Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[Mr Gray]

Did you miss this bit?  "I hope to offer the McCanns an opportunity in the next three months to participate in an event which will clarify what happened to Madeleine.  I fully expect this invitation to be ignored."

I find the attitude of those who elevate the McCann interests above the interests of Madeleine to be unfortunate, to put it mildly.

You accuse me of putting the McCanns interest above Maddies then once again you are woefully wrong
The McCanns are the ones who have kept the search alive when others wanted to insist she was dead
You still haven't answered the question
What do you feel you have to offer to the McCanns
I would say nothing but I am happy to be corected

[Lace]

The right child? For what?

As to the link the mother wasn't even sure the two men were the same. Sounds rather more like an opportunist burglar to me than a child snatcher.

If Madeleine had been seen say on the beach and a photo taken,   then the men observing the McCann apartment would be making sure that the person they had a photo of was the same child as the one in 5a.

I don't think that was a random burglar,   the woman said he was staring intently at her child and was watching the apartment in the afternoon,   then coincidently a man comes into her apartment,  into the room where her child was,   she sees him and he runs off.   This was weeks before Madeleine was taken.

[Lace]

I have now been approached on 4 occasions by a total of 5 charity collectors, all within Luz.

Based on behaviour and conversation, I believe 3 of these occasions (4 collectors) to be bogus.  It is a common, frequent scam perpetrated (I believe) on non-Portuguese residents.  The last time I checked the minimum wage in Portugal, it was €5.70 per hour.  Getting €10 off a gullible foreigner is therefore a worthwhile activity.

The last time I was approached was in October 2016.  I had a visitor doing a Luz Tour and we were sitting outside Kellys, in fine sunshine, discussing the case, when a man approached us.  Thinking back on his behaviour and conversation, I believe he was genuine, but at the time, being aware of the charity collector scam, we declined to contribute. 

To be honest, I feel somewhat guilty about this now because frankly I can afford to donate €10 to a good cause.  The man was finding it tough going to get contributions, partly because of the scam awareness, and partly because workers in bars etc often get employed for a cash-in-hand rate of 4 or 5€ per hour i.e. they are trying to scrape a living themselves.

Now the fact that this approach occurred in the midst of a Luz Tour is sheer coincidence, but the fact is such coincidences do happen.

Since no child went missing on the 3 bogus events, and since these events were splattered across 3 different locations in Luz, and sine there was never a hint of burglary or robbery, I ascribe these 3 events as simplistic attempts at a scam, nothing more.

I am sure there are a lot of scam charity collectors they are everywhere not just in Luz.   Though what a great cover to find out where children were in the apartments.   Don't you think the woman who had a man collecting for charity weeks before Madeleine went missing,  who was staring at her child and was then watching her apartment in the afternoon,   sounds a bit dodgy?    Then a man comes into her apartment the next day into the room where her child was and she scared him off,   probably the same man.

[John]

You have not told us why you think YOU can help the investigation when we have professionals involved
I think you are way overestimating your abilities to the point of delusion
Again I am happy for you to correct me

There is no need to be rude davel, you know our rules.

Why do you think Jenny Murat set up an information desk?

[Brietta]

There is no need to be rude davel, you know our rules.

Why do you think Jenny Murat set up an information desk?

I have often wondered about that.

[Mr Gray]

There is no need to be rude davel, you know our rules.

Why do you think Jenny Murat set up an information desk?

I think it's very odd a member of the public expecting the McCanns to meet and engage with them
Not rude at all...... just reality
That's why I've asked sil why she thinks the McCanns should meet her but she has not answered the question

[Alfie]

Have you worked out yet how a would-be abductor would know the McCann kids were home alone purely by seeing their parents in the Tapas restaurant? By your illogical reasoning all the unaccompanied parents in the restaurant that night must also have left their kids home alone.

There is nothing illogical about my reasoning.  Did the Tapas group leave their kids unattended most nights of the holiday?  How difficult would it have been for an abductor intent on stealing a child to work this out, by day 6 of the holiday, either through observation, reconnaissance or tip-off?   I have also already conceded that maybe the abductor DIDN'T know that the children were unattended and entered the apartment on the off-chance, as has happened in other abductions and abduction attempts, also break-ins to the bedrooms of  children holiday makers on the Algarve.  I have said this all before on this thread so please don't claim again that I have not answered your question or get me to repeat it for the third time.

[G-Unit]

'Understanding' why they thought their childcare arrangements were OK is not the same as 'supporting' it.

The listening method of childcare may be unacceptable behaviour in your opinion and many others,  but it is not an opinion held by everyone, including all those parents who adopted the same childcare arrangements themselves when they went on holiday or those parents who use baby monitors for the same purpose.    In both cases children are left alone in their rooms while their parents go to dinner.

Pretending these people do not exist in their thousands is unrealistic IMO.

I don't know how many times it's been pointed out, but you seem happy to ignore it. The listening method offered by hotels and holiday complexes is not, by any stretch of your imagination, the same as that practised by the T6.

[faithlilly]

If Madeleine had been seen say on the beach and a photo taken,   then the men observing the McCann apartment would be making sure that the person they had a photo of was the same child as the one in 5a.

I don't think that was a random burglar,   the woman said he was staring intently at her child and was watching the apartment in the afternoon,   then coincidently a man comes into her apartment,  into the room where her child was,   she sees him and he runs off.   This was weeks before Madeleine was taken.

Have we any evidence that anyone was watching Madeleine on the beach?Have we any evidence that anyone was watching Madeleine anywhere?

You don't think it was a random burglar, I do. So there we go.

[G-Unit]

If Madeleine had been seen say on the beach and a photo taken,   then the men observing the McCann apartment would be making sure that the person they had a photo of was the same child as the one in 5a.

I don't think that was a random burglar,   the woman said he was staring intently at her child and was watching the apartment in the afternoon,   then coincidently a man comes into her apartment,  into the room where her child was,   she sees him and he runs off.   This was weeks before Madeleine was taken.

There were no reports by the people caring for the children of anyone taking photos of children on the beach, but we can pretend it happened if you like. Then various men lurk in full view in broad daylight fixing their gaze on 5A for all to see. They take no notice of passer's by who sound like they cast curious looks at them, not even to the mother who drew her child away from one of them. Were they trying to be noticed, do you think? Speaking for myself I would have had difficulty distinguishing between two of those children if I had only seen a photo;

[G-Unit]

There is nothing illogical about my reasoning.  Did the Tapas group leave their kids unattended most nights of the holiday?  How difficult would it have been for an abductor intent on stealing a child to work this out, by day 6 of the holiday, either through observation, reconnaissance or tip-off?   I have also already conceded that maybe the abductor DIDN'T know that the children were unattended and entered the apartment on the off-chance, as has happened in other abductions and abduction attempts, also break-ins to the bedrooms of  children holiday makers on the Algarve.  I have said this all before on this thread so please don't claim again that I have not answered your question or get me to repeat it for the third time.

So you are now saying he didn't work it out just from seeing the parents in the restaurant? OK.

If he watched for six nights how long would he need to watch each night?

[Angelo222]

Are we back to that old potato again?

There is no evidence of any abduction from the apartment, good old forensics nipped that one in the bud.  All that is left is the claim by the McCanns that Maddie was left in the apartment at 8.30, seen by Gerry again at 9.15 and wasn't there when Kate decided to check them at 10.  Not a lot to go on eh?   In addition, nobody saw an abductor, no ransom demand has ever been made or at least nobody is admitting to having received one and no confirmed sightings of her in nearly 10 years.

What you are asking us to do is to throw common sense to the wind in favour of some totally unfounded claim.

The only plausible logical theory is that she got out and was lifted by someone.

[ferryman]

Are we back to that old potato again?

There is no evidence of any abduction from the apartment, good old forensics nipped that one in the bud.  All that is left is the claim by the McCanns that Maddie was left in the apartment at 8.30, seen by Gerry again at 9.15 and wasn't there when Kate decided to check them at 10.  Not a lot to go on eh?   In addition, nobody saw an abductor, no ransom demand has ever been made or at least nobody is admitting to having received one and no confirmed sightings of her in nearly 10 years.

What you are asking us to do is to throw common sense to the wind in favour of some totally unfounded claim.

The only plausible logical theory is that she got out and was lifted by someone.

What 'evidence' of abduction from the apartment would you expect?

[Lace]

There were no reports by the people caring for the children of anyone taking photos of children on the beach, but we can pretend it happened if you like. Then various men lurk in full view in broad daylight fixing their gaze on 5A for all to see. They take no notice of passer's by who sound like they cast curious looks at them, not even to the mother who drew her child away from one of them. Were they trying to be noticed, do you think? Speaking for myself I would have had difficulty distinguishing between two of those children if I had only seen a photo;

Well these men existed G Unit there are witnesses who saw them,  are you trying to say they are wrong? No they didn't take any notice of passers by even though they thought the man scary,   read the witnesses statements.

Similar child?   That is why they had to be certain.

[Lace]

Have we any evidence that anyone was watching Madeleine on the beach?Have we any evidence that anyone was watching Madeleine anywhere?

You don't think it was