. Description (suspect parameters)
3. Independent witness (alibi)
4. Associate or relative (alibi)
5. Spouse or common law relationship (alibi)
6. Not eliminated.

Imo the only possibilities for the elimination of the McCanns are 4 & 5, which are not the most reliable. As the time of the crime isn't known, it's difficult to see how they could be recorded as eliminated.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#elimination-criteria

By your logic then as the crime is "not known" (according to you, though Operation Grange are clearly treating it as a stranger abduction) that no one in the whole of PdL that night (and possibly beyond)  has been eliminated by the UK police, is that your contention?