Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[Alfie]

what points exactly?

It seems this thread has now changed tack to discuss Kate's involvement in Britains Got Talent,  a subject which as we can already observe provides plenty more opportunities for bitchy comments. 

[Alice Purjorick]

It seems this thread has now changed tack to discuss Kate's involvement in Britains Got Talent,  a subject which as we can already observe provides plenty more opportunities for bitchy comments.

It will not be long before it morphs into The Three Amigos [Grime, Amaral & Eddie] at Crufts. Ole

[faithlilly]

It will not be long before it morphs into The Three Amigos [Grime, Amaral & Eddie] at Crufts. Ole

 

[Brietta]

It seems this thread has now changed tack to discuss Kate's involvement in Britains Got Talent,  a subject which as we can already observe provides plenty more opportunities for bitchy comments.

The comments are far more than bitchy. 

One video link in particular which I had the misfortune to open began with a tirade of vitriolic hatred couched in the foulest language imaginable.
Lie down with dogs get up with fleas. Anyone who condones and promotes such diatribe ... and the link I followed came from this forum ... really needs to indulge in a serious examination of conscience.

[Brietta]

It will not be long before it morphs into The Three Amigos [Grime, Amaral & Eddie] at Crufts. Ole

Part of the problem may lie with the members themselves.  We are all over the place as far as thread topics are concerned but sometimes an OT discussion can take off with interesting posts which it is a shame to delete.

The editors try their best to preserve these.

I think the lesson may be to try to post as near to topic as possible and try to avoid deflection ... and if there is something you feel merits separate discussion, start a new thread.

Mea culpa ... I tend to off topic posts myself, so I include myself in the criticism.

[Alfie]

So, to reiterate: 
Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?
Yes there is in my view, and here it is (bearing in mind it is all theoretical and I'm not claiming it actually happpened exactly as described):

The abductor (a predatory sex attacker with a penchant for young girls) selects his quarry based in part on the fact that he knows she is left unattended for several hours every night in an unlocked ground floor apartment, with parents and friends only checking every 20 - 30 minutes.  He strikes some time between 9.45pm and 9.55pm when eight of the nine Tapas group are sat at their table eating their meal, entering via the unlocked patio door, enters the children's bedroom, opens the shutter and window to make sure that the coast is clear for him to leave the apartment via the front door carrying the child, which he does within 2 to 3 minutes of first having entered the apartment.  It is possible that he has an accomplice who has also taken part in surveillance and in the get away, and this may offer further explanation for the opened shutter and window, as a means of look out and communication and  between the two individuals, and for passing out the child.

According to some the above actions of the abductor are considered "inexplicable", perhaps we could have some further understanding of what that means?

In what ways is this theory both implausible and illogical?   

[faithlilly]

So, to reiterate: 
Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?
Yes there is in my view, and here it is (bearing in mind it is all theoretical and I'm not claiming it actually happpened exactly as described):

The abductor (a predatory sex attacker with a penchant for young girls) selects his quarry based in part on the fact that he knows she is left unattended for several hours every night in an unlocked ground floor apartment, with parents and friends only checking every 20 - 30 minutes.  He strikes some time between 9.45pm and 9.55pm when eight of the nine Tapas group are sat at their table eating their meal, entering via the unlocked patio door, enters the children's bedroom, opens the shutter and window to make sure that the coast is clear for him to leave the apartment via the front door carrying the child, which he does within 2 to 3 minutes of first having entered the apartment.  It is possible that he has an accomplice who has also taken part in surveillance and in the get away, and this may offer further explanation for the opened shutter and window, as a means of look out and communication and  between the two individuals, and for passing out the child.

According to some the above actions of the abductor are considered "inexplicable", perhaps we could have some further understanding of what that means?

In what ways is this theory both implausible and illogical?

So the abductor killed Madeleine, according to your theory. Do you believe the cadaver dog's alerted to this death?

[Alfie]

So the abductor killed Madeleine, according to your theory. Do you believe the cadaver dog's alerted to this death?

No.

[faithlilly]

No.

So you believe Madeleine was killed somewhere else and the alerts are just a coincidence?

[Alfie]

So you believe Madeleine was killed somewhere else and the alerts are just a coincidence?

Coincidence...?   &%+((£  Maybe...  a bit like the coincidence in the Shannon Matthews case perhaps?

[G-Unit]

So, to reiterate: 
Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?
Yes there is in my view, and here it is (bearing in mind it is all theoretical and I'm not claiming it actually happpened exactly as described):

The abductor (a predatory sex attacker with a penchant for young girls) selects his quarry based in part on the fact that he knows she is left unattended for several hours every night in an unlocked ground floor apartment, with parents and friends only checking every 20 - 30 minutes.  He strikes some time between 9.45pm and 9.55pm when eight of the nine Tapas group are sat at their table eating their meal, entering via the unlocked patio door, enters the children's bedroom, opens the shutter and window to make sure that the coast is clear for him to leave the apartment via the front door carrying the child, which he does within 2 to 3 minutes of first having entered the apartment.  It is possible that he has an accomplice who has also taken part in surveillance and in the get away, and this may offer further explanation for the opened shutter and window, as a means of look out and communication and  between the two individuals, and for passing out the child.

According to some the above actions of the abductor are considered "inexplicable", perhaps we could have some further understanding of what that means?

In what ways is this theory both implausible and illogical?

How goes he know?

Bear in mind they don't all check at the same time, there are not gaps of 20-30 minutes without checkers.

[Alfie]

The question I would ask the abduction doubters is - do you believe it is illogical and implausible for a predatory sex attacker to enter an unlocked ground floor apartment at night and take a sleeping child?  If so please give your reasons why.

[Brietta]

It is ridiculous in the extreme to suppose that the individuals who target children in their own homes are ruled by logic or the thought processes of those to whom such aberrant behaviour is foreign.

These are not normal people who would be deterred by a situation of personal risk ... in fact the risk might be a motivating factor of it for some.

Quote
 ...  arrested on charges of second-degree burglary, aggravated assault and kidnapping.

Upon investigating the family’s apartment for clues, cops said they found Cohen’s shoes in the two-year-old’s bedroom.

His coat was wedged between her mattress and the wall, and his passport was on the floor near the foot of her bed.

Cops said Cohen had also used the bathroom while in the apartment, and drank some of the family’s orange juice.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2430255/dad-gets-shock-of-his-life-when-he-finds-strange-man-holding-his-daughter-two-after-checking-on-her-at-2am/

All while he knew the little girl's family were asleep in the same house.

If he had decided to remove the child from the residence instead of spending the amount of time there he did, that little girl and her family might have had a far worse outcome.

Interesting to note that one of the charges was kidnapping despite the fact the little girl had not been removed from the premises.

[Alice Purjorick]

So, to reiterate: 
Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?
Yes there is in my view, and here it is (bearing in mind it is all theoretical and I'm not claiming it actually happpened exactly as described):

The abductor (a predatory sex attacker with a penchant for young girls) selects his quarry based in part on the fact that he knows she is left unattended for several hours every night in an unlocked ground floor apartment, with parents and friends only checking every 20 - 30 minutes.  He strikes some time between 9.45pm and 9.55pm when eight of the nine Tapas group are sat at their table eating their meal, entering via the unlocked patio door, enters the children's bedroom, opens the shutter and window to make sure that the coast is clear for him to leave the apartment via the front door carrying the child, which he does within 2 to 3 minutes of first having entered the apartment.  It is possible that he has an accomplice who has also taken part in surveillance and in the get away, and this may offer further explanation for the opened shutter and window, as a means of look out and communication and  between the two individuals, and for passing out the child.

According to some the above actions of the abductor are considered "inexplicable", perhaps we could have some further understanding of what that means?

In what ways is this theory both implausible and illogical?

1.Motivation: ??? what is the motivation here and how does it compare with research into the behaviour of sexual predators preying on children? How do the presumed actions compare with the accepted behavioural research ?
2.Means: How did he/she get in and out/gain access to the child ?*
3.Opportunity: A few minutes between 21:40 and 22:00 (from memory).

One and two need to be nailed down a little more substantially than they are at present.
 
* gross assumption the patio door is unlocked as there is no evidence to support that assertion. Statements regarding the status of that door are contradictory so cannot be relied upon.

In incident investigation we would call this "Story Telling".

[Mr Gray]

1.Motivation: ??? what is the motivation here and how does it compare with research into the behaviour of sexual predators preying on children? How do the presumed actions compare with the accepted behavioural research ?
2.Means: How did he/she get in and out/gain access to the child ?*
3.Opportunity: A few minutes between 21:40 and 22:00 (from memory).

One and two need to be nailed down a little more substantially than they are at present.
 
* gross assumption the patio door is unlocked as there is no evidence to support that assertion. Statements regarding the status of that door are contradictory so cannot be relied upon.

In incident investigation we would call this "Story Telling".

If Kate is telling the truth...the window was open which proves third party involvemnent.....its a simple as that