Mark Williams-Thomas suggests Madeleine woke, wandered and was abducted.

[ShiningInLuz]

Williams-Thomas and O'Connor both correctly pointed out that opportunistic abduction is far more likely than planned abduction.

May I ask how you reach the conclusion "both correctly pointed out that opportunistic abduction is far more likely than planned abduction"?

I'm seeing lightweight theories with errors and holes.

Have I missed something?

[pegasus]

No evidence of an open window or shutter before the last check. Madeleine would be heard if she could make a sound. These were deserted streets where you can easily be heard.  Running to the next room and screaming for help she would be heard. Fenn was in so there's only one credible conclusion - she could not be heard so she wasn't.

As a small child were you any good at the game hide-and-seek Pathfinder?

[pegasus]

May I ask how you reach the conclusion "both correctly pointed out that opportunistic abduction is far more likely than planned abduction"?

I'm seeing lightweight theories with errors and holes.

Have I missed something?

Both of them believe that opportunistic abduction is much more likely than planned abduction. Williams-Thomas gives as an example the Whiting case. O'Connor gives as an example the Huntley case. Both those cases were completely opportunistic abduction.

[jassi]

Both of them believe that opportunistic abduction is much more likely than planned abduction. William's-Thomas gives as an example the Whiting case. O'Connor gives as an example the Huntley case. Both those cases were completely opportunistic abduction.

Yes, but why should they be considered correct? Is that just your opinion?

[Brietta]

If she had left of her own accord, is it likely that she would have closed the patio door behind her?

If she had had the presence of mind to do so, I think she would have had the presence of mind to slip on her shoes.

[ferryman]

Both of them believe that opportunistic abduction is much more likely than planned abduction. Williams-Thomas gives as an example the Whiting case. O'Connor gives as an example the Huntley case. Both those cases were completely opportunistic abduction.

The Huntley case wasn't so much an abduction.  The girls entered Huntley's house voluntarily and he murdered them.

[Brietta]

Both of them believe that opportunistic abduction is much more likely than planned abduction. Williams-Thomas gives as an example the Whiting case. O'Connor gives as an example the Huntley case. Both those cases were completely opportunistic abduction.

As you have previously pointed out neither man addressed the situation regarding the open window and raised shutter.  An interesting omission.

Opportunistic abduction when a child is dragged from the street happens far more often than a child being abducted from bed for obvious reasons. In both, the actual abduction is very rarely witnessed.

However I would suggest that it is improbable an opportunist would be prowling the streets at that time of night on the off chance of finding a child wandering on its own.

[pegasus]

Yes, but why should they be considered correct? Is that just your opinion?

They are experts basing their PDL theories on real solved cases. Do you not agree that opportunist abduction is far more frequent than planned abduction? Another example is the Dell Valle case.

[jassi]

They are experts basing their PDL theories on real solved cases. Do you not agree that opportunist abduction is far more frequent than planned abduction? Another example is the Dell Valle case.

I have no idea, but it doesn't make their 'expert opinion' correct just because they say it is so. It is merely yet another possibility.

[pathfinder73]

They are experts basing their PDL theories on real solved cases. Do you not agree that opportunist abduction is far more frequent than planned abduction? Another example is the Dell Valle case.

Smart people follow evidence not theories.

[Alfred R Jones]

I have no idea, but it doesn't make their 'expert opinion' correct just because they say it is so. It is merely yet another possibility.

Do you think a non-expert's opinion on a subject they know little about is equally as valid as the subject expert's?

[pegasus]

(snip)... would have had the presence of mind to slip on her shoes.

Thanks Brietta, the shoes are a third gaping hole in both the Williams-Thomas and O'Connor theories.
1. No explanation of open window and shutter.
2. No pressing reason for child to leave apartment.
3. No explanation of why child did not put shoes on.
Three gaping holes which mean that both theories are, in the form they are presented, a load of rubbish.
 

[jassi]

Do you think a non-expert's opinion on a subject they know little about is equally as valid as the subject expert's?

That might depend on whether an expert really is an expert or just a bullshitter.  Experts are not infallible - they just think they are.

[Mr Gray]

I have no idea, but it doesn't make their 'expert opinion' correct just because they say it is so. It is merely yet another possibility.

So what does hat say for Grime's expert opinon

[Alice Purjorick]

I have no idea, but it doesn't make their 'expert opinion' correct just because they say it is so. It is merely yet another possibility.

One incontrovertible fact, to whit a child vanished into thin air, has spawned more theories and opinions than Job had boils; they cannot all be right  &%+((£