Re: The Article that got Raffle Ruffled.

by DCB1 17.12.09 17:12

Autumn wrote:Of all the possibilities of re what happened, abduction seems that least likely, aswell as there being not much to support it apart from Kate saying so, evidence seems to point away from that theory, too.

What evidence of an abductor would satisfy you?

by DCB1 17.12.09 17:16

It's quite glib to say there is no evidence. I don't remember anybody saying what evidence they would expect.

by Guest 17.12.09 17:17

DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:Of all the possibilities of re what happened, abduction seems that least likely, aswell as there being not much to support it apart from Kate saying so, evidence seems to point away from that theory, too.

What evidence of an abductor would satisfy you?

Nothing less than a signed confession I should think.

by Autumn 17.12.09 17:20

Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

by DCB1 17.12.09 17:21

Autumn wrote:Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

No the question is - "what evidence of abduction would you expect that would satisfy you?"

by Autumn 17.12.09 17:23

Raffle, you may not take the disappearance of a little girl seriosly but others do. Why do try to disrupt every thread with flippant comments, if your not interested then butt out.

by Guest 17.12.09 17:27

Autumn wrote:Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

You've had a few of them.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 17:29

DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

No the question is - "what evidence of abduction would you expect that would satisfy you?"

1. Forensics (none exist, even when he climbed out of a 2 ft square window)

2. Sightings other than the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

3. A credible explanation (and I mean credible) of how the abductor accomplished all that he did...

* in the dark
* without being seen or heard
* in a time frame of about 3 minutes
* without leaving a scintilla, jot or tittle of forensic evidence

PLUS

4. Why did he walk through an unlocked patio door and then exit via a 2ft square window, that by the way only had Dr Kate McCann's finger-prints on the window-frame?

by Guest 17.12.09 17:33

You'd have to think like a criminal in order to work out how he operates Mr Bennett.

Ask any police offer or probation officer and they will tell you the same thing. Criminals don't think like normal people.

Where is the 3 minute window of opportunity from btw?

by Guest 17.12.09 17:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

No the question is - "what evidence of abduction would you expect that would satisfy you?"

1. Forensics (none exist, even when he climbed out of a 2 ft square window)

2. Sightings other than the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

3. A credible explanation (and I mean credible) of how the abductor accomplished all that he did...

* in the dark
* without being seen or heard
* in a time frame of about 3 minutes
* without leaving a scintilla, jot or tittle of forensic evidence

PLUS

4. Why did he walk through an unlocked patio door and then exit via a 2ft square window, that by the way only had Dr Kate McCann's finger-prints on the window-frame?

1. unidentified fingerprints werre recovered.

2. Potential eye witnesses in the form of jane tanner and the Smith group

3. There were street lights outside, it was not pitch, burglers manage it all the time why not abductors, there was no-one awake to hear or see, burlgers manage this all the time why not an abductor, we don;t know for definite what the time frame was,m unless you know differently but an unlocked apartment and sleeping child, it would take less then 3 minutes anyway, what evidence would satisfy you?

4. This is only your fantasy, most other sentient beings are aware there were several combinations of entering and leaving the premises, these have been explained to you numerous times, you claim to not remember these occasions.

by DCB1 17.12.09 17:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

No the question is - "what evidence of abduction would you expect that would satisfy you?"

1. Forensics (none exist, even when he climbed out of a 2 ft square window)

2. Sightings other than the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

3. A credible explanation (and I mean credible) of how the abductor accomplished all that he did...

* in the dark
* without being seen or heard
* in a time frame of about 3 minutes
* without leaving a scintilla, jot or tittle of forensic evidence

PLUS

4. Why did he walk through an unlocked patio door and then exit via a 2ft square window, that by the way only had Dr Kate McCann's finger-prints on the window-frame?

1. forensics - there were unidentified human hairs in the apt, there were unidentified partial fingerprints.

2. Smiths? Shady characters seen around the apt before the event

3. an OC worker was called out and with the keys on the very night of the event to attend to another broken/faulty door

4. without been seen or heard - they don't shout it from the rooftops and say look at me.

5. the time frame of 3 minutes depends on Tanners sighting - which you dismiss.

6. they didn't swab the apt for dna imediately after the event. (but could find plenty of stuff to swab months later)

7. no-one says he entered/left by the window.

8. they didn't collect the bed/bedding for analysis.

by Guest 17.12.09 23:10

DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:Actually, I did start a thread inviting members to post evidence to support the abduction theory but, not many posts on it so it sank quickly without trace.

No the question is - "what evidence of abduction would you expect that would satisfy you?"

1. Forensics (none exist, even when he climbed out of a 2 ft square window)

2. Sightings other than the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

3. A credible explanation (and I mean credible) of how the abductor accomplished all that he did...

* in the dark
* without being seen or heard
* in a time frame of about 3 minutes
* without leaving a scintilla, jot or tittle of forensic evidence

PLUS

4. Why did he walk through an unlocked patio door and then exit via a 2ft square window, that by the way only had Dr Kate McCann's finger-prints on the window-frame?

