sigh.......... it is been one of your arguments for months here that there was an implicit cover up - then to ssee you alter that view above ...it is just par for the course in the way you debate points
No one bashes DNA - The report clearly states that the DNA traces found in the boot of the car cannot be claimed to belong to Madeleine - it could belong to at least the immediate family - the FSS say you cannot seperate componenents out into 3 individual DNA profiles ie it could be Maddy but it could be Gerry , it could be Kate etc etc - That is the fact here that is one of the key reasons the case fell apart - amongst other things
If you choose to ignore the FSS report and facts and interpret it your way then that is fiine your opinion - but please dont constantly claim to be posting proof and facts when in reality all you are doing is posting your opinion .
*sigh*
And one of the arguments which is continually used is that the McCann DNA is completely irrelevant and not of Madeleine anyway. Look up this thread, someone has stated that the "only DNA found was of Gerry".
Which is clearly incorrect.
The parents claimed they could see the apartment from the Tapas restaurant.
Clearly incorrect.
The parents claimed that the window was forced.
another lie.
Another argument that crops up over and over is that the dogs are "rubbish".
Clearly false, if you read any other thread on WS it becomes clear that the dogs are the best tool we have in finding missing children.
The lie that it was a "family holiday" when their children were jammed into an unfamiliar creche day after day and left alone night after night.
There is involvement by three different Ambassadors, being the Portugese, the British, and the US.
We know this thanks to Gary MacKinnon, who helpfully hacked into the US Governments data base and provided us with this confirmation and a whole raft of new questions...see Wikileaks.
Shortly after these governments became involved, the case against the McCann was shelved.(By the way the US desire to hang draw and quarter Mackinnon has also inexplicably melted away recently...why?)
Cover up or involvement? Semantics. I have never used the word "cover up" merely agreed with a McCann supporter who used the word, as always they go for the most hysterical and emotive language they can find. There is absolutely no doubt that there was unusual political pressure and special treatment for the McCann from Day One. This is proven. Call it cover up if you will, I call it involvement, whatever, it is absolutely inexplicable.
Imagine these governments rushing to involve themselves is Sharon Matthews had've "lost" her daughter in Portugal. It's laughable, as they wouldn't touch her with a barge pole. All we need do is look at the diplomatic assistance doled out to poor Ben Needhams mum (non existent) but then she was a single mother and not a heart surgeon or freemason.
Why is it different for the McCann? Could it be because Gerry has "bonded" with the Scottish PM and Chancellor at the time? Could it be because Gerry, at the absolute top of his game as a Heart Surgeon, knows a few uncomfortable details about certain causes of heart defects in some Establishment figures? (heart problems are often the side effect of abusing amphetamines and other recreational drugs). Theory only and no doubt completely dismissed as fantastical by the McCann supporter, but I'm afraid the world I live in comes complete with human weakness, dirty little secrets, special handshakes and government corruption of differing severity.
You do realise you are blindly defending the reputations and stellar honesty of a bunch of politicians, don't you? I thought that sort of unquestioning reverence went out with the Ark....still alive and well in the UK it seems, despite proof of the recent expenses fraud undertaken by a huge percentage of UK politicians, and covered up by the same.
Incredible naivety, belonging to a long-gone world where the classes knew their place and those in the upper echelons were automatically deferred to by the working classes.
I ask once again, please stop repeating the same misinformation on this thread, please stop dismissing and bashing the solid evidence that exists, it's been done to death.
I am a latecomer to the McCann forums but a simple search will show exactly how many threads this behaviour have shut down over the years.
Please start providing a cogent scenario which explains the events of 3 May 2007 being down to an abductor.