Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Madeleine McCann

1…233234236238239…264

Comments

  • #7052
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Of involvement in the disappearance of their child. That's why they became suspects. There's more on them than anyone else.

    So the deleted phone records are evidence that they were involved in the disappearance of their child? Seriously?

    As has been said, the inconsistencies in the statements are to be expected. It would be more suspicious if all statements were the same.

    The dogs, again they may or may not be correct. It may or may not have been Madelines body they alerted to. An intruder may or may not have killed her in the apt.

    So again, to you all of this ‘evidence’ points to the McCanns

    To me none of it does.

    Do you know why this is..... because none of it is actual evidence. But unfortunately you won’t just admit that there is no evidence..


  • #7053
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    All his activity proves is that he was in the town. There is 1 cell tower covering the whole area. Anyone in any part of PdeL would have pinged that tower with their mobile.

    Yes I agree completely. So what does the deleted phone records of the McCanns that were later retrieved prove?


  • #7054
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    I'd say CallMeHal is some crack on a night out.
    The dude (or dudette) that everyone shifts around from to make sure they don'e get stuck beside.
    How can one person mention evidence so many times ion a couple of posts, and yet not know the correct definition of what it is.
    If he swapped the word suspicion for evidence, the posts would have been tolerable.
    The only poster that has talked sense is Rock77. Most other posters have gone off their rockers to some extent.

    There's a certain subconsciousness with many people that wants the parents to be guilty. And I don't mean in a completely evil way. It's just that it is more sensationalist. i.e. than the more straightforward action of a paedo adducting a child. I don't mean to trivialise the latter by the way, as if its a common occurrence. But the parents being guilty adds a dramatic "twist" to the whole episode.

    Most people realise that the parents didn't do it. And this Christian B is guilty. There is no way the Germans would be so direct with their press releases if there wasn't something concrete - unlike the rubbish that has been spouted here over and over again - dogs, phones, neighbour upstairs,deceit etc. etc.

    Thanks for the shout out! Lol

    You are being a bit harsh on callmehal though.. you hit the nail on the head with the suspicion thing. He/she suspects the parents did it which is fine, I have no issue with that but to say things like deleted phone records are evidence they were involved in the disappearance of their child is just completely false.

    I asked him/her if the dogs could be wrong, or if it could have been a body that was there previously or if an intruder killed Madeline in the apt and that’s what the dogs were picking up. He/She said yes of course that could be the case.... then 2 posts later said the dogs are evidence against the parents again!!!


  • #7055
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    By the way, If you are using deleted phone records as ‘evidence’ against the parents then surely it’s not much of a stretch to use CB’s phone activity as ‘evidence’ against him.

    Wait, are you back claiming there's evidence against someone else?


  • #7056
    flasher0030
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,069 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Thanks for the shout out! Lol

    You are being a bit harsh on callmehal though.. you hit the nail on the head with the suspicion thing. He/she suspects the parents did it which is fine, I have no issue with that but to say things like deleted phone records are evidence they were involved in the disappearance of their child is just completely false.

    I asked him/her if the dogs could be wrong, or if it could have been a body that was there previously or if an intruder killed Madeline in the apt and that’s what the dogs were picking up. He/She said yes of course that could be the case.... then 2 posts later said the dogs are evidence against the parents again!!!


    I know. I'm after reading about 20 pages of posts. Hadn't read it for few days. Thought I'd have a quick update. Didn't realise the thread had degenerated into all out war.
    I have a suspicion myself that some posters are having a little giggle at their computers i.e. wind up merchant. There is no way CallMeHal can go on like that post after post and be serious.


  • Advertisement
  • #7057
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    So the deleted phone records are evidence that they were involved in the disappearance of their child? Seriously?

    As has been said, the inconsistencies in the statements are to be expected. It would be more suspicious if all statements were the same.

    The dogs, again they may or may not be correct. It may or may not have been Madelines body they alerted to. An intruder may or may not have killed her in the apt.