1. forensics - there were unidentified human hairs in the apt, there were unidentified partial fingerprints.

2. Smiths? Shady characters seen around the apt before the event

3. an OC worker was called out and with the keys on the very night of the event to attend to another broken/faulty door

4. without been seen or heard - they don't shout it from the rooftops and say look at me.

5. the time frame of 3 minutes depends on Tanners sighting - which you dismiss.

6. they didn't swab the apt for dna imediately after the event. (but could find plenty of stuff to swab months later)

7. no-one says he entered/left by the window.

8. they didn't collect the bed/bedding for analysis.

Wasn't there an OC worker called out to the mccann apartment that day too?

by littlepixie 17.12.09 23:16

Matin Grime said that previous forensic examinations had been carried that may affect the dogs ability to detect, so some forensics had been carried out prior to the dogs being taken to the apartment.
He also said that not all the dogs alerts had been investigated despite indications to the contrary, so someone was saying they had been when they hadnt.
I wonder why they weren't.

by DCB1 17.12.09 23:19

littlepixie wrote:Matin Grime said that previous forensic examinations had been carried that may affect the dogs ability to detect, so some forensics had been carried out prior to the dogs being taken to the apartment.
He also said that not all the dogs alerts had been investigated despite indications to the contrary, so someone was saying they had been when they hadnt.
I wonder why they weren't.

Yes - who made the decision not to analyse further some of the dog alerts?

Why was the sniffing machine held up in customs and never used?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 23:48

Raffle wrote:You'd have to think like a criminal in order to work out how he operates Mr Bennett.

Ask any police offer or probation officer and they will tell you the same thing. Criminals don't think like normal people.

Where is the 3 minute window of opportunity from btw?

9.10pm Dr Gerald McCann leaves apartment
9.11pm Abductor (or perhaps abductress - see Dave Edgar) enters 5A
9.14pm Abductor/abductress leaves 5A
9.15pm Abductor/abductress seen walking 'purposefully' by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

by DCB1 17.12.09 23:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:You'd have to think like a criminal in order to work out how he operates Mr Bennett.

Ask any police offer or probation officer and they will tell you the same thing. Criminals don't think like normal people.

Where is the 3 minute window of opportunity from btw?
9.10pm Dr Gerald McCann leaves apartment
9.11pm Abductor (or perhaps abductress - see Dave Edgar) enters 5A
9.14pm Abductor/abductress leaves 5A
9.15pm Abductor/abductress seen walking 'purposefully' by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

But you don't believe Tanner. - Make your mind up!

by Guest 17.12.09 23:53

I seriously doubt any of them were walking about with huge stopwatches in their hands all night to recall to the exact second when something occured.

by Guest 18.12.09 9:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:You'd have to think like a criminal in order to work out how he operates Mr Bennett.

Ask any police offer or probation officer and they will tell you the same thing. Criminals don't think like normal people.

Where is the 3 minute window of opportunity from btw?
9.10pm Dr Gerald McCann leaves apartment
9.11pm Abductor (or perhaps abductress - see Dave Edgar) enters 5A
9.14pm Abductor/abductress leaves 5A
9.15pm Abductor/abductress seen walking 'purposefully' by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner

Unless you were there how can you know when the abductor entered the apartment? And I thought you were attempting to discredit Jane, you can't have it both ways.

by vaguely 18.12.09 10:27

Either choose to believe her or choose to disbelieve her. And don't use either/or in order to try and fit your own theories.

Pick one and go for it.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 10:40

tyra wrote:Unless you were there how can you know when the abductor entered the apartment? And I thought you were attempting to discredit Jane, you can't have it both ways.

Dr Gerald McCann said that his check began at 9.05pm and ended about 9.10pm. Don't forget he also said that he was an unusually long time on the loo during that visit.

re: "And I thought you were attempting to discredit Jane..."

REPLY: I think she does quite a good job of that herself, without any assistance from me.

by vaguely 18.12.09 10:44

then if she didn't see the abductor that leaves a much longer window. So why are you saying it had to be done within such a short amount of time?

by Guest 18.12.09 10:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Unless you were there how can you know when the abductor entered the apartment? And I thought you were attempting to discredit Jane, you can't have it both ways.
Dr Gerald McCann said that his check began at 9.05pm and ended about 9.10pm. Don't forget he also said that he was an unusually long time on the loo during that visit.

re: "And I thought you were attempting to discredit Jane..."

REPLY: I think she does quite a good job of that herself, without any assistance from me.

What makes you so sure that the abductor wasn't already in the apartment or do you think Mr Mccann searched every room and every crevice while he was popping back to check the kids were sleeping?

I don't understand your comment about Jane Tanner, I'm not aware of her discrediting herself she has simply told what she claims she saw, consistently.

by Autumn 18.12.09 10:56

According to Donal McIntrye, it was likely that there were 2 abductors in the apartment.

by vaguely 18.12.09 10:58

I'm not sure Mr Bennett understands either.

if she is discredited then the window for abduction to take place is far longer.

if she isn't discredited then she saw the abductor.

I just wish he'd stick with one of them rather than using a combination of both to rubbish the events of the night.