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

[slartibartfast]

What case are you talking about?

As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine. 

The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.

I am sure you understand what I mean.

[Alice Purjorick]

What makes you think that bothers, me in the slightest

I don't.

[G-Unit]

What case are you talking about?

As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine. 

The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.

Of course if he's right, then he's the only one who hasn't let her down, isn't he?

[Brietta]

Of course if he's right, then he's the only one who hasn't let her down, isn't he?

Failing to interview the number of potential witnesses his investigation ignored lets everyone down across the board but none more so than the failure to address the collection of forensic samples which might have led to evidence which at the least might have dictated the true course for investigation.

One example of which was the laundering of Madeleine's bedding.

[Admin]

Members are warned that I will take action if goading or disruptive comments continue to be identified.

Admin

[G-Unit]

Failing to interview the number of potential witnesses his investigation ignored lets everyone down across the board but none more so than the failure to address the collection of forensic samples which might have led to evidence which at the least might have dictated the true course for investigation.

One example of which was the laundering of Madeleine's bedding.

That, in my opinion, is just general mud=slinging. Which witnesses were ignored? Whose job was it to collect forensic samples? Whose job was it to take the bedding to be tested if necessary? Why not take a leaf out of Hogan-Howe's book?

Anybody can go back after two, three, five, six years and say 'why didn't you do that'? That's easy in hindsight.

“We don't like it when it happens to the Met, and I'm certainly not going to do it to the Portuguese.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-case-re-opened-portuguese-police-re-start-investigation-into-her-disappearance-8901696.html

[slartibartfast]

What case are you talking about?

As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine. 

The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.

Of course discussing Amral’s thesis is off topic.

[Robittybob1]

Of course  they are... Evidence  but not proof

But not photographic evidence.  At most it is a claim.

[Robittybob1]

It's quite obvious, amaral did not prove it... On the basis of the evidence he relied on for his proof... One piece of evidence being that the two dogs had solved 200 cases... Which is obviously  rubbish

Did he claim Eddie had solved 200 cases?

[Robittybob1]

The PJ have not stated that they are looking for an abductor.

If that is true that is real strange for then we would have to consider whether the PJ had considered sufficient options for Madeleine's disappearance.
If they considered abduction they would have to consider looking for an abductor.  It could be true they never considered  this option. 

[jassi]

If that is true that is real strange for then we would have to consider whether the PJ had considered sufficient options for Madeleine's disappearance.
If they considered abduction they would have to consider looking for an abductor.  It could be true they never considered  this option.

Or it could be that they considered and rejected it.

[barrier]

What case are you talking about?

As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine. 

The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.

The lack of evidence of an alleged abduction could quite easily be due to the fact one never occurred let alone be the opinion that the initial investigation was settled on a thesis of death.All opinion of course.

[Robittybob1]

Or it could be that they considered and rejected it.

Well then we must hope they had good reasons to reject it.   Was there "certainly [No] circumstantial evidence of abduction"?  Or else why would they reject it? It then makes you wonder how they approached any of the claims of Madeleine sightings.  Were they rejected and dismissed too?   For you can't have a sighting if she wasn't abducted.

[jassi]

Well then we must hope they had good reasons to reject it.   Was there "certainly [No] circumstantial evidence of abduction"?  Or else why would they reject it? It then makes you wonder how they approached any of the claims of Madeleine sightings.  Were they rejected and dismissed too?   For you can't have a sighting if she wasn't abducted.

Well you can have false sightings  & wishful thinking sightings without an abduction.
Follow up would depend upon who these sightings were reported to - PJ only have jurisdiction in Portugal

[Robittybob1]

Well you can have false sightings  & wishful thinking sightings without an abduction.
Follow up would depend upon who these sightings were reported to - PJ only have jurisdiction in Portugal

Those categories would only become evident if the had been some investigation.  I know there was one situation reported that there were 3 MM sightings in 3 different countries on the same day. Obviously there was no way a person could be in 3 widely separated countries on the same day.  Some of these sightings must be "false".

What did you mean by false?