New DCI

Elça Craig wrote:
Abductor = false?  Distinctly possible, and I'm happy admit and agree that there may not have been an abductor. 
But all evidence of an abductor 100% discredited as false?  Sorry, that's a definite no.

You say 'All evidence of an abductor  . . ."
But precisely WHAT evidence is there, at all,  of an Abductor ?  
Let us see it, in its entirety so that we may examine it.
Over to you.

What is the evidence for Abduction.

Elça Craig wrote:Aiyoyo
'Look at the McCanns story, to prove it the MET Police would have to come up with "the abductor". Failing that, the abduction story does not hold water.'

(Erm, I'm still hacking around trying to find out how the forum software works, got snafooed again.)

Basically, I would agree with the gist of what you said, until you get to the point above.  The investigations to date have not come up with proof of anything, but clearly something untoward happened.  I don't see how SY can disprove an abductor unless they can prove an alternative. 

Not finding an abductor, if that is all you do, does not prove there is no abductor, merely that you didn't find the abductor.

We appear to hacking around on the proof-of-innocence concept v proof-of-guilt.

I love a good purport like the rest of us and believe me many theories have crossed my mind.

The truth is far from being a concept. The truth is a reality.

The question is whether some people believe that SY ( and anyone elsefor that matter ) are actually in a search
for ' the Truth '?

Here's the problem for myself:

All the previous evidence is hearsay. There is no scientific subjective proof of an abductor(s) having broken in to 5a.

Incidentally there is no scientific subjective proof that Madeleine was in 5a to be abducted or removed.

The hearsay providers have no proof neither that an abduction occurred. It is hearsay evidence.

There is not enough evidence to take the matter further unless SY come up with useful credible evidence to be
added to the original case files. This is all a matter for the AG and the PJ.

If SY fail to prove the existence of an abductor or abductors what would anyone like the Portuguese AG to do?


The opinion on here is that SY should look at the so called Tapas 9 and if SY don't or can't find an abductor what
are they supposed to do after failing to find the abductor(s)? Logically you must re-question the Tapas 9. If that
fails to get to the truth you can only re-shelve the case until more credible evidence is found or emerges.

The truth is not somewhere in between the Tapas 9's evidence and the searched for abductors. It stands alone and
has to be discovered. Once discovered it the has to be proven in a Court of Law.

In order to do that you have to build a case for the Prosecution and that is the job of the police not Sky News et al.

In fact all our purporting ( and semantics )   will not be the stuff that builds a case against anyone.

That is the police's job PJ and SY.

The question is whether the police wants to find further evidence and the doubt is how they are going about the job
of trying to gather it and the potential for not seeing what's under your very nose.

I've said it before and I'll say again - you can't have half an investigation.

It either is a full one or it isn't.

There is no in between.

Like the truth.

Opinion only.

Xtc

I've said it before and I'll say again - you can't have half an investigation.

But  you can have a "half hearted" investigation.

PeterMac wrote:

Elça Craig wrote:
Abductor = false?  Distinctly possible, and I'm happy admit and agree that there may not have been an abductor. 
But all evidence of an abductor 100% discredited as false?  Sorry, that's a definite no.

You say 'All evidence of an abductor  . . ."
But precisely WHAT evidence is there, at all,  of an Abductor ?  
Let us see it, in its entirety so that we may examine it.
Over to you.

What is the evidence for Abduction.

Let's get this straight and simple.  You stated first that all evidence of an abductor was false.

I disagree with this.  I don't mean I can prove what happened because the truth is I cannot.  The idea that there is no evidence for an abduction is weak beyond belief.  If you want to come up with that theory, the onus is on you to prove it.  The ball is in your court.

Let's get this straight and simple.  I don't know what happened on 3 May 2007.  It really is that simple.  I have no magic solution.  I admit it.

But if you want to make your case that an abduction could not have happened then all you have to do is provide the supporting evidence.  Prove that an abduction did not take place.  I would love to read that, as it would make this incident SO much less puzzling.  We would then be very close to the end-game.

