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

[Brietta]

Someone probably looked at the picture and said “no that isn’t her”.

"Probably" doesn't come close when a child is missing.  Do you have any pertinent information as to why this report was eliminated? 

[Alice Purjorick]

There were quite a few reports given to the Policia Judiciaria of children who looked similar to Madeleine; sometimes there is an account of how the investigation turned out but quite often a value judgement as opposed to investigation appears to suffice.

For example the follow up to a report made on May 4 2007 which included this CCTV image included the information

that the vehicle in which the child arrived at the service station

• didn't have current insurance.
• the registered owner was deceased
• the deceased had a clean record

As far as I can ascertain ... that appeared to be that ... although I would have thought that it didn't really matter too much whether or not the deceased had been known to the police or not since he could not have been driving the vehicle registered to him.  Unless - he was actually still very much in the land of the living.  The fact remains that the little girl in the photograph had been driven there by someone and it might have been useful if the police had wondered who and taken steps to find him and the child.

There is no mention whether or not this was the footage shown to Kate and Gerry.
Apparently the little girl in the CCTV image was eliminated from the enquiry on the basis of her hair Length.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm

I think there are a lot of questions the answers to which might form the basis of confirming Madeleine's abduction for me, one of which is why there isn't more information available on the unlicensed vehicle with the deceased driver.

How do you know there isn't?
Having eliminated the child as not being MBM the rest becomes traffic violations....like failure to notify change of ownership(?).
Btw according to the link you posted the vehicle was not due to be relicensed until later in the year July/Aug.

[slartibartfast]

"Probably" doesn't come close when a child is missing.  Do you have any pertinent information as to why this report was eliminated?

Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO

[faithlilly]

Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO

Indeed. It would only take a quick look to see the hair was far too long. That would be obvious to any of the police officers working on the case. This really didn’t need the attention of the parents.

[Alice Purjorick]

Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO

Pretyy much what it says in the document that was linked.

"The principal difference resides in the fact that the pictured child had hair half-way down her back, manifestly longer than that of the missing child, there having been no time/opportunity for the hair to have grown to that length, given that the average speed of hair growth is about 1cm/month (proven scientific data).
--- The results of the inquiries and the images of the episode in question are attached.

This is all, at the moment, that I have to bring to your attention".

[G-Unit]

Reported sightings of MBM are not evidence that she was abducted.
They are evidence that people are looking out for her.
They're doing that because her parents said she was abducted and asked people to look for her.
What evidence did her parents have to support their claim that MBM was abducted?

That's the evidence Rob is asking for in my opinion.

[Brietta]

How do you know there isn't?
Having eliminated the child as not being MBM the rest becomes traffic violations....like failure to notify change of ownership(?).
Btw according to the link you posted the vehicle was not due to be relicensed until later in the year July/Aug.

Are you able to indicate the diligences pursued to eliminate this particular sighting.  The link I posted ~ was that it?

[Robittybob1]

Reported sightings of MBM are not evidence that she was abducted.
They are evidence that people are looking out for her.
They're doing that because her parents said she was abducted and asked people to look for her.
What evidence did her parents have to support their claim that MBM was abducted?

That's the evidence Rob is asking for in my opinion.

It was Davel who made the claim - has he come into the discussion yet?

[Brietta]

Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO

In your opinion who do you think that someone might have been?

[Brietta]

Reported sightings of MBM are not evidence that she was abducted.
They are evidence that people are looking out for her.
They're doing that because her parents said she was abducted and asked people to look for her.
What evidence did her parents have to support their claim that MBM was abducted?

That's the evidence Rob is asking for in my opinion.

In my opinion there isn't much point in sourcing information only to discard it without investigating it.  So far no-one has been capable of indicating what steps were taken to eliminate this allegedly hirsute child from the inquiry.

[slartibartfast]

In your opinion who do you think that someone might have been?

The key to any successful investigation is to get rid of the crap ASAP.

[Robittybob1]

In your opinion who do you think that someone might have been?

Wasn't that Kate herself?

[G-Unit]

In my opinion there isn't much point in sourcing information only to discard it without investigating it.  So far no-one has been capable of indicating what steps were taken to eliminate this allegedly hirsute child from the inquiry.

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

[Alice Purjorick]

Are you able to indicate the diligences pursued to eliminate this particular sighting.  The link I posted ~ was that it?

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?

[Brietta]

The key to any successful investigation is to get rid of the crap ASAP.

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.