The Springers would disagree !

That was evidence of 'cadaver odour' being present...THREE MONTHS after the event supposedly took place. Doesn't that make you think? Does ANYTHING make you think?
Amaral is a convicted perjuror...doesn't THAT make you think?
He is guilty of falsifying evidence...doesn't that make you think?

There is no point in trying to comment on matters if you won't try to rationize the 'evidence.
Eddie could have told you, but he's a dog. He is only trained to detect cadaver odour. ANY cadaver odour!

TBF I would think that at some time in their careers nearly every police officer has committed perjury and falsified evidence.

Well, I would have thought that an abduction would leave very little evidence in any circumstances. Apart from a bit of muffled crying, of course.
It must be a damn sight more difficult to cover up a death, whether by accident OR design!

If the kid was killed it would have to be about 8-pm, give or take a few minutes. Then the body has to be disposed of. They have no  vehicle., What do they do? Hire a taxi? Carry her through town looking for a spot to bury her? Bury her with what? How many shops in Portimao sell spades at that time of day? Maybe hide her behind the settee? If so, when could they have moved her later? The police would be on the scene before 10-pm (I think). They spent the night at another apartment. By morning the press started to take an interest.
So give me a sensible answer that doesn't start with "If they lived on a council estate" or "They are guilty of neglect"!
We know THAT. But that does not make them guilty of manslaughter OR murder.
There's only one person here who would benefit from all the damaging rumours about accidental overdoses pointing the finger of suspicion at the parents. That is the detective who formed a snap judgement and set abouty proving his theory. Somebody close to the police, or more likely, IN the police fed all those false hints to the press who immediately published them as fact! They later settled out of court and issued an apology...but the damage was done. That is evident by all the comments from the vast majority of posters.

The Portuguese police did not make any snap judgement. They investigated it as an abduction but never found a shred of evidence pointing to one. What they did find was major discrepancies and changes in the McCann's version.

As the case has nothing to do with London why is The Metropolitan Police Force involved?
Do they investigate all missing children cases which involve UK residents?

By the way, Tobermory. What exactly IS the 'Portuguese Police Case'? Apart from the fact that a child is missing.

^weird

Kindly name the employee.

Just another example of the myths that have sprouted around this case that are regurgitated as established fact.

I would assume from this 'photo business' that you now assume that she took them with her. I would suggest that evidence of that sort could only be taken to indicate a pre-meditated event.
I find that a bit unlikely. Perhaps you don't.

correct, Naydam, it was satire to illustrate my point about the myths that have sprouted around this case that are regurgitated as established fact.

Its very difficult to prove somebody was not dong something.

Equally, Naydam, will not be able to confirm that Gerry did not play Twister the following day.  Other than saying there is no proof that he did.

Naydam is one of the McCanns staunchest apologists: he almost believes their tale more than they do.

Total innocence regarding what? I fully agree that the actions of that group created a situation that placed their kids in danger from many things. Although, to be honest, I cannot imagine that abduction even entered their heads.
Yes, I DO believe it was an abduction and not a covered-up death. Some of you may disagree.
I know that he wasn't playing tennis because that would have been a very strange thing to do!
ESPECIALLY if it was a pre-meditated event (remember the photographs question?). You'd have thought, or certainly I'D have thought, that they (the whole group, I assume) would have had a better story. Why not just 'fall off a cliff'? That would have saved a lot of rigmarole.
The circumstances say that they had nothing to do with whatever happened. Leaving the children unattended was bad parenting and created a dangerous situation...but they had no input into what happened because of that.

Some of the group were reportedly in bed by midnight.
I find that strange. 
Your friend has a missing child, best thing to do, help search or go to bed?
As has been established (chortle) the amount of alcohol consumed was minimal, so they weren't drunk.

The child being carried along the street by 'Mr X' had a description of her clothing from the same witness changed from 'wrapped in a blanket' to a full description of Madeleine's pyjamas and the colour of her slippers, in under two hours.

Apart from which, her statement placed 'Mr X' at a certain time in the street.

Gerry McCann's statement puts him in  the same street at the same time, talking for almost 15 minutes, he stated, to a golf or tennis coach (can't recall which)

The coach admits he was in the street talking to McCann, but he said they were on the opposite side of the road that McCann stated, and they spoke for no longer than three minutes.

And this was at the same time that 'Mr X' was supposed to have passed, carrying a child.

The coach and McCann said they saw nobody in the street.

FFS doesn't amount to much of an argument.

I could post the same thing to every post on here, from both sides of the debate.

It doesn't help much, does it?

FACT
She is missing.

OPINION (mine)
She is dead. 

FACT
The McCanns were negligent.

FACT
McCanns statements and the witness statements don't match.

FACT
One of them is lying, or both of them are lying.

So once all the world wide McCann threads state these facts, there is no need for anybody to post anything they didn't witness themselves, as they can't possibly know for sure.

End of thread.

(as if)

weather getting a bit warmer,theres normally a new lead around this time of year

The tennis nonsense needs to be put to bed once and for all.

It was first revealed by Vanessa Allen in the Daily Mail quoting an unnamed waiter as the source.  Never corroborated by anybody.  Regurgitated by many.  AKA an Urban Myth, one of many surrounding the case.

Her original report said he played tennis "in the days after", this was subsequently reported as 'the day after Maddie's disappeance' by many of the irresponsible blogs that feed upon this case.

This is the same Vanessa Allen who reported that Maddie's hair and body fluids were found in Murat's house.  Another unnamed source.

If the McCanns were to take evryone to task they would be in court for rest of their lives.

Murat got 600K because of the irresponsibility of Vanessa Allen and others.

What proof do you have that it isn't true?  How can anybody prove a negative?  It's impossible.

if it was true, we would know when he played and with who (rather than a vague 'eldery couple') And the name of the waiter that saw him. None of these have ever been established. Remember this place was crawling with the worlds press at he time.  And its a small village.  And nobody was EVER able to corroborate the story..what does that tell you?