Re: One coherent theory apart from abduction

by vaguely 02.01.10 22:14

I don't think there's any need for that sort of response.

I made a genuine reply to another poster. Not so you could be rude.

by Guest 02.01.10 22:16

So the newspapers report the truth when you want them too then Toony, other times they always tell lies. Make your mind up Toony

by Guest 02.01.10 22:33

It is rather interesting just how many people were phoned and told of the "break-in" and the jemmied shutters. Quite a few, all by G or K. Particularly interesting how Clarence Mitchell then completely reverses the "break-in" story at the very bottom of the page.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id31.html

With thanks to the Mccannfiles.

by Old Nick 02.01.10 23:02

Disappointing lack of any coherent theories on this thread - I was looking forward to a good read....

by MaryB 02.01.10 23:09

I was watching a Miss Marple on TV earlier. People were puzzled as to the circumstances. Miss Marple said that's because people believe what other people say, I never do. (Sensible woman.)

by Old Nick 02.01.10 23:11

What do you believe MaryB?

by littlepixie 02.01.10 23:29

I can't understand why they "tried" the shutters to see if they would lift.

by MaryB 02.01.10 23:36

Well if I was the police working on this case I don't think I could take any of the witness statements as being 100% reliable. That is where I would start from. What absolute proof is there that Madeleine was in bed in 5a on May 3rd. I wouldn't say she was or wasn't but if I was investigating then I couldn't take it for granted she was.

I personally do not think it very likely that an abductor entered the apartment and took Madeleine.

by preciousramotswe 02.01.10 23:40

Thankfully, it isn't very likely.
Or it would happen far more often than it does.

However on this occasion that appears to be the most likely explanation.

by Autumn 03.01.10 0:26

MaryB wrote:Well if I was the police working on this case I don't think I could take any of the witness statements as being 100% reliable. That is where I would start from. What absolute proof is there that Madeleine was in bed in 5a on May 3rd. I wouldn't say she was or wasn't but if I was investigating then I couldn't take it for granted she was.

I personally do not think it very likely that an abductor entered the apartment and took Madeleine.

Good post, Mary. There is no absolute proof that Madeleine was in apartment 5a or, for that matter, even alive on May 3rd. There are so many discrepencies in all the statements the only way that progress can be made in this case, imo, is for the investigation to be re-opened (if, indeed, it has been closed which I very much doubt). All the evidence and statements from the police files should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, every detail scrutinized and a reconstruction take place.

by Guest 03.01.10 0:28

What would count as absolute 100% proof that Madeleine was in 5a or alive that day?

a signed statement from the Queen?

What kind of proof would you accept/believe?

by Autumn 03.01.10 0:32

Raffle wrote:What would count as absolute 100% proof that Madeleine was in 5a or alive that day?

a signed statement from the Queen?

What kind of proof would you accept/believe?

Why would anyone be against re-opening the investigation?

by Guest 03.01.10 0:39

Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:What would count as absolute 100% proof that Madeleine was in 5a or alive that day?

a signed statement from the Queen?

What kind of proof would you accept/believe?

Why would anyone be against re-opening the investigation?

Was that the answer to the question I asked?

by marigold 03.01.10 1:22

badmanners wrote:Thankfully, it isn't very likely.
Or it would happen far more often than it does.

However on this occasion that appears to be the most likely explanation.

Apart from a (thankfully few) blindly loyal subjects of the disgraceful duo, the majority view is that abduction is the most UNLIKELY explanation.

by Guest 03.01.10 4:31

Apart from a (thankfully few) blindly loyal subjects of the disgraceful duo, the majority view is that abduction is the most UNLIKELY explanation.[/quote]

Quite wrong. Apart from a loony handful that post in hate forums, the majority - or those that actually do have an opinion on this case - abduction is the ONLY view.

by Perelli 03.01.10 9:36

Perhaps Mr. Bennett would be kind enough to help us out by telling us how many members there are in his foundation these days as it would be a clear indication of how much support there is from the general public. Even such societies as the Cosmic Ray Deflection Society has managed to attract more than 200 members, here they are these delightful chappies, complete with tin foil hats and all...

http://jonesl.people.cofc.edu/crds.html big grin

by Autumn 03.01.10 14:06

Chinagirl wrote:Apart from a (thankfully few) blindly loyal subjects of the disgraceful duo, the majority view is that abduction is the most UNLIKELY explanation.

Quite wrong. Apart from a loony handful that post in hate forums, the majority - or those that actually do have an opinion on this case - abduction is the ONLY view.[/quote]

Talking of loonys on hate forums,Chinagirl, you post on JATYK dont your?

by sunshine 03.01.10 14:20

As do I and I am neither loony or hateful.You just cant help yourself can you autumn?

by Autumn 03.01.10 14:34

sunshine wrote:As do I and I am neither loony or hateful.You just cant help yourself can you autumn?

I think your post should be directed at Chinagirl, not me. roll

And yes, I am aware that you post on Debbie's forum which, having glanced a couple of times at, can be described as nothing other than a Hate Forum.

by sunshine 03.01.10 14:42

You were talking about JATYK not DBs forum.

by Autumn 03.01.10 14:49

sunshine wrote:You were talking about JATYK not DBs forum.

But you dont deny you post on DB's which is most definately a Hate Forum.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 15:48

What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

by vaguely 03.01.10 15:51

aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Aiyoyo, I've never seen a coherent explanation of events that night - either for abduction or for parental involvement.

I've seen a huge jumbled mess of theories, all of which rely on made up bits in the middle and the writing off of parts of evidence in the files.

That's all there is.

by DCB1 03.01.10 15:52

aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

That was the reason for this thread - to see if there was just one coherent theory apart from abduction.

I have yet to hear one to consider and discuss.

by sunshine 03.01.10 16:30

Autumn wrote:
sunshine wrote:You were talking about JATYK not DBs forum.

But you dont deny you post on DB's which is most definately a Hate Forum.

I think I have made 1 post on their and I register on a lot of forums,some could possibly be classed as hate ones but with different subjects as the "hated".

Log in for more topics