Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[Tomtomkent]

If I was to read this in a hundred years, I would say "Why did such an open and shut case drag on for so long?"

And when you look for an answer for that question, whose opinion will you think will be better informed. The detectives, or the internet commentators such as yourself?

Yeah... I think your dodge pretty much answers that. Assume the above was rhetoraical.

 

[Garrison]

http://www.news.com.au/national/roy...or-maddie-mccann/story-e6frfkp9-1111114540441

The story was first published in October 2007. An anonymous tip sent by email to Prince Charles website, of all places. Only this tip off says it was a WOMAN, not a man.

In another report, the woman is even named as "Toni". The latest red herring, sorry, suspect was named as "Toni" by a friend in yet another report.

Now, I am expecting you to dismiss this without even looking at it, and demand that I supply you with links and piles of evidence to the above paragraph, but I simply don't have time to do that. It's easy enough to find out, if you really want to.

Find out what? That various newspapers and websites publish ridiculously sensationalistic stories about high profile cases that have no basis in fact? I think you will find most people here already knew that.

 

[BaldSeagull]

Well, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion, just to voice mine.

 

[jargon buster]

Its a good idea the have something in reserve to back up your opinion if asked.
This is how it works here.

 

[pakeha]

The pigmented eye sealed her doom if indeed she was abducted.

Curiously enough, only one of the children figured in sightings over the years featured a coloboma.
Even odder is that the Interpol website doesn't mention it at all.
http://www.interpol.int/Missing-Persons/(missing_id)/2007-23403

Poor, poor child.

 

[Garrison]

Well, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion, just to voice mine.

You're entitled to your opinion; you're just not entitled to have it taken seriously when you can offer no evidence to support it.