Why I do not support the McCann ABDUCTION THEORY.

Today, 24/Feb/2013, on the social networking site, Twitter, I received a comment from a person calling himself/herself ‘BennettsBoobies’ @ wotbutlerdid.

The comment, and I will quote it, reads “Alex were you ever imprisoned wrongfully? Is that why you are here? Sad story but please do not take it out on the #mccanns now!”

First I would say that I find this tweet offensive. Take WHAT out on the mccans? Am I being criticised for asking questions about a case teeming with unanswered questions? It would appear so. I am being asked to shut up by some anonymous twitter who is too afraid to use his/her own name.

In regard to the McCann assertion that their daughter, Madeleine, was abducted, I would point out that the assertion is based on the testimony of only ONE witness, Jane Tanner, who said (initially) that she saw a man carrying a child in his arms walking away from the McCann apartment close to the time she (Madeleine) ‘disappeared’. Asked to describe this man by the police, Ms. Tanner drew an oval  with bits of hair sticking out. ‘That’s him’. She said it was too dark to see the face of the man. But, amazingly, after a passage of time, she provided a detailed description of the face of the man, who the world has come to know as the ‘swarthy gypsy’. If  that description is true, why did she lie to the police, giving them a blank oval without ANY features and saying it was too dark to see his features on the night in question, the night Madeleine disappeared? Because lie she did. Demonstrably so.

Ms.Tanner was able to describe the manner of the way this man walked, carrying a child in his arms. However, it has also been demonstrated that if this was indeed the ‘abductor’ he would not have been able to walk in the manner so described with a child in his arms. Further, that if this man had lifted Madeleine from her bed, her feet would have been at his left arm and her head to his right. Ms.Tanner said he carried her with feet to his right and head to his left. She also said ‘the child’ made no sound. And that is the ‘evidence’ that the WHOLE OF THE ABDUCTION THEORY IS BASED UPON. Not ONE other ‘witness’ saw a man carrying Madeleine away from the apartment.

Are questions allowed here, BennettsBoobies? You would say NO. Without any intention at all of wanting to ‘take it out on the McCanns’ I want to ask if,  as a proven liar, Ms.Tanner’s account is to be believed? If not, then the ‘Abduction Theory’ collapses.

However, in the unlikely event that she is telling the truth, there is still no proof that the child being carried in this mans arms was alive or dead. Ms.Tanners description of how the child was carried would only have credence if he was carrying a lifeless form. Question: was this man, if he ever existed, removing a lifeless form from a scene of a fatality? If so, again, THE ABDUCTION THEORY COLLAPSES.

THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, THAT MADELEINE McCANN WAS ABDUCTED. NONE AT ALL.

I would emphasise here, categorically, that if this little girl was abducted, there is no proof or evidence of it.

Without doubt there are those who desperately want the world to believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted. You, Mr/Mrs Boobies, or whatever you are behind that cloak, rank yourself alongside them. You and the people you are defending have your reasons for wanting this ‘search’ to prolong itself, at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayers. Those reasons are themselves open, in fairness, to speculation and I will not approve of any guilty parties seeking to suppress, gag, or otherwise interfere with the free flow and exchange of thoughts and ideas of individuals whose only purpose is to get justice done for Madeleine McCann.

EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED by various individuals; among them professionals including the police, behavioural scientists, specialist dogs and trained technicians who conclude a fatality occurred at apartment 5A. This evidence includes FACTS that are not in dispute. This evidence FAR OUTWEIGHS the extremely tenuous or, rather, non-existant evidence of the ABDUCTION THEORY.

My business is not to “take it out” on anybody. As already said, take WHAT out? I am however just one of a growing number of people who can see for themselves that there are powers at work who are not coming clean about what they know, that a great secret is being held and that the course of natural justice is being compromised. We care. We ask questions. We want to know WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE McCANN.

LHRO. London. 14/February/2013Screenshot_14

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

~ by alexa8584 on February 14, 2013.

2 Responses to “Why I do not support the McCann ABDUCTION THEORY.”

  1. […] Why I do not support the McCann ABDUCTION THEORY. | THE LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVANCE. LHRO.. […]

  2. And…do not forget how Tanner later on “recognized” Robert Murat as the man she “saw” carrying the child…how incredible this Jane Tanner and her “improving over time” memory, no…? From the initial “egg with hair” to R. Murat!!! A case for science to study! Everyone else’s memory fades with the passage of time, but her’s just improves and becomes clearer! What a phenomenon!

    (also, I would like to mention the work of Eddie and Keela, the EVRD dogs, they were brought in by the british police, and detected cadaver odour and body fluids, namely spots of blood, in the apartment…no record of any deaths in the apartment, but a child went missing from there, and NO forensic evidence of an abduction/abductor whatsoever!!! Anyone with a brain cell can put 2 and 2 together…)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: