According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Brietta]

Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?

What would you consider a possible sighting of an unknown man and a missing child to be?

[Brietta]

Quite simple; the geezer looked at the pic said the hair was too long, it could not have grown that much in a couple of days he citing scientific data on hair growth, then decided NFA. That sounds eminently reasonable to me.
In my line I can tell a fatigue failure in a shaft looking at it with my naked eye. I don't need a load of gobbledegook cobblersspeke chat surrounding it. No matter what diligences I pursue to eliminate possibilities thrown up by those with less expertise than mine.
Tell us precisely how much time and money you would have expected to have been wasted on unnecessary diligences? better yet delineate the diligences you feel would have been necessary after establishing the hair was too long?

On which intelligence did this geezer who had never seen Madeleine, base his value judgement that the hair was too long?

[Carana]

Wasn't that Kate herself?

I'm wondering that as well. Wasn't the 4th when the PJ rushed Kate and Gerry back to the police station to see if a child was Madeleine?

[slartibartfast]

It may have escaped your notice that the investigation was not successful.  Contributing to that lack of success may very well have been as a result of information not being investigated.  Perhaps as a result of investigators displaying the same contempt for information received as displayed by your good self in that post.

More likely drowned in crap.

[G-Unit]

What would you consider a possible sighting of an unknown man and a missing child to be?

I'm interested in your opinion. That's why I asked you.

snip/

Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?

[barrier]

I'm interested in your opinion. That's why I asked you.

snip/

Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?

First establish an abduction occurred,no one can get past that first base.

[Brietta]

I'm wondering that as well. Wasn't the 4th when the PJ rushed Kate and Gerry back to the police station to see if a child was Madeleine?

They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html

Why show one and not the other?

[barrier]

They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html

Why show one and not the other?

Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.

Is there any thing to suggest just supposing the article to be the real McCoy that they were not  the same people and didn't need showing?

[Wonderfulspam]

They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html

Why show one and not the other?

I can't see any point in showing them images of someone who very obviously wasn't Maddie.

[slartibartfast]

I can't see any point in showing them images of someone who very obviously wasn't Maddie.

It is just another stick to beat the PJ with IMO, the worse the investigation can be shown to have been, the less blame attaches to the parents in some people’s eyes.

[jassi]

It is just another stick to beat the PJ with IMO, the worse the investigation can be shown to have been, the less blame attaches to the parents in some people’s eyes.

Great shame for the supporters that very few people bother to read what they say. Talk about wasted effort.

[G-Unit]

First establish an abduction occurred,no one can get past that first base.

That's what the thread is supposed to be discussing, but it's been dragged off topic.

On 3rd May Madeleine's parents told a lot of people, including the police that she'd been abducted. Did the evidence support their theory?

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's what the thread is supposed to be discussing, but it's been dragged off topic.

On 3rd May Madeleine's parents told a lot of people, including the police that she'd been abducted. Did the evidence support their theory?

If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?

[Wonderfulspam]

If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?

I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.

[barrier]

If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?

That's probably why multi millions have been used in getting nowhere,all imo and that jazz.