Boas festas.

The ball is back in your side of the court.

FYI

100 reasons why Madeleine McCann was not abducted

Compiled by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sky Discussions:

"It reminds me of a quote from the FBI:"

"Taken alone, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."

PHYSICAL / APARTMENT / ENTRY

1. All five markers in a sample found under the tiles, behind the sofa (exactly where Eddie, the EVRD [Cadaver] dog and Keela, the CSI [Human Blood] dog, both indicated), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile

2. Fifteen of the markers, in a sample found under the luggage liner of the McCann's Scenic (hired 24 days later), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile

3. Shutters were not jemmied or forced, as claimed by the parents

4. No signs of forced entry anywhere in the apartment

5. No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window, including:

6. No Lichen disturbance

7. No Fibres

8. No Finger prints of abductor

9. No footprints on bed

10. Only finger prints on the window are those of Kate
DOGS

11. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the McCann's wardrobe in 5A

12. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A

13. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the veranda outside the parent?s bedroom

14. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the flower bed at the back of 5A

15. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a white sleeveless top belonging to Kate

16. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to checked trousers belonging to Kate

17. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a child?s red T shirt

18. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a toy belonging to Madeleine

19. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's rental Scenic car

20. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the passenger's door of the McCann's Renault Scenic

21. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A (exact same spot as alerted to by the EVRD dog)

22. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's hire car

23. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the interior of the hire vehicle's boot
TANNER SIGHTING

The only perceived evidence of abduction, being the sighting by Jane Tanner at around 21.15 is riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting testimonies, being the fact that

24. None of the scent tracking Search & Rescue dogs followed that trail, and in fact followed another trail completely

25. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to spot the ?abductor?, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Gerry

26. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to see Jane Tanner walking by, despite being on the same narrow sidewalk at the same time

27. Gerry himself failed to spot the abductor, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Jeremy

28. Gerry contradicted Jeremy by stating that their chat was on the opposite side of the road from that as described, and drawn on a map, by Mr Wilkins
29. Gerry also contradicted Tanner, by stating that his chat with Jeremy was on the opposite side of the road from that mentioned by Jane

30. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.15

31. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine?s bedroom while walking from her apartment at 21.20

32. Jane never bumped into Jeremy Wilkins (who had walked back to his apartment after the chat with Gerry) while walking back from her apartment at 21.20

33. Russell O'Brien failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment at 21.30

34. Matthew Oldfield failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment, which was right next door, at 21.30
35. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains while checking on Madeleine and the twins

36. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking from his apartment back to the Tapas at around 21.35

37. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.45

38. Russell failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking back from his apartment at 21.50

39. Tanner's description has changed several times

40. It makes no sense, especially if (as the McCann's claim) that this was a well planned abduction, that the abductor walks across the very road used by the parents to check on their children

41... The abductor failed to hear either Tanner, Gerry or Wilkins, and continued on the path that would put him in the full vision of all three
42... If the abductor had lifted Madeleine out of the bed, then he would be carrying with her head to his right hand side, not on the left as in Tanner's claimed sighting
SMITH SIGHTING

43. The Smith family (independent witnesses) sighting has, with the exception of one brief mention two years later, been completely ignored by the McCann's and their private detectives from day one (no e-fit / press conference / media onslaught) despite the fact that?

44. There was huge publicity given to the Tanner sighting, including the pressure put on the Portuguese authorities to get the details out there

45. The Smith family descriptions have never changed

46. The sighting was only minutes before the 'alarm' was raised

47. The sighting was only 250 metres from the apartment

48. This sighting would have explained many of the inconsistencies of the Tanner sighting as mentioned above

49. There were several members of the family who witnessed this man carrying a child
50. The general area and timing of the sighting made by the family can be corroborated by a restaurant receipt for that evening

51. The general description of the man could fit Gerry McCann

52. The description of the child matches Madeleine

53. The type of trousers match those possessed by Gerry

54. Trousers match in terms of colour

55. Trousers even match in terms of the visible buttons as mentioned by one of the family

56. Martin and his wife later identified the carrier, through the distinctive carrying style, as being Gerry McCann


Given much of the above, the remarkable coincidence that?

