Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[Robittybob1]

Who goes for an abduction as a possible solution?
I do, and I know Sadie does,
I know Stephen doesn't.
Alfie must think it is likely.

My theory was a two stage abduction.  There was the possible taking of Madeleine from her bed or walking and wandering part, and that is followed by the abduction.  So my initial thoughts were along the line that the "abductor" was never in the apartment.  It is really hard to build a workable scenario around these initial thoughts.

As I am exploring in another thread my findings so far are that none of the Tapas 9 (excluding Kate) initially thought Madeleine had been abducted.  Their initial thoughts were that she would be around the buildings or grounds somewhere, so they must have been thinking something like the woke and wandered scenario.
This is their thoughts even though they are generally aware that Kate and others had seen the window open and the shutters up.  (That in itself becomes quite contradictory.)

658

[Alice Purjorick]

Take the primary effect as being the child disappearing from her room.
St Thomas Aquinas teaches us that every effect has at least two causes, he also implies that causes may be condition or action. So the basic principles ain’t exactly some new kind of Voodoo man.
Any theory must accommodate the available known evidence*.
*“the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”.
Note facts not speculation.
Method:
1 Define the primary effect.
2 Determine the known causal relationships including the actions and conditions of each subsidiary effect.
3 Show the causal relationships to including specific action and conditional causes.
4 Show evidence to support the existence of each cause.
5 Determine if each set of causes is sufficient and necessary to cause the effect.

For there to have been an abduction the paths of the child and abductor must cross so either the child vacated the apartment or the abductor gained access to the apartment. Using known evidence show how either was possible.

[Brietta]

Who goes for an abduction as a possible solution?
I do, and I know Sadie does,
I know Stephen doesn't.
Alfie must think it is likely.

My theory was a two stage abduction.  There was the possible taking of Madeleine from her bed or walking and wandering part, and that is followed by the abduction.  So my initial thoughts were along the line that the "abductor" was never in the apartment.  It is really hard to build a workable scenario around these initial thoughts.

As I am exploring in another thread my findings so far are that none of the Tapas 9 (excluding Kate) initially thought Madeleine had been abducted.  Their initial thoughts were that she would be around the buildings or grounds somewhere, so they must have been thinking something like the woke and wandered scenario.
This is their thoughts even though they are generally aware that Kate and others had seen the window open and the shutters up.  (That in itself becomes quite contradictory.)

I'm not sure exactly how close you sail along buffeted by the winds of libel but you certainly have a knack of introducing apparently innocuous thought processes informed by every slanderous allegation in the lexicon and then some.

In my opinion you are inventive in adding to the wealth of misinformation by putting your own interpretation on events in a way which no-one else has even thought about.

Your factoid regarding the thought processes of the McCann companions being the current one.

Boy oh boy ... I really do take my hat off to you.

[Robittybob1]

I'm not sure exactly how close you sail along buffeted by the winds of libel but you certainly have a knack of introducing apparently innocuous thought processes informed by every slanderous allegation in the lexicon and then some.

In my opinion you are inventive in adding to the wealth of misinformation by putting your own interpretation on events in a way which no-one else has even thought about.

Your factoid regarding the thought processes of the McCann companions being the current one.

Boy oh boy ... I really do take my hat off to you.

I would hate to get a letter in the mail, so I sail as close to the wind as is safely possible.
I think exploring their thoughts and reactions could show something about what they know, but in the end no matter what we discover, there is still this other abductor out there.
I think Gerry said something like this in an interview, "there is still this abductor out there". 

[Robittybob1]

Take the primary effect as being the child disappearing from her room.
St Thomas Aquinas teaches us that every effect has at least two causes, he also implies that causes may be condition or action. So the basic principles ain’t exactly some new kind of Voodoo man.
Any theory must accommodate the available known evidence*.
*“the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”.
Note facts not speculation.
Method:
1 Define the primary effect.
2 Determine the known causal relationships including the actions and conditions of each subsidiary effect.
3 Show the causal relationships to including specific action and conditional causes.
4 Show evidence to support the existence of each cause.
5 Determine if each set of causes is sufficient and necessary to cause the effect.

For there to have been an abduction the paths of the child and abductor must cross so either the child vacated the apartment or the abductor gained access to the apartment. Using known evidence show how either was possible.

I wouldn't comprehend anything Thomas Aquinas said but I do follow your line "For there to have been an abduction the paths of the child and abductor must cross so either the child vacated the apartment or the abductor gained access to the apartment. Using known evidence show how either was possible."

Known evidence:
For the " the child vacated the apartment" abduction theory.
1. it is dark and there is space and cover so an abductor could observe the McCann apartment without being seen.
2. if the child came to him as in a woke and wander situation he doesn't need to enter the apartment (evidence -no sign of forced entry)
3.  The tapas 8 (9-1) thought she is closeby and search the immediate areas without success. (Evidence in the statements)
4. Man seen carrying child by the Smith family (all Tapas 9 are accounted for so not one of them)  Potential abductor.

[Alfie]

The door to the apartment was unlocked - known fact.
Therefore the apartment was not secure - known fact.
An abductor could gain access to the apartment without breaking and entering.
That's how it was possible.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy, and that's just using the known facts. 

[Robittybob1]

The door to the apartment was unlocked - known fact.
Therefore the apartment was not secure - known fact.
An abductor or anyone else interfering could gain access to the apartment without breaking and entering.

[faithlilly]

The door to the apartment was unlocked - known fact.
Therefore the apartment was not secure - known fact.
An abductor could gain access to the apartment without breaking and entering.
That's how it was possible.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy, and that's just using the known facts.

And the constantly opening and closing door?

And the open window and shutters?

[Alfie]

And the constantly opening and closing door?

And the open window and shutters?

Window and shutters could have been open from the inside to communicate with others, keep a look out, hand out the child.
Door could have moved as a result of air movement when the patio door was opened during checks, or perhaps abductor moved it or perhaps it didn't move at all and it was faulty recollection  I don't know.  But a door moving a few inches does not rule out stranger abduction.

[faithlilly]

Window and shutters could have been open from the inside to communicate with others, keep a look out, hand out the child.
Door could have moved as a result of air movement when the patio door was opened during checks, or perhaps abductor moved it or perhaps it didn't move at all and it was faulty recollection  I don't know.  But a door moving a few inches does not rule out stranger abduction.

So do you think there was more than one person involved in the abduction? Don't you think Madeleine was abducted for nefarious reasons ?

[Mr Gray]

A child was taken from her bath whilst her mother was in another room. Thats how easy an abduction can be. No need for complicated analyses....it is possible and very simple.

[Alfie]

So do you think there was more than one person involved in the abduction? Don't you think Madeleine was abducted for nefarious reasons ?

1) It's possible
2) almost certainly.

[faithlilly]

1) It's possible
2) almost certainly.

So why so many people ?

[Alfie]

So why so many people ?

Hang on.  You asked if more than one person may have been involved.  I said it's possible, now you're asking me why so many people were involved.  Would you care to re-phrase your question?

[faithlilly]

Hang on.  You asked if more than one person may have been involved.  I said it's possible, now you're asking me why so many people were involved.  Would you care to re-phrase your question?

Fair enough. If you think that it's possible that more than one person is involved, in what way?