    So again, to you all of this ‘evidence’ points to the McCanns

    To me none of it does.

    Do you know why this is..... because none of it is actual evidence. But unfortunately you won’t just admit that there is no evidence..

    It's all part of the circumstantial evidence that made them suspects.

    "Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

    On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another."

    The evidence listed plus other pieces is more than on anyone else. As I've stated numerous times now.


  • #7058
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Thanks for the shout out! Lol

    You are being a bit harsh on callmehal though.. you hit the nail on the head with the suspicion thing. He/she suspects the parents did it which is fine, I have no issue with that but to say things like deleted phone records are evidence they were involved in the disappearance of their child is just completely false.

    I asked him/her if the dogs could be wrong, or if it could have been a body that was there previously or if an intruder killed Madeline in the apt and that’s what the dogs were picking up. He/She said yes of course that could be the case.... then 2 posts later said the dogs are evidence against the parents again!!!

    Why are you making stuff up?

    I'm looking at this from a neutral perspective, one of the few here that is.


  • #7059
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,063 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    What sort of training had the PdeL dogs gotten??
    At 01.00 after the group commander had been briefed about the situation, telephone contact was made with an official from the Queluz GNR school, with the aim of their releasing search and rescue dog teams, seeing as these are specially trained to find missing persons, which is not the case with the Portimao sniffer dogs, which are essentially patrol dogs.

    At 02.00 they arrived at P da L and began searching with the Portimao sniffer dog teams, the terrain searches were extended until the morning with the dogs and officers on the scene, as well as the night guard and local people who volunteered to help in the searches that took place throughout the night.

    3. During this nocturnal period, the searches took place along the entire perimeter of the OC, in the urban area, plots of land and the nearest buildings, the officers searching all the place where there was a possibility the child might be, this area being extended later to include all of the beach zone.

    4. At 08.00 three officers with 4 search and rescue dogs from Queluz arrived at the scene, these dogs immediately began to operate.

    5. During the searches that began again on 4th May in the morning, 9 officers from the Lagos post were used as well as officers from the Rapid Intervention Force, who were sent to the beach to collaborate in the searches talking place there, and who were occupied in this task for the rest of the day.
    ....
    Considering that the searches that had taken place with the help of the helicopter had not yielded any results, it was agreed to reinforce and extend the foot searches and reinforcement from the search and rescue dog team was requested, which arrived at P da L at 23.00 with 3 more sniffer teams for a total of six officers and eight specialised dogs.

    I can't be sure, but they are clearly trained trakker and SAR dogs and are referred to as 'specialised'. I doubt the Porugese authorities would be utilising, maintaing and paying for specialist SAR dog teams if they weren't capable of performing the intended tasks.

    Best thing is to have a read of the whole report on the deployment and use of the SAR dogs: https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm


  • #7060
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Wait, are you back claiming there's evidence against someone else?

    Ah come on now... I was trying to go along with your theory of what evidence is..

    You say evidence the parents were involved is deleted phone records, lies, and the dogs.

    So I was putting forward things about the number 1 police suspect at the moment. Not evidence but some things you might find suspicious. But to this stuff you say ‘not evidence’

    Again there is no evidence


  • #7061
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    flasher0030 wrote: »
    I'd say CallMeHal is some crack on a night out.
    The dude (or dudette) that everyone shifts around from to make sure they don'e get stuck beside.
    How can one person mention evidence so many times ion a couple of posts, and yet not know the correct definition of what it is.
    If he swapped the word suspicion for evidence, the posts would have been tolerable.
    The only poster that has talked sense is Rock77. Most other posters have gone off their rockers to some extent.

    There's a certain subconsciousness with many people that wants the parents to be guilty. And I don't mean in a completely evil way. It's just that it is more sensationalist. i.e. than the more straightforward action of a paedo adducting a child. I don't mean to trivialise the latter by the way, as if its a common occurrence. But the parents being guilty adds a dramatic "twist" to the whole episode.

    Most people realise that the parents didn't do it. And this Christian B is guilty. There is no way the Germans would be so direct with their press releases if there wasn't something concrete - unlike the rubbish that has been spouted here over and over again - dogs, phones, neighbour upstairs,deceit etc. etc.

    The Germans could well be using this case to crack other cases as well as they know the media coverage this one would get will highlight other missing children that haven’t had the backing Madeleine missing case has, there can be motives for this too. Nobody on here has a clue the German police force were involved in this case and since they are on the scene the last two years they started to highlight other cases to connect to Christian B. That surely isn’t far fetched.


  • Advertisement
  • #7062
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,063 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Wait, are you back claiming there's evidence against someone else?

    I don't know about 'evidence' but there do seem to some questions about one character who seems to play an unexplained part, that could be asked.


  • #7063
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Ah come on now... I was trying to go along with your theory of what evidence is..

    You say evidence the parents were involved is deleted phone records, lies, and the dogs.

    So I was putting forward things about the number 1 police suspect at the moment. Not evidence but some things you might find suspicious. But to this stuff you say ‘not evidence’

    Again there is no evidence

    No, you weren't.
    Rock77 wrote: »
    To be fair, more than one person has posted lots of facts that support the theory CB was involved.

    Again, evidence is.. facts that support a theory.


  • #7064
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    cnocbui wrote: »
    I don't know about 'evidence' but there do seem to some questions about one character who seems to play an unexplained part, that could be asked.

    Who?


  • #7065
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I have yet to see one of the cadaver dog believers explain why the numerous tracker and SAR dogs the GNR brought in within 24 hrs of Madeleine going missing, didn't find the body? Why do you only believe the UK unproven hype about the excellence of their dogs and are seemingly dismissive of the capabilities of the noses of the Portugese dogs?

    The dogs used by the GNR would have been working with fresh scents. When given madeleine's scent, they did actually seem to find two possible trails, one leading to the door of another apartment and the other to a car park, I think.

    Why dismiss these pooches?

    catalog.jpg

    As you can see, these dogs were all over the resort, PDL and surrounding environs, even inside some apartments. How do a couple of non-locals without a car hide a body so well that SAR dogs and locals who would know all the nooks and crannies couldn't find it?

    Contrary to seemingly popular belief, the time eddie and Keela were brought in was so long after possible events that even had there been a body in the apartment or car, it's doubtful they would have been able to detect anything because the cadaver scent fades:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/09/can-you-trust-a-cadaver-dog-if-there-s-no-cadaver.html

    Madeline McCann disappeared on the 3rd of May, the dogs were taken to the apartment on 31st July - nearly 3 months later, and supposedly found the scent of death.

    If you believe the cadaver dogs, then you must believe that the SAR dogs, local police and other locals were bettered by a couple blow-ins who didn't know the area. Not to mention believing the dogs capable of detecting scents months after another dog handler believss the scent wouldn't have been detectable.

    It's preposterous.

    There’s too much logic in that post to get a response. What you’ll find is that they will ignore these facts and then try and circle back to something else like “DNA” or “they lied” or “how did she notice the door was open”

    We now have one poster suggesting that this is a rise by the German police to generate media interest in other investigations.


  • #7066
    Kingp35
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,375 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kingp35


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    I'd say CallMeHal is some crack on a night out.
    The dude (or dudette) that everyone shifts around from to make sure they don'e get stuck beside.
    How can one person mention evidence so many times ion a couple of posts, and yet not know the correct definition of what it is.
    If he swapped the word suspicion for evidence, the posts would have been tolerable.
    The only poster that has talked sense is Rock77. Most other posters have gone off their rockers to some extent.

    MOD NOTE: Discuss the post and not the poster please. No getting personal.


  • #7067
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Something Else
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Yes I agree completely. So what does the deleted phone records of the McCanns that were later retrieved prove?

    Were they retrieved? I was under the impression that Vodafone had deleted certain calls and would not release it to the Portuguese authorities.


  • #7068
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Why are you making stuff up?

    I'm looking at this from a neutral perspective, one of the few here that is.

    Here we go again. I’ll spell this out for you...

    You are taking a few facts and deciding to interpret them as evidence that the McCann parents were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

    This ‘evidence’ does not point to the parents, it only points to them if that’s the way you decide to look at it.

    ‘They deleted some stuff off their phone so this indicates they were involved’ This is why myself and others would believe that you think the parents did it.

    So I’m not making stuff up.

    You may think you are looking at it from a neutral perspective but your not.


  • #7069
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Were they retrieved? I was under the impression that Vodafone had deleted certain calls and would not release it to the Portuguese authorities.

    Sorry I could be wrong, I was under the impression they were retrieved.

    Let me rephrase.

    How does the deleted phone records of the McCanns prove that they had anything to do with the disappearance of their child?

    Could it have been to clear phone storage?

    Could it have been to cover up an affair?

    Could it have been to cover up lying about how often they checked on the kids?

    Could it have been to cover up they actually did kill the child?

    So, are the deleted phone records evidence that the McCanns were involved in their daughters disappearance ?


  • #7070
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Something Else
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Sorry I could be wrong, I was under the impression they were retrieved.

    Let me rephrase.

    How does the deleted phone records of the McCanns prove that they had anything to do with the disappearance of their child?

    Could it have been to clear phone storage?

    Could it have been to cover up an affair?

    Could it have been to cover up lying about how often they checked on the kids?

    Could it have been to cover up they actually did kill the child?

    So, are the deleted phone records evidence that the McCanns were involved in their daughters disappearance ?

    Not directly, but it is suspicious behavior.


  • #7071
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    No, you weren't.

    It’s like pulling teeth with you... you are adamant you have evidence that implicates the parents but none on anyone else.

    I was trying to explain it to you, firstly there is no evidence that anyone was involved (that we know of)

    Secondly you said things like deleted phone records are evidence then I posted a whole bunch of stuff on CB that surely you would also class as evidence, you know since your looking at this from a neutral perspective......


  • Advertisement
  • #7072
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Not directly, but it is suspicious behavior.

    Why are you fighting the correct answer?

    The deleted phone records are not evidence the parents were involved in their daughters disappearance. Simples..

    I agree it is suspicious behaviour. But it certainly doesn’t indicate they were involved in the disappearance


  • #7073
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Here we go again. I’ll spell this out for you...

    You are taking a few facts and deciding to interpret them as evidence that the McCann parents were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

    This ‘evidence’ does not point to the parents, it only points to them if that’s the way you decide to look at it.

    ‘They deleted some stuff off their phone so this indicates they were involved’ This is why myself and others would believe that you think the parents did it.

    So I’m not making stuff up.

    You may think you are looking at it from a neutral perspective but your not.

    You're making stuff up, even indicating that they are quotes. Poor form.

    I've stated numerous times that I think she was taken. This doesn't take away from the evidence available, this limited evidence points to the McCanns. It's circumstantial evidence but it's why they became official suspects. We have no other evidence available.

    This is the neutral view. It's an unemotional view. It's taking the facts and nothing else into consideration.


  • #7074
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    It’s like pulling teeth with you... you are adamant you have evidence that implicates the parents but none on anyone else.

    I was trying to explain it to you, firstly there is no evidence that anyone was involved (that we know of)

    Secondly you said things like deleted phone records are evidence then I posted a whole bunch of stuff on CB that surely you would also class as evidence, you know since your looking at this from a neutral perspective......

    I quoted your post directly, I didn't twist or edit anything, it's what you said.
    Rock77 wrote: »
    To be fair, more than one person has posted lots of facts that support the theory CB was involved.

    Again, evidence is.. facts that support a theory.

    You backtracked later but this was your claim.

    I'm not adamant that I have evidence on anyone. The evidence is there.


  • #7075
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Why are you fighting the correct answer?