57. The pressure put on the PJ to highlight the Tanner sighting came at exactly the same time as the Smith family were being brought back to Portugal to go over the sighting in more detail
58. The sighting was in a different part of town from the Tanner sighting

59. It was also heading in a completely different direction

60. The carrying style was completely different to that of the Tanner sighting

61. And yet the McCann's deliberately altered the Smith sighting carrying style so as to match that of the Tanner sighting, during the only ever significant mention of the sighting, in a McCann made reconstruction aired only a few days after Amaral's (in which he included the Smith sighting)

62. They also tried to morph the carrier into the same man as seen by Tanner, despite significant differences in descriptions
BEHAVIOURAL

There are many instances of strange behaviour from the McCann's, not being consistent with parents of a child abducted by paedophiles, including (but not limited to)?

63. Kate complaining about the speed of a police vehicle while being take to look into a new lead at PJ HQ (sighting caught on CCTV)

64. Gerry laughing and joking and sucking lollipops while one of the most significant abduction leads came to a climax

65. Very little mention of the huge award available over the last three years

66. Despite raising millions through their fund, and spending thousands on media monitoring, they continue to charge for travel kits and for printing off posters designed to help find their daughter
67. Lack of physical searching during the first few days

68. Lack of physically handing out leaflets / putting up posters themselves

69. Hiring cowboy private detectives with no expertise or experience in finding children

70. Gerry smirking when asked by a Sky News presenter how he feels when someone comes forward who is certain that they have seen Madeleine

71. When up to 14 possible sightings of Madeleine emerged in Malta, resulting in a huge police operation including Interpol, the McCann's hot footed it to Germany for more TV plugs

72. When the most promising sighting of all was made in Belgium, a 110% certain sighting by a child therapist, considered so credible by authorities that they despatched a forensics team, the McCanns went looking in Huelva, Spain

73. Gerry's initial claim, as overheard by another holidaymaker, within minutes of the alarm being raised, that Madeleine had been taken by paedophiles. How did he know that?
74. Gerry caught on Camera laughing his head off only a few days after his daughter had been abducted by paedophiles as claimed by the parents

75. Despite refuting the claims of the dogs / Scenic findings, the McCann's continued to submit ridiculous reasoning for them, including Sea bass, sweat, dirty nappies, rubbish en-route to dump, rotten meat, and attending to 6 bodies before the holiday, amongst others

76. Kate refusing to answer 48 police questions

77. The McCann's and their holiday friends all refusing to attend a police reconstruction

78. Despite the Madeleine's disappearance looking like an inside job from the outset, the McCann's and their friends were happy enough returning their children to the MW creche just hours later, despite not knowing if any of the staff were involved

79. When Kate raised the alarm, she ran back to the table, leaving the twins in the apartment while not knowing whether the abductor(s) were still onsite

80. Kate shouting They've taken her!?, not distinguishing between Madeleine and her sister Amelie
STATEMENT INCONSISTENCIES

90. When describing Madeleine sleeping that night, Kate said she was under the covers where as Gerry mentioned that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal

91. Matthew Oldfield initially claimed that Kate and the children were at the tennis courts when he arrived there at 18.30 where as the rest of the Tapas 9 claim otherwise

92. David Payne's 18.30 / 18.40 check on Kate (last person out with the parents to see Madeleine) : According to Kate the sliding door was closed, and that David didn't actually enter the apartment, remaining at the door. But according to David, the door was open and he definitely entered the apartment.
93. Matt Oldfield chivvying up the Payne's at 21.00 : Matt claims he passed them near the top of the road, but David claims to have passed him by the swimming pool, Fiona claims to have passed him outside 5A, and Dianne Webster initially claimed that Matthew wasn't even there.

94. Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child. He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. However, according to Jane Tanner it's three o' clock in the morning when she informs Gerry McCann for the first time
OTHER

95. Various other possible withheld evidence as hinted at, including intercepted phone calls / text messages

96. Independent witness statement (from McCann neighbour) regarding the luggage door of the McCann's hire vehicle being open morning, noon and night

97. Gerry's missing hold-all / tennis / kit bag which he was seen with the day Madeleine disappeared cannot be located by detectives

98. Gaspar (UK GPs) statements detailing concerns about the father and one of his friends on holiday with them

99. Yvonne Martin (Social Worker) statement regarding concerns about the same friend

100. This same friend calls the Metropolitan Police Crime Specialist Director (a number which is also used as the out of hours contact for the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Team) 24 hours after the alarm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Elça Craig wrote: EDITED
Let's get this straight and simple.  You stated first that all evidence of an abductor was false.
I disagree with this.  I don't mean I can prove what happened because the truth is I cannot.  The idea that there is no evidence for an abduction is weak beyond belief.  If you want to come up with that theory, the onus is on you to prove it.  The ball is in your court.
But if you want to make your case that an abduction could not have happened then all you have to do is provide the supporting evidence.  Prove that an abduction did not take place.  I would love to read that, as it would make this incident SO much less puzzling. 
The ball is back in your side of the court.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of proof, and of logical argument
It is for the person averring that something DID happen to provide the evidence and to prove the case.
What we are faced with is feeble attempts to provide that evidence, each item of which can be shown to be false, wrong or a fabrication
(Shutters, Window, Curtains, checks, entry, exit, state of the bed, sightings, timeline, etc)

In any criminal case the prosecution first has to prove that an offence took place, and secondly that the accused committed it.
This fails at the first of those. There is not shred of credible evidence that there was an abduction. Simply for Kate to say "I knew, knew," is not enough

Thanks joss for posting the 100 reasons.

I think Elsa Craig is looking to take the Pee.   I think Elsa has succeeded as IMO the Pee is certainly well and truly back in Elsa's court.

It's up to PeterM to prove the case.   ha ha ha.    Note to Elsa, PeterM is a RETIRED cop, how very dare you expect him to have to prove anything.   

Note to self - ignore Elsa Craig in future.

Indeed  Ailsa Craig is very probably from Scotland
Ullapool, anyone ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's a good photo PeterM,  you said Ullapool anyone and I say fat ass anyone. 

The only thing against Ullapool is the standard of English, which is better than most of the McCann clan are able to demonstrate.

petermac, would I be correct in saying that the pj have already found reason to reopen the case  some months ago ? So have they been sharing with the british in al this last lot of Malarky? or keeping quiet ,until or after the case may be just  shelved by british ? Is there a chance the pj will just pick it up again and make a decision of which way to go forward from the time when mr amaral was taken off the case? joyce1938

1. All five markers in a sample found under the tiles, behind the sofa (exactly where Eddie, the EVRD [Cadaver] dog and Keela, the CSI [Human Blood] dog, both indicated), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile

5. No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window, including:

6. No Lichen disturbance

7. No Fibres

I could go through all 100.  Some would stand, some would not, and my life is to short to deal with this level of 'evidence'.  If it flies in a court of law I'm up for it and if it doesn't, I don't see the point.  We probably have differing political and religious beliefs and the evidence for both of these is as lacking as the evidence in the list of 100 reasons.

1.  If you mean the single sample found under the tile (I can't remember anything about 5 markers and nobody takes 5 markers as a match so this isn't evidence) is attributed by the FSS to one of the officers lifting the tile.  This point 1 is about as far from the actual evidence as it is possible to get.

