Harmed or not harmed ...that is the question

[jassi]

The shelved enquiry ruled out woke and wandered and also found no evidence against the McCanns or any of their friends (as having harmed Madeleine)

What does that leave?

Undiscovered evidence, obviously, as they have no evidence of abduction either.

[ferryman]

Undiscovered evidence, obviously, as they have no evidence of abduction either.

Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.

Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.

Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.

Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.

All evidence of abduction ....

[stephen25000]

Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.

Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.

Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.

Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.

All evidence of abduction ....

The crime is unknown.

Why do you omit this every time ?

There is no evidence of abduction that can't be explained by other scenarios.

[mercury]

Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.

Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.

Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.

Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.

All evidence of abduction ....

1 and 2 are not evidence at all (just possible leads) and 2 is factually wrong

[ferryman]

1 and 2 are not evidence at all (just possible leads) and 2 is factually wrong

What is factually wrong?

[mercury]

What is factually wrong?

We have seen at least two photos outdoors of Madeleine wearng different footwear

[mercury]

@MTI OP

I reckon there was a strategy from the start to say certain things and not say others, that is why so many of their tv interviews are so wooden.

If you compare all the interviews,you will find the exact same words and phrases repeated in exactly the same way over and over, and very often not answering a direct question directly but with a prescripted utterance of a message they wanted to repeat and repeat.

 eg (as per your OP) "there is no (not a shred) of evidence Madeleine has come to any significant harm was said over and over by the Mccanns as well as a couple other famly members.

Your post contains many good points and many of them are perfect examples of why so many people thought them "off!

[Alice Purjorick]

Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.

Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.

Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.

Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.

All evidence of abduction ....

Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (according the MPS)
The Smiths saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (as the top the child was wearing was wrong).
What fresh evidence have either police force found? we don't know because they ain't tellin'.

[ferryman]

Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (according the MPS)
The Smiths saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (as the top the child was wearing was wrong).
What fresh evidence have either police force found? we don't know because they ain't tellin'.

Evidence (as opposed to proof).

The Tanner efit remains on the McCann website with an explanation as to why.

We cannot be wholly reliant on the files (we read on line).

[Eleanor]

We seem to have wandered Off Topic.

[mercury]

Evidence (as opposed to proof).

The Tanner efit remains on the McCann website with an explanation as to why.

We cannot be wholly reliant on the files (we read on line).

But it is still not evidence as Tanner only saw a pair of feet and flowery girls pyjama bottoms, did not see anything else, so could have been anyone and there is nothing to say if MM was abducted it was at that time

[Eleanor]

Deleting Off Topic Posts from now on.

[ferryman]

But it is still not evidence as Tanner only saw a pair of feet and flowery girls pyjama bottoms, did not see anything else, so could have been anyone and there is nothing to say if MM was abducted it was at that time

You may be confusing evidence and proof.  On the FindMadeleine website is an explanation of why Jane Tanner's sighting remains up there and I can't remember what that is now. 

But proof (at least of a crime) is what definitively leads to a conviction.

[ferryman]

The concise answer to the opening post is that, one or way or another (even if still alive) Madeleine is likely to have come to substantial harm.

But the McCanns used the word as a euphemism for killed or murdered.

There is no evidence for either, and in that sense, no evidence she was 'harmed'.

[mercury]

The concise answer to the opening post is that, one or way or another (even if still alive) Madeleine is likely to have come to substantial harm.

But the McCanns used the word as a euphemism for killed or murdered.

There is no evidence for either, and in that sense, no evidence she was 'harmed'.

A child can be "significantly harmed" even if not killed, so your assertion (like you KNOW thats what they meant) they used that phrase for that only must be wrong IMO

Besides why not just say no evidence she is dead? Whats with all the extraneous language if thats all they meant?