Madeleine McCann

limnam wrote: »

The fact the world is or isn't looking doesn't change the forensic feat the abductor managed to do by removing a child from a holiday complex not leave a shred of evidence. By the same night the worlds media was on everyone, potential abductor McCann etc, yet Nada.


But you're only suggesting the McCann wouldn't be able to do it in those circumstances but somehow someone else would?


then you make false claims on the thread such as Kate answering questions she was never asked.


Why are you making false claims?


It sounds like you just don't want it to be them rather than showing why it wasn't them...

You are being disingenuous by saying those scenarios are the same when they absolutely aren't.
Madeleine disappeared from that apartment with no witnesses, no sightings, nothing. There was literally no one watching at all, hence the case remains unsolved a decade later.

Yet you are trying to compare like for like saying the McCanns would have been able to store the body for over 3 weeks, and dispose of it in their hire care using a tennis bag, while their every move was being scrutinised by both the media and two police forces?
Which media and police force were on the scene when the abduction was actually taking place, or if it suits you better, the minutes were Madeleine disappeared?

Kate was interviewed for 11 hours a day in the 3 days prior to being made arguido. I'm not making any false claims.
You are the one being insincere saying the McCanns would have been able to store, hide and dispose of a body while the whole world was watching.

It’s inaccurate that the abductor left “no evidence whatsoever”, vital evidence was probably destroyed that night by the failure to close off the crime scene, allowing some 20 people to roam through the rooms and the yard as the scene was not preserved.

“Professor Dave Barclay, a forensic analyst, told a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary the evidence might have cleared her parents of involvement on day one.
He said police should have been “more aggressive” in protecting the family’s holiday apartment from being contaminated. “It’s clear that the forensic examination on the first day wasn’t what we would have expected,” he said.
“There were opportunities missed. And one of those opportunities did a great disservice to the McCanns.”
Chris Stevens, a former detective superintendent, said after an examination of the scene that a potential abductor could have been in and out of the apartment in “less than a minute”.

Also there were photos of officers in normal clothes without gloves, more effort could have been made for sure.

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s inaccurate that the abductor left “no evidence whatsoever” , vital evidence was probably destroyed that night by the failure to close off the crime scene, allowing some 20 people to roam through the rooms and the yard as the scene was not preserved.

“Professor Dave Barclay, a forensic analyst, told a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary the evidence might have cleared her parents of involvement on day one.
He said police should have been “more aggressive” in protecting the family’s holiday apartment from being contaminated. “It’s clear that the forensic examination on the first day wasn’t what we would have expected,” he said.
“There were opportunities missed. And one of those opportunities did a great disservice to the McCanns.”
Chris Stevens, a former detective superintendent, said after an examination of the scene that a potential abductor could have been in and out of the apartment in “less than a minute”.

Also there were photos of officers in normal clothes without gloves, more effort could have been made for sure.

Prof X says Y - FACT!


Professional dog trainer now hired by the FBI says X - BS!


Porturguse police trying to entrap! - FACT!


British police with holding statements from people who holiday'd with the McCanns - British Police the real heros.

retro:electro wrote: »

Look. I know you really really want it to have been Kate and Gerry. But really really wanting something isn’t enough. You have to back up your beliefs with facts. You can’t even provide a basic timeline.

I don't care who did it.


I've no interest in blaming the McCann's on something they didn't do.

limnam wrote: »

Professional dog trainer now hired by the FBI says X - BS!

Can you point to where I said this?

retro:electro wrote: »

Most of us can’t understand that. Care to give us a timeline of events to back up your theory?

Also YouTube is FULL of conspiracy videos. I’m pretty sure there’s one at the minute saying Britney was behind 9/11.

Youtube is also FULL of accurate and believable videos
I hope you are not intimating that all videos on YouTube are not to be believed?

Steve F wrote: »

Youtube is also FULL of accurate and believable videos
I hope you are not intimating that all videos on YouTube are not to be believed?

I hope you’re not putting words in my mouth and inferring something I did not say?

retro:electro wrote: »

Accept what? That you’re making up bull****? Yeah I do.

What did I make up?

I enjoy Mr Hall's work immensely, but it detracts from the bigger picture. Surely they'd have sued him?

loveall wrote: »

I enjoy Mr Hall's work immensely, but it detracts from the bigger picture. Surely they'd have sued him?

Peter Hyatt is a Statement Analyst and to me is believable

retro:electro wrote: »

I haven’t mentioned cadaver dogs at all, care to tell me where I have? Or else we can just both concede that you’ve resorted to making up stuff to suit your weak narrative

I didn't specifically state you did.


It's just another bit of "evidence" the "mcann" side tend to dismiss.


Where do you stand on it then?

loveall wrote: »

Come on Steve F, you're so nearly there.

What?

Let's get back to discussing the case shall we?

Dulce et decorum est