5.  No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window (I take it this is the bedroom window) ... Why is it necessary for an abductor to enter or exit via the window?  In her book, Kate relates a tale whereby Matthew is suggested, by the PJ, to have passed Madeleine out of 5A via the window.  (I doubt this allegation was ever put to Matthew.)  If the only acceptable explanation for the window was entry/exit, then it would be a significant point.  It isn't the only acceptable explanation, therefor it is not a significant point.  You either have easy access (for an abductor or anyone else) or you don't.  Since it is in evidence statements that the patio doors were unlocked, requiring the bedroom window as an entry/exit point is nonsensical.

6.  The no lichen argument has been debunked as a myth on some other forum, something along the lines that the statement does not exist or was not said in this manner.  Well, the statement does exist in a video that no lichen was disturbed, and you should get it if you search on-line.  They guy who said was the Professor who was in the Dispatches programme from mid 2018, where 5 'experts' rolled into Luz and tried to crack the case.
The problem with the no-lichen statement is we don't have lichen in general on window-sills in the Algarve, and apartment 5A had no lichen on the window sill in question, as clearly shown in the video where Irene Trovão dusts the shutter for finger prints.
No lichen on the window sill in the first place means no lichen could possibly be disturbed so this is another piece of non-evidence.

7.  No fibres, which I take it means no fibres on the window-sill of the children's bedroom.  I have already pointed out that the window as an entry/exit point is of little evidential value.  However, when considering the no-fibres case, you have take into account the total number of fibres retrieved from 5A on 4 May 2007 (by the Lisbon team who retrieved all the hairs and the sample of semen that would turn out to be saliva).  Hairs there were aplenty.  Total number of fibres was zero, despite the rather large number of people who wandered in an out of apartment 5A.

If you like a jolly good fairy story, read the 100 reasons.  If you want to know what went on, stick with the evidence in the files (where there is no lichen).

PeterMac wrote:

Elça Craig wrote:  EDITED
Let's get this straight and simple.  You stated first that all evidence of an abductor was false.
I disagree with this.  I don't mean I can prove what happened because the truth is I cannot.  The idea that there is no evidence for an abduction is weak beyond belief.  If you want to come up with that theory, the onus is on you to prove it.  The ball is in your court.
But if you want to make your case that an abduction could not have happened then all you have to do is provide the supporting evidence.  Prove that an abduction did not take place.  I would love to read that, as it would make this incident SO much less puzzling. 
The ball is back in your side of the court.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of proof, and of logical argument
It is for the person averring that something DID happen to provide the evidence and to prove the case.
What we are faced with is feeble attempts to provide that evidence, each item of which can be shown to be false, wrong or a fabrication
(Shutters, Window, Curtains, checks, entry, exit, state of the bed, sightings, timeline,  etc)

In any criminal case the prosecution first has to prove that an offence took place, and secondly that the accused committed it.
This fails at the first of those.   There is not shred of credible evidence that there was an abduction.  Simply for Kate to say "I knew, knew," is not enough

You posted that all evidence of an abduction was false.  Not some evidence, but all evidence.  This is repeated above as "there is not (a) shred of credible evidence that there was an abduction."

There's but two ways to justify this.  First go through all of the evidence for an abduction and disprove all of it.  If you think this is do-able, then we are of differing opinion.  Just as I cannot prove Madeleine is not in the Barragem da Bravura (as I haven't searched it and I don't know where Madeleine is), although I can show that the story surrounding the note is riddled with flaws.  So I don't think the disprove-all-of-it course is likely to be fruitful.

The alternative is to prove that something else happened, which quite clearly you can't.  In the absence of such proof, you cannot claim that all evidence of an abductor was false, since, just like me, you cannot prove what happened to Madeleine.  You have no case that would stand up in a court of law.  Neither do I.

Finally, thank you for quoting me as saying "I don't mean I can prove what happened, because the truth is that I cannot."  It is simply unfortunate that you missed or ignored this part.

plebgate wrote:Thanks joss for posting the 100 reasons.

I think Elsa Craig is looking to take the Pee.   I think Elsa has succeeded as IMO the Pee is certainly well and truly back in Elsa's court.

It's up to PeterM to prove the case.   ha ha ha.    Note to Elsa, PeterM is a RETIRED cop, how very dare you expect him to have to prove anything.   

Note to self - ignore Elsa Craig in future.

As a matter of interest, did you capitalise RETIRED and does RETIRED give special status on the forum?

If the forum does indeed have an ignore button, as most forums do, then you don't need a note to yourself, do you?

Think of the plusses of putting me on your ignore list.

Plus 1.  You wouldn't read my stuff.

Plus 2.  Because of plus 1, I wouldn't see any of your (non-)replies.

Please find and press the ignore button.

Elça Craig wrote:1. All five markers in a sample found under the tiles, behind the sofa (exactly where Eddie, the EVRD [Cadaver] dog and Keela, the CSI [Human Blood] dog, both indicated), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile

5. No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window, including:

6. No Lichen disturbance

7. No Fibres

I could go through all 100.  Some would stand, some would not, and my life is to short to deal with this level of 'evidence'.  If it flies in a court of law I'm up for it and if it doesn't, I don't see the point.  We probably have differing political and religious beliefs and the evidence for both of these is as lacking as the evidence in the list of 100 reasons.

1.  If you mean the single sample found under the tile (I can't remember anything about 5 markers and nobody takes 5 markers as a match so this isn't evidence) is attributed by the FSS to one of the officers lifting the tile.  This point 1 is about as far from the actual evidence as it is possible to get.

5.  No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window (I take it this is the bedroom window) ... Why is it necessary for an abductor to enter or exit via the window?  In her book, Kate relates a tale whereby Matthew is suggested, by the PJ, to have passed Madeleine out of 5A via the window.  (I doubt this allegation was ever put to Matthew.)  If the only acceptable explanation for the window was entry/exit, then it would be a significant point.  It isn't the only acceptable explanation, therefor it is not a significant point.  You either have easy access (for an abductor or anyone else) or you don't.  Since it is in evidence statements that the patio doors were unlocked, requiring the bedroom window as an entry/exit point is nonsensical.

6.  The no lichen argument has been debunked as a myth on some other forum, something along the lines that the statement does not exist or was not said in this manner.  Well, the statement does exist in a video that no lichen was disturbed, and you should get it if you search on-line.  They guy who said was the Professor who was in the Dispatches programme from mid 2018, where 5 'experts' rolled into Luz and tried to crack the case.
The problem with the no-lichen statement is we don't have lichen in general on window-sills in the Algarve, and apartment 5A had no lichen on the window sill in question, as clearly shown in the video where Irene Trovão dusts the shutter for finger prints.
No lichen on the window sill in the first place means no lichen could possibly be disturbed so this is another piece of non-evidence.

7.  No fibres, which I take it means no fibres on the window-sill of the children's bedroom.  I have already pointed out that the window as an entry/exit point is of little evidential value.  However, when considering the no-fibres case, you have take into account the total number of fibres retrieved from 5A on 4 May 2007 (by the Lisbon team who retrieved all the hairs and the sample of semen that would turn out to be saliva).  Hairs there were aplenty.  Total number of fibres was zero, despite the rather large number of people who wandered in an out of apartment 5A.

If you like a jolly good fairy story, read the 100 reasons.  If you want to know what went on, stick with the evidence in the files (where there is no lichen).

I don't think anyone's political or religious beliefs are in question here. But i do think the lies and actions of a couple of dead beat parents of a missing child are, IMO.
Just remember the truth is always the same.

