Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

They've never said they were innocent, nor have they presented any evidence of abduction, other than the sighting of Gerry.

So when you read this statement what do you take it to mean - that the McCanns are still suspects?

"The parents' involvement was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that that's a line of investigation."
And if thr McCanns are still suspects what do you think Mark Rowley means when he said they are treating the disappearance as an abduction or burglary gone wrong?  Do you think he meant the McCanns were attempting to burgle their own apartment?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The SC ruled the McCanns have not been cleared. A higher authority than the police you constantly appeal to. This ruling was upheld by the ECHR.

And Murat wasn?t cleared either.  And Bruckner certainly hasn?t been cleared and is still an arguido.  So perhaps they?re involved, eh?

[Wonderfulspam]

So when you read this statement what do you take it to mean - that the McCanns are still suspects?

"The parents' involvement was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that that's a line of investigation."
And if thr McCanns are still suspects what do you think Mark Rowley means when he said they are treating the disappearance as an abduction or burglary gone wrong?  Do you think he meant the McCanns were attempting to burgle their own apartment?

They didn't even question the McCanns, or, clarify any of the points mentioned in the reasons set out for a reconstruction by the Portuguese.  So, no real investigation. The Portuguese police were not satisfied that there was an abduction. Apparently Rowley was happy with that then.

[Wonderfulspam]

And Murat wasn?t cleared either.  And Bruckner certainly hasn?t been cleared and is still an arguido.  So perhaps they?re involved, eh?

Neither Murat nor Brueckner were seen abducting Maddie. Gerry was.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Neither Murat nor Brueckner were seen abducting Maddie. Gerry was.

God you?re tiresome.

[Wonderfulspam]

God you?re tiresome.

I'm sorry if evidence is tiresome for you. I suppose you're not used to evidence really. You prefer to just trust the police. Even when the only evidence of abduction they've ever presented is a sighting of Gerry.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They didn't even question the McCanns, or, clarify any of the points mentioned in the reasons set out for a reconstruction by the Portuguese.  So, no real investigation. The Portuguese police were not satisfied that there was an abduction. Apparently Rowley was happy with that then.

Blahblahblah, you haven?t acknowledged in your post that the Met are not treating the McCanns as suspects and are happy that the initial investigation failed to uncover any evidence to suggest that they required further  investigating. By any measure that means they believe the McCanns to be innocent.  Furthermore they have categorically stated that they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger, possibly in an attempted burglary.  Now you can keep on trying to imply that the Met still have their suspicions about the McCanns but ALL the evidence screams otherwise.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm sorry if evidence is tiresome for you. I suppose you're not used to evidence really. You prefer to just trust the police. Even when the only evidence of abduction they've ever presented is a sighting of Gerry.

When did thr Met say Smithman was Gerry? Please provide a cite this time.

[Wonderfulspam]

Anyway. Let's see if Mccann supporters can remember this for more than 10 minutes & beyond today.

The claim that Gerry was at the tapas at the time of the Smith sighting (10pm) is entirely based on estimated times only. And estimates have room for error.

Gerry claimed it was 10:13pm that Kate came screaming. Matts rogatory, supported by Russell's half eaten steak, places the time the alarm was raised as before 10pm & most certainly before Gerry's 10:13pm.

And so, if the alarm was raised before 10pm, & Gerry went off searching alone, which he did, then, it is possible for Mr Mccann to have been seen by the Smiths.

This possibility is supported by evidence contained within the files.

I couldn't find any evidence of Brueckner dragging Maddie out of the window however.

[Wonderfulspam]

Blahblahblah, you haven?t acknowledged in your post that the Met are not treating the McCanns as suspects and are happy that the initial investigation failed to uncover any evidence to suggest that they required further  investigating. By any measure that means they believe the McCanns to be innocent.  Furthermore they have categorically stated that they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger, possibly in an attempted burglary.  Now you can keep on trying to imply that the Met still have their suspicions about the McCanns but ALL the evidence screams otherwise.

They admitted they haven't really investigated the McCanns VS.  How did they clarify the precise time the alarm was raised?  It is rather crucial to excluding Gerry as being Smithman. I myself cannot exclude him, because of this fact, & the fact the McCanns are very clearly liars & guilty as sin.

[Wonderfulspam]

When did thr Met say Smithman was Gerry? Please provide a cite this time.

They believed the Smith sighting was Maddie, as per Crimewatch. The only person identified as carrying her was her father. I wonder if they noticed? Because we know they didn't do any investigating. Rowley admitted it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Evidence against - 7 out of 9 Smiths disagreeing with the Old Fella and his wife that it was Gerry.  The 4 months it took them to arrive at the very belated idea that it might have been Gerry, even though they never even saw the man?s face properly. The majority of the Tapas evidence putting Gerry at the table at the time of the Smiths sighting (given as 9.55-10pm).

What if, VS. Now bare with me because this is a bit out there totally out of the box thinking, but, bearing in mind everything discussed today..

Evidence of alarm before 10pm.

Tapas group time estimates merely estimates & open to error.

Gerry suggesting they split up & search to see if she just wandered off, despite him knowing her only means of escape was via the window. (He & Kate admitted on RTE they knew immediately it was impossible for Maddie to leave alone)

Gerry searching alone.

Thus, opportunity to be seen by the Smiths.

................


What if, what if the very reason Mr & Mrs Smith believed it might have been Gerry was because it was Gerry.

That's possible isn't it. Wouldn't you say that's possible, based on the evidence presented?

[Wonderfulspam]

.......Almost certainly not because Police Man said, & Wolters said & the McCanns said & the very idea is incomprehensible to VS. Which is more a reflection of VS's mental limitations than evidence the McCanns couldn't possibly have done it really.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What if, VS. Now bare with me because this is a bit out there totally out of the box thinking, but, bearing in mind everything discussed today..

Evidence of alarm before 10pm.

Tapas group time estimates merely estimates & open to error.

Gerry suggesting they split up & search to see if she just wandered off, despite him knowing her only means of escape was via the window. (He & Kate admitted on RTE they knew immediately it was impossible for Maddie to leave alone)

Gerry searching alone.

Thus, opportunity to be seen by the Smiths.

................


What if, what if the very reason Mr & Mrs Smith believed it might have been Gerry was because it was Gerry.

That's possible isn't it. Wouldn't you say that's possible, based on the evidence presented?

No.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They admitted they haven't really investigated the McCanns VS.  How did they clarify the precise time the alarm was raised?  It is rather crucial to excluding Gerry as being Smithman. I myself cannot exclude him, because of this fact, & the fact the McCanns are very clearly liars & guilty as sin.

You claimed the Met have never said the McCanns are innocent.  This was as you must now admit, complete rubbish.