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

[jassi]

So what does hat say for Grime's expert opinon

Don't ask me . I don't have any opinion of grime's opinion. 

[Alfred R Jones]

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

What determines whether one is an expert or not then in your view? 

[Lyall]

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.

They're not rubbish, they're implying there was staging afterwards. As does Danny Collins in his book.

[jassi]

What determines whether one is an expert or not then in your view?

I suppose one who is highly qualified in his field and is recognised as such by his peer group. E.g. Gerry is a highly qualified expert in cardiology and is recognised as such within his professional group.

[pegasus]

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

I've seen some good work by experts and by complete amateurs.

[pegasus]

(snip)...I'm seeing lightweight theories with errors and holes...(snip).

Lightweight is good. Errors and holes aren't. What do you think is the single biggest error/hole in MWT's theory? 

[pegasus]

They're not rubbish, they're implying there was staging afterwards. As does Danny Collins in his book.

Good point but IMO silently implying staging = failing to provide a plausible straightforward explanation.

[Lyall]

Good point but IMO silently implying staging = failing to provide a plausible straightforward explanation.

Collins doesn't do it silently, he comes right out and states there was staging. Then he says they were "naive" to do it. The other two presumably think something similar. Didn't Donal MacIntyre also say the same thing? (I think so). That's a lot of people suspecting 'naive' staging occurred.

[pegasus]

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

It depends on your definition. In the Huntley case they were tricked into entering a residence and then forcibly detained so IMO that's abduction. Do you think the Del Valle case (Huelva, tricked into entering a residence) was also not abduction? And do you think the Hamilton case (Donegal, tricked into entering a vehicle) was also not abduction?

[jassi]

Is it not removal to another place against one's will that would define abduction ?

[pathfinder73]

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.

1. She didn't leave by herself.
2. She didn't leave she was taken.
3. She couldn't.

[pegasus]

Collins doesn't do it silently, he comes right out and states there was staging. Then he says they were "naive" to do it. The other two presumably think something similar. Didn't Donal MacIntyre also say the same thing? (I think so). That's a lot of people suspecting 'naive' staging occurred.

Good point Lyall, "naive staging" is an interesting theory but IMO it's not what happened, because a simpler direct explanation provides the reason for leaving the room IMO, and also because the 10pm witness account is IMO completely credible.

[Lyall]

Good point Lyall, "naive staging" is an interesting theory but IMO it's not what happened, because a simpler direct explanation provides the reason for leaving the room IMO, and also because the 10pm witness account is IMO completely credible.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that final assertion Your theory is interesting though.

[jassi]

Have you ever explained what this 'simpler direct explanation' actually is?

Genuine question as I forget what might already  have been said on this subject.

[ferryman]

It depends on your definition. In the Huntley case they were tricked into entering a residence and then forcibly detained so IMO that's abduction. Do you think the Del Valle case (Huelva, tricked into entering a residence) was also not abduction? And do you think the Hamilton case (Donegal, tricked into entering a vehicle) was also not abduction?

As you rightly say, definition is key.

In Huntley's case, he was the caretaker of the school Holly and Jessica attended, so they knew him.  I can't remember, now, whether he invited them into his house, or whether they called on him.  Either way, they entered voluntarily, and since he had malevolent designs, he obviously was never going to let them go.

I would say that was closer to false imprisonment than abduction, but either offence paled into insignificance by comparison with the one he committed, murder.