Elça Craig wrote:
5.  No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window (I take it this is the bedroom window) ... Why is it necessary for an abductor to enter or exit via the window?  In her book, Kate relates a tale whereby Matthew is suggested, by the PJ, to have passed Madeleine out of 5A via the window.  (I doubt this allegation was ever put to Matthew.)  If the only acceptable explanation for the window was entry/exit, then it would be a significant point.  It isn't the only acceptable explanation, therefor it is not a significant point.  You either have easy access (for an abductor or anyone else) or you don't.  Since it is in evidence statements that the patio doors were unlocked, requiring the bedroom window as an entry/exit point is nonsensical.

Speaking about nonsensical, the idea that an abductor would do something looking as suspicious from mile away as passing the child through a window (Jez Wilkins circling around the block... the Crechedad carrying his kid... the streets of Praia were not empty that night) when he could leave by the allegedly unlocked patio door, or by the main door which he could open from the inside is just that - nonsensical. I won't even mention squeezing in the dark between the cots and furniture in the children bedroom.

It appears that this thread is now very much derailed and does not make for interesting reading.

No offence to the two previous posters, I have myself gotten into one on one "debates", "personal discussions" etc on other forums. I am acutely aware of the urge and need to defend oneself against attack, misrepresentation etc.

 I am now also very mindful of how miserable it is for others to endure these type of interactions.

The question I would like to pose would be "is there ANY actual evidence of an abduction in Pria De Luz in 2007". I have never seen anything that could be called "evidence" other than the fact that a child has been reported as missing and her parents are pointing to an abduction theory. Would this be correct?

secrets and lies wrote:It appears that this thread is now very much derailed and does not make for interesting reading.

No offence to the two previous posters, I have myself gotten into one on one "debates", "personal discussions" etc on other forums. I am acutely aware of the urge and need to defend oneself against attack, misrepresentation etc.

 I am now also very mindful of how miserable it is for others to endure these type of interactions.

The question I would like to pose would be "is there ANY actual evidence of an abduction in Pria De Luz in 2007". I have never seen anything that could be called "evidence" other than the fact that a child has been reported as missing and her parents are pointing to an abduction theory. Would this be correct?

As far as i know you are correct, there is no evidence of an abduction.

Khaleesi wrote:

Elça Craig wrote:
5.  No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window (I take it this is the bedroom window) ... Why is it necessary for an abductor to enter or exit via the window?  In her book, Kate relates a tale whereby Matthew is suggested, by the PJ, to have passed Madeleine out of 5A via the window.  (I doubt this allegation was ever put to Matthew.)  If the only acceptable explanation for the window was entry/exit, then it would be a significant point.  It isn't the only acceptable explanation, therefor it is not a significant point.  You either have easy access (for an abductor or anyone else) or you don't.  Since it is in evidence statements that the patio doors were unlocked, requiring the bedroom window as an entry/exit point is nonsensical.

Speaking about nonsensical, the idea that an abductor would do something looking as suspicious from mile away as passing the child through a window (Jez Wilkins circling around the block... the Crechedad carrying his kid... the streets of Praia were not empty that night) when he could leave by the allegedly unlocked patio door, or by the main door which he could open from the inside is just that - nonsensical. I won't even mention squeezing in the dark between the cots and furniture in the children bedroom.

I agree, that theory is pretty absurd, as are quite a few others IMO. Like a burglar breaking in and taking a dead child. Sometimes it feels like the twilight zone.

Thank you Joss. This is certainly my understanding, thus far.

secrets and lies wrote:The question I would like to pose would be "is there ANY actual evidence of an abduction in Praia De Luz in 2007?"

What about this?

Operation Grange said its remit was to 'investigate the abduction as if it had happened in England'.

That's massive evidence in favour of the abdcution, surely? Britain's top police force, respected the world over, says it is an abduction and they're going to investigate it. What more argument can there be?

And if that's not enough, on CrimeWatch, the BBC McCann Show on 14 October 2013, DCI Redwood of Operation Gange mentioned a bloke seen in the dark by some people, OK, the street lighting was weak, they didn't see his face properly, and only saw him for a few seconds, they couldn't recognise him if they ever saw him again, and they didn't report it for 13 day (until one of them said: Was I dreaming or something?)'  - but, come on, a full year later they drew up not one but TWO different faces of what the abductor looked like.

What more proof does anyone need?

secrets and lies wrote:Thank you Joss. This is certainly my understanding, thus far.

You're welcome Secrets and Lies.  As it is my understanding also. I have seen nothing to the contrary yet. I think it would be nice if people putting forth a theory that there was an abduction, and not just posters on a blogsite, but the authorities in charge of this investigation as well, that if they could give some solid evidence to back up their theories of an abduction might be more convincing to the public that are interested to a resolution to this very ongoing case, implicating all kinds of suspects that never amount to anything, except libel their good name. I call that grasping at straws and not any genuine leads. But who knows maybe DCI Wall will crack the case, finally!
Well a person can hope i guess.

Tony Bennett wrote:

secrets and lies wrote:The question I would like to pose would be "is there ANY actual evidence of an abduction in Praia De Luz in 2007?"

What about this?

Operation Grange said its remit was to 'investigate the abduction as if it had happened in England'.

That's massive evidence in favour of the abdcution, surely? Britain's top police force, respected the world over, says it is an abduction and they're going to investigate it. What more argument can there be?

And if that's not enough, on CrimeWatch, the BBC McCann Show on 14 October 2013, DCI Redwood of Operation Gange mentioned a bloke seen in the dark by some people, OK, the street lighting was weak, they didn't see his face properly, and only saw him for a few seconds, they couldn't recognise him if they ever saw him again, and they didn't report it for 13 day (until one of them said: Was I dreaming or something?)'  - but, come on, a full year later they drew up not one but TWO different faces of what the abductor looked like.

What more proof does anyone need?

LOL.

Anyone care to 'guess' what DCI Wall 'spent' her OG, Home Office, 'grant' of £47,446.00p, given to her, over the last 7 days, on?

And if you say 'nail varnish' i'll scream!

Ah, ok!

Thank you Tony. I'm clear now.

jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone care to 'guess' what DCI Wall 'spent' her OG, Home Office, 'grant' of £47,446.00p, given to her, over the last 7 days, on?

And if you say 'nail varnish' i'll scream!

I'm sorry jean...I can't help this....please laugh....

A pink folder to replace Andy's blue one.

I wonder if DCI Wall made DCI Mahog's erm, 'nylon', BRISTLE?

'nasty' toothpaste (GA!)

jeanmonroe wrote:

I wonder if DCI Wall made DCI Mahog's erm, 'nylon', BRISTLE?

'nasty' toothpaste (GA!)

Brilliant...will we see Nicola Wall sitting in helicopters on location, with her hair wafting in the breeze whilst dressed in some sort of combat gear, with the silhouette of a senior PJ female officer (of course) sat at the side of her?

Will we see Alison from the CPS sitting in the front of the helicopter at the side of a female pilot?

Anything can happen in the next half hour (well that's unless you're Madeleine McCann who was less than four years old when she went missing and her parents were looking in on her 'every half hour')....tune in next week....same time....same channel.

jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone care to 'guess' what DCI Wall 'spent' her OG, Home Office, 'grant' of £47,446.00p, given to her, over the last 7 days, on?

And if you say 'nail varnish' i'll scream!

I think she bought 94,892 copies of Kate McCann's madeleine, in the half-price sale in her local pound shop.  :puke:



Or maybe 4,700 16-inch Seafood Special pizzas ... with extra anchovies as a leaving present for Andy.    :puke:



Or even four million, seven hundred and forty-four thousand, and six hundred penny chews from the local Praia da Luz sweet shop.  :puke:

jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone care to 'guess' what DCI Wall 'spent' her OG, Home Office, 'grant' of £47,446.00p, given to her, over the last 7 days, on?

And if you say 'nail varnish' i'll scream!

A pre-emptive course of psychotherapy to help her with the insanity and imaginary world she is about to immerse herself in?