    The deleted phone records are not evidence the parents were involved in their daughters disappearance. Simples..

    I agree it is suspicious behaviour. But it certainly doesn’t indicate they were involved in the disappearance

    "Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

    On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another"


  • #7076
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    You're making stuff up, even indicating that they are quotes. Poor form.

    I've stated numerous times that I think she was taken. This doesn't take away from the evidence available, this limited evidence points to the McCanns. It's circumstantial evidence but it's why they became official suspects. We have no other evidence available.

    This is the neutral view. It's an unemotional view. It's taking the facts and nothing else into consideration.

    There’s no making stuff up, it’s just worded slightly different.

    You said and keep saying that there is evidence that points to the McCanns.

    I asked you what the evidence was.

    You said ‘deleted phone records, lies and the dogs’

    Now none of those 3 are evidence that they were involved in the child’s disappearance.


  • #7077
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    There’s no making stuff up, it’s just worded slightly different.

    You said and keep saying that there is evidence that points to the McCanns.

    I asked you what the evidence was.

    You said ‘deleted phone records, lies and the dogs’

    Now none of those 3 are evidence that they were involved in the child’s disappearance.

    You are most definitely making things up. You've claimed a few times now that I think the parents did it. That is making stuff up.

    The lies, dogs, deleted phone records and other evidence all added together made them suspects. It's just circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence but the only evidence available.


  • #7078
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,063 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Who?

    spyingonmadeline.jpg

    Playground Man - the bald guy behind Gerry. A bit of a coincidence that a plainclothes detective (GNR?) is there in that shot and then also appears in later photos taken in PDL related to the search for Madeline.

    Then he pops up in a Police parade in Lisbon.
    lisbon-portugal-a-police-officer-playground-Guy.jpg


  • #7079
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    "Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

    On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another"

    Right so...

    The dogs indicate there was a corpse in the apt, CB killed the child in the apt.

    Unidentified fingerprints in the apt so one could be CB’s

    He is a known paedo and was in the area at the time

    A statement given to police says that CB admitted he knew what happened to the child

    Another statement says that CB spoke of a horrible job he had to do the night Madeline disappeared.

    Is this ‘circumstantial’ evidence or suspicion

    Deleted phone records, inconsistent statements ‘circumstantial’ evidence or suspicion?


  • #7080
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Rock77 wrote: »
    Right so...

    The dogs indicate there was a corpse in the apt, CB killed the child in the apt. Is there any slight bit of evidence at all placing the peado in the apartment?

    Unidentified fingerprints in the apt so one could be CB’s Is there any slight bit of evidence at all placing the peado in the apartment?

    He is a known paedo and was in the area at the time Is there any slight bit of evidence at all placing the peado in the apartment?

    A statement given to police says that CB admitted he knew what happened to the child A statement given to police suggested Gerry McCann and his mate enjoyed discussing paedophilia.

    Another statement says that CB spoke of a horrible job he had to do the night Madeline disappeared. So?

    Is this ‘circumstantial’ evidence or suspicion

    Deleted phone records, inconsistent statements ‘circumstantial’ evidence or suspicion?

    As you've surmised above, there's zero evidence on the peado. In comparison, there is circumstantial evidence against the McCanns.

    Numerous other suspects have come and gone over the years. No evidence on them either.


  • Advertisement
  • #7081
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    As you've surmised above, there's zero evidence on the peado. In comparison, there is circumstantial evidence against the McCanns.

    Numerous other suspects have come and gone over the years. No evidence on them either.

    I agree, there is no evidence that I am aware of that indicates CB was involved.

    Now... here we go, stand back and watch the mental gymnastics....

    The deleted phone records.. are they evidence the parents were involved in the child’s disappearance

    The inconsistencies in statements.. are they evidence the parents were involved in the child’s disappearance

    The dogs.. are they evidence the parents were involved in the child’s disappearance.

    Now before you start, the question is are these things evidence???

    Does a deleted phone record point towards being involved in a child’s disappearance


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement