Madeleine McCann

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

First, your facts and timeline are completely inaccurate. I don't have the energy to point each one out, it's been done so many times that it's tiresome.

Second, what evidence would you like to see that there was an abduction? Did you expect a kidnapper to spit on the floor? Somebody walks into a room picks up a child and walks out. What evidence do you want to see? The child is missing, is that not evidence in itself?

Third, if by your own admission there is no evidence of an abduction then by the same account how could there be evidence that it was the parents?

If there was an abduction there would have been evidence in the form of show prints/sightings/dishevelment of the bed/finger or palm prints.

Even if gloves are worn, there would be forensic evidence in or around the door handle and bed.

The lack of sightings or information coming from the underworld is very telling too.

You really are on a crusade and making yourself look stupid!

Deleted User wrote: »

A dog barking at a Teddy Bear :rolleyes:

You know damn well that they are 2 well trained dogs that signalled in both the apartment and car at several locations.

The dogs dont understand if evidence is conclusive or not. They were just brought in to search for the smell. And they signalled were they smelt it.

Convicting someone of a crime is not easy to do. Ask OJ

Its obvious people who put it down as "just barking at a Teddy " refuse to look at the whole picture,

They bark at Maddies Teddy, (Strangely the one Kate never let go off )
They bark in apartment,
They pic her clothes out of all the ones laid out ,
They bark at there car out of all the ones there ,

If someone doesn't think that is strange they may be lacking in intelligence

drkpower wrote: »

Of course everyone should have an open mind.

There is lots of evidence of an abduction; the child is gone and hasn't been found; there is zero evidence of an abductor, which is a different thing.

There is no evidence of abduction , there is just evidence of a missing child ,

Wasn't she out on the boats earlier that day with the kids club?

yourdeadwright wrote: »

There is no evidence of abduction , there is just evidence of a missing child ,

Which is evidence of an abduction; it doesn't mean that an abduction occurred of course. There are of course other possibilities.

There is clearly no clear evidence of what happened in this case, and who did what (or didnt). That is undoubtedly frustrating. But the tendency of people to fill that evidential gap with half baked nonsense is pointless. Sometimes crimes go unsolved and no-one knows; this looks like one of those cases.

drkpower wrote: »

Which is evidence of an abduction; it doesn't mean that an abduction occurred of course. There are of course other possibilities.

There is clearly no clear evidence of what happened in this case, and who did what (or didnt). That is undoubtedly frustrating. But the tendency of people to fill that evidential gap with half baked nonsense is pointless. Sometimes crimes go unsolved and no-one knows; this looks like one of those cases.

There is plenty of evidence.

Just none that directly points towards abduction from her bed in the apartment.

drkpower wrote: »

Yes it is; if the child were not missing, the prospects of a conviction for abduction would be ropey enough id say. So the kid being missing is something of a pre-requisite. Whether its sufficient evidence to establish or prove an abduction is another much bigger question.

No, it's not.


The same way it's not evidence the parents murdered her


or that she walked off and fell down a hole


It's just a missing child.


Evidence of nothing.

dark crystal wrote: »

The underworld? Are they usually in the habit of implicating themselves in high profile crimes?

It's a wonder there's any cold case missing persons cases at all, what with criminals informing on each other all the time!

Read back the thread please.

If someone were caught from these paedophile rings, as has happened since Maddy went missing, and was facing a long prison sentence, as they should be - do you think they would look to shave a few years off by providing information on her whereabouts.

And FYI - there have been hundreds of cold cases solved and bodies found by the likes of Henry Hill, Joe Valachi, Joseph Massino. All doing deals to avoid death penalties or long prison terms. In Henry Hills case he actually went in to witness protection and lived a prosperous life.

I suppose you're aware of all that though but the principals are the same. I would even say there is less chance of being killed by a paedophile ring then there was by the mob.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Dog barking at a teddy bear. Means nothing.

Even if it did, why do you jump to the conclusion that the parents were responsible. How do you know she wasn't killed by someone else? Prove it!

Either way, it's a dog barking at a teddy bear.

There is no evidence to suggest the little girl is dead. Zero.

Next!

You really are not grasping this...it was not just your run of the mill hound randomly barking at something!

These dogs are highly trained and intelligent animals. They are looking for certain triggers and smells of cadavers (that's a dead human to you) so the dog barking certainly means a lot.

Not that the parents killed her, or that it was her dead body scent at all - that can't be proven. But there was certainly signals of a dead body in all the indicated locations.

I would advise you consider and research this in order to prevent yourself looking a bit silly.

cgcsb wrote: »

It's weird how there's a pro-McCann contingent on boards who just keep saying 'there's no evidence of sedation' or 'the sniffer dogs aren't evidence'. Like if there was actual hard evidence in this case of anything, there'd probably be a conclusion, but there's not. We do however have circumstantial little nuggets of info to go on, the dogs, the McCann's reaction to the dogs, the McCanns telling fibs and the implication of sedation.

I actually think if the McCanns admitted it there'd be a contingent standing up for them no matter what!

cgcsb wrote: »

It's weird how there's a pro-McCann contingent on boards who just keep saying 'there's no evidence of sedation' or 'the sniffer dogs aren't evidence'. Like if there was actual hard evidence in this case of anything, there'd probably be a conclusion, but there's not. We do however have circumstantial little nuggets of info to go on, the dogs, the McCann's reaction to the dogs, the McCanns telling fibs and the implication of sedation.

What I don't get is how they manage to ignore all the "issues"


I just can't fathom how so many glaring holes can be ignored.


It's as if they've taken a side and now can't row back on it so just bombing on without much thought.


It's as bizzare as Mrs McCann sitting down with a pedophile and been happy the dogs cant be used as evidence.


Bizzaro