Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[ferryman]

IIRC the resort was not suitable from Mark Warners point of view only because a listening service could not be easily performed due to the layout of the site.     That logistical problem did not exist for the McCanns (or their friends) as they only had one check each to make and not multiple checks.

However, whether you like it or not  - nothing alters the fact that all parents who make the decision to use the 'listening' type of childcare do so for exactly the same reason - and that is because they genuinely believe it to be a safe method.   Otherwise they wouldn't do it.        The McCanns are no different - they also believed it to be safe and according to the Portuguese AG - they were entitled to hold that view.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's so easy to be wise after the event.    That applies to everyone including the McCanns who will never forgive themselves for also holding that genuine belief that it was safe.

Attempts to single them out as being completely different to all other parents who made exactly the same decision for exactly the same reasons don't hold water IMO.   The only difference is those other parents were the lucky ones.

AIMHO

I like the whole of the post.

But the part I embolden is what makes a mockery of the appeal court ruling in the libel trial.

All talk of something nefarious covered up by the McCanns (almost) a distant memory ....

[stephen25000]

I like the whole of the post.

But the part I embolden is what makes a mockery of the appeal court ruling in the libel trial.

All talk of something nefarious covered up by the McCanns (almost) a distant memory ....

Illogical.

They locked the apartment during the day, thereby indicating the resort wasn't safe.

[Robittybob1]

Illogical.

They locked the apartment during the day, thereby indicating the resort wasn't safe.

But they aren't going to go back to the apartment every half hour either.

[G-Unit]

Of course no one can say WHO conducted the abduction, that goes without saying, but I have told you my theory for how and when, and it is both plausible and logical.  If you disagree then perhaps you can tell me what it is that makes it both implausible and illogical.

As I recall you were unable to come up with an explanation as to why, not knowing who was in the apartment, an 'abductor' took a chance and went in, let alone how he got in. Did you come up with a time?

[Alfie]

As I recall you were unable to come up with an explanation as to why, not knowing who was in the apartment, an 'abductor' took a chance and went in, let alone how he got in. Did you come up with a time?

When you've answered my question, I will answer yours, in full (although I think I have already addressed these points more than once).

[G-Unit]

When you've answered my question, I will answer yours, in full (although I think I have already addressed these points more than once).

Sorry, but I have seen nothing which explains why a would-be abductor would target 5A, what time he went in and why he chose to go in at that time.

[jassi]

But they aren't going to go back to the apartment every half hour either.

If the resort was safe, then that wouldn't matter  and a lot can happen in 30 minutes.

[Benice]

Sorry, but I have seen nothing which explains why a would-be abductor would target 5A, what time he went in and why he chose to go in at that time.

Apartment 5A was described by the UK police as a 'burglar's dream' (words to that effect).   If an abduction was being seriously and carefully pre-planned by more than one person,  it could be that 5A had already been taragetted as extremely suitable and they were just waiting and watching for a 'suitable' family to come along.

It would only take a couple of days to become familiarised with the regular evening movements of the McCanns, who IIRC liked routine.  Prior knowledge of a regular routine which involved leaving the children asleep in their apartment for periods of time, would be extremely helpful to any would-be abductor.

[faithlilly]

Apartment 5A was described by the UK police as a 'burglar's dream' (words to that effect).   If an abduction was being seriously and carefully pre-planned by more than one person,  it could be that 5A had already been taragetted as extremely suitable and they were just waiting and watching for a 'suitable' family to come along.

It would only take a couple of days to become familiarised with the regular evening movements of the McCanns, who IIRC liked routine.  Prior knowledge of a regular routine which involved leaving the children asleep in their apartment for periods of time, would be extremely helpful to any would-be abductor.

And a bit of a coincidence.

[Alfie]

Sorry, but I have seen nothing which explains why a would-be abductor would target 5A, what time he went in and why he chose to go in at that time.

I see once again you have refused to answer my question - what makes abduction both illogical and implausible in your view.  However, despite this refusal on your part I will answer yours. 
Why would an abductor target 5a?  Because it was an easy target, ground floor, easy get away and above all unlocked.  How many more reasons would you like?
What time did he go in?  Can't be certain but a window of opportunity was identified by the Met and I would hazard a guess that that window was some time between 9.30ish and 10pm.  Unless you are claiming that the Tapas group was so attentive that there was someone from it in or within the near vicinity of the apartment at all times you would have to allow for the possibility that there were several minutes together when no one was around which would have provided that window of opportunity.  Why did he choose the time he did?  Well I guess it was because he considered the coast to be clear.  Now, what is implausible or illogical about that?

[faithlilly]

I see once again you have refused to answer my question - what makes abduction both illogical and implausible in your view.  However, despite this refusal on your part I will answer yours. 
Why would an abductor target 5a?  Because it was an easy target, ground floor, easy get away and above all unlocked.  How many more reasons would you like?
What time did he go in?  Can't be certain but a window of opportunity was identified by the Met and I would hazard a guess that that window was some time between 9.30ish and 10pm.  Unless you are claiming that the Tapas group was so attentive that there was someone from it in or within the near vicinity of the apartment at all times you would have to allow for the possibility that there were several minutes together when no one was around which would have provided that window of opportunity.  Why did he choose the time he did?  Well I guess it was because he considered the coast to be clear.  Now, what is implausible or illogical about that?

It's interesting that while the apartment seemed to be so vulnerable no former resident had ever actually been burgled.

It is also interesting that the 'bogus charity collector' angle seems to have been pushed quite forceably by the McCanns and their agents, and no one else, even though they themselves where never approached by charity collectors at any time during their stay.

[Benice]

It's interesting that while the apartment seemed to be so vulnerable no former resident had ever actually been burgled.

It is also interesting that the 'bogus charity collector' angle seems to have been pushed quite forceably by the McCanns and their agents, and no one else, even though they themselves where never approached by charity collectors at any time during their stay.

As they were out of the apartment for many hours during the day  - it's not possible to say whether charity collectors called at 5A or not IMO.

(must dash)

[faithlilly]

As they were out of the apartment for many hours during the day  - it's not possible to say whether charity collectors called at 5A or not IMO.

(must dash)

Certainly the parents were back at the apartment for some of the day. I believe none of their friends relate being approached by charity collectors either.

[ShiningInLuz]

Certainly the parents were back at the apartment for some of the day. I believe none of their friends relate being approached by charity collectors either.

I hadn't thought of it like that before.  But now that you mention it, none of the T9 reported any of the odd goings on subsequently added to the mix.  No men monitoring 5A.  No one checking out 5C.  Hence a feeling of security sufficient to go out at night with the patio doors unlocked.

[Angelo222]

As they were out of the apartment for many hours during the day  - it's not possible to say whether charity collectors called at 5A or not IMO.

(must dash)

It is the perfect ruse for being on someone's property.  These so-called charity collectors would most probably know the Luz area extremely well and would know when new guests had arrived.  The locals on the other hand being permanent residents would be well aware of their activities.

So are we agreed, there is no plausible logical theory of abduction from 5a?