it was you asked for detail, not I who volunteered to give it. I'm not overly interested in going through the detail again for the eight millionth time, in any case I'm very happy to leave the detail as to the exact angle of the bedroom door and what physics are necessary to make a curtain whoosh, and whether the invisible lichen on the windowsill was disturbed or not to the experts and the pseudo experts. As I've said before in my opinion (shared by the Met who I would class as experts), there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to be taken from the apartment by a stranger. it would have occurred sometime within a two-hour period when the apartment was unoccupied by adults. As the apartment was unlocked and also a holiday let to which several people had had access to over the years and undoubtedly to which there was more than one set of keys, and it was on the ground floor, then gaining entrance to it would have been as easy as pie to anyone intent on it. I think whoever took her (and maybe there were two or more individuals - I wouldn't rule it out) did so for sexual purposes (I really hope I'm wrong on this point) and I think she was likely abused and killed within a few hours of being removed (again, let's hope I'm wrong) and her remains are somewhere within a few mile radius of PdL.
All the facts we know about this case seem to support the above, albeit in a circumstantial rather than in a "hard evidence" way, much more so than the "parents dunnit" theory. That is my opinion. Holding that opinion no doubt makes me a deluded saddo / candle-waving drooling old dear/ McCann worshipper / child neglect supporter (delete as applicable) so feel free to mock and sneer at me freely but perhaps at the same time as mocking and sneering you could at least add to the discussion by letting us know why my opinion is completely and absurdly implausible / impossible. I won't hold my breath as this is a troll thread started by a troll with no interest in actually challenging my opinion with anything resembling a reasonably-argued point. So, until such a time as one is forth-coming, I've nothing further to add.
Gosh Alf no one is doing anything you have not done yourself to other posters so why become so precious about it. I don't give a monkeys about door angles and whooshing curtains either so we have a common datum.
Being a simple sort of person I deal in simple things. For there to have been an abduction the abductor and child must cross paths. There are only two possibilities for that; he got in or she got out.
But to say "well the abductor went in through front door or the back door or the window" is a bit light and had other posters to whom you refer as "sceptics" said similar it would have drawn hoots of derision from you.
Why do you discount the other possibility for crossing paths?. So tell us how did the abductor gain ingress in your opinion? The condition of the patio doors, windows and shutters has been a variable with respect to open closed locked or otherwise. You must in your theory have made an assumption in which condition they were. So tell us it doesn't take much. Considerably less words that your last post one might add.
There remains one major flaw in the theory of abduction for the purposes of sexual gratification. I am sure you and other posters are smart enough to work it out.
