A Thread To Discuss Alfred's Theory in detail.

[stephen25000]

I couldn't tell you anything as you think you know it all

I.e. You can't back up your statement.

[Alice Purjorick]

Plus I don't really have a theory per se. I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL.  It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm.  It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts.  Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is so utterly ludicrous, improbable and physically impossible?

Your opinion is OK as an opinion. Of your six honest serving men only two appear to have been utilised.
The opinion is somewhat light on the detail of the remaining four: when, how, why and who. If we knew your opinion on those we would then be able to make a reasoned comment. But as it stands it is just your opinion without much to back it up an no more valid than any other opinion.

[faithlilly]

Your opinion is OK as an opinion. Of your six honest serving men only two appear to have been utilised.
The opinion is somewhat light on the detail of the remaining four: when, how, why and who. If we knew your opinion on those we would then be able to make a reasoned comment. But as it stands it is just your opinion without much to back it up an no more valid than any other opinion.

And as we know opinions are like noses....everyone has one !!

[Alfred R Jones]

Your opinion is OK as an opinion. Of your six honest serving men only two appear to have been utilised.
The opinion is somewhat light on the detail of the remaining four: when, how, why and who. If we knew your opinion on those we would then be able to make a reasoned comment. But as it stands it is just your opinion without much to back it up an no more valid than any other opinion.

When - at some point between checks on the evening of the 3rd
How - by entering the apartment - either via the front door, the unlocked patio door or the window.
Why - to take a child to abuse her.
Who - if I knew that I'd be rich and famous.

Personally I think that explanation is a lot more likely than any a "sceptic" could come up with, but that of course is just my opinion - cue more mockery.

[stephen25000]

When - at some point between checks on the evening of the 3rd
How - by entering the apartment - either via the front door, the unlocked patio door or the window.
Why - to take a child to abuse her.
Who - if I knew that I'd be rich and famous.

Personally I think that explanation is a lot more likely than any a "sceptic" could come up with, but that of course is just my opinion - cue more mockery.

and yet not one real sign of abduction.

Damn.

[Mr Gray]

and yet not one real sign of abduction.

Damn.

plenty of evidence of abduction

[faithlilly]

plenty of evidence of abduction

Off you go then.

[pathfinder73]

plenty of evidence of abduction

Like a neat tidy bed and an open window that wasn't used. No broken locks nor glove marks yes there's plenty of evidence NOT. The only real evidence is a man seen carrying a child matching her description and Smithman won't show his face 

[stephen25000]

plenty of evidence of abduction

In namby pamby land.

However, the real world is different.

[Mr Gray]

In namby pamby land.

However, the real world is different.

Wasn't it Redwood who supported stranger abduction...but what does he know

[stephen25000]

Wasn't it Redwood who supported stranger abduction...but what does he know

He's a belieber.

[Alice Purjorick]

When - at some point between checks on the evening of the 3rd
How - by entering the apartment - either via the front door, the unlocked patio door or the window.
Why - to take a child to abuse her.
Who - if I knew that I'd be rich and famous.

Personally I think that explanation is a lot more likely than any a "sceptic" could come up with, but that of course is just my opinion - cue more mockery.

It remains a bit light but cutting to the chase you don't seem have much a clue of the detail how, when and why.
You seem to have prejudged the situation then worked backwards in broad brush. Instead of sneering at others why can you not work up a detailed theory that will stand up to scrutiny?
I am sure you would berate your students for such a feeble effort.

[Wonderfulspam]

It remains a bit light but cutting to the chase you don't seem have much a clue of the detail how, when and why.
You seem to have prejudged the situation then worked backwards in broad brush. Instead of sneering at others why can you not work up a detailed theory that will stand up to scrutiny?
I am sure you would berate your students for such a feeble effort.

He has the sliding door as a possible point of entry, dontcha know.

The polite paedo/abductor/murderer.

He closed the gate, childgate, sliding door & curtains behind him.

[Alfred R Jones]

It remains a bit light but cutting to the chase you don't seem have much a clue of the detail how, when and why.
You seem to have prejudged the situation then worked backwards in broad brush. Instead of sneering at others why can you not work up a detailed theory that will stand up to scrutiny?
I am sure you would berate your students for such a feeble effort.

frankly the minute details of the case such as the angle of the door or the height of the window or the noise made by the shutters don't fascinate me as much as they do some people.  As you have pointed out before this is simply a forum not a court of law, however if you think my broad brush stroke theory doesn't hold together perhaps you would like to tell me why not?  Which bit of my theory is thoroughly improbable if not downright impossible, in your view?

[Alice Purjorick]

frankly the minute details of the case such as the angle of the door or the height of the window or the noise made by the shutters don't fascinate me as much as they do some people.  As you have pointed out before this is simply a forum not a court of law, however if you think my broad brush stroke theory doesn't hold together perhaps you would like to tell me why not?  Which bit of my theory is thoroughly improbable if not downright impossible, in your view?

The Erich Von Danniken methodology eh?
No boy its up to you to show your theory works not up to me to show it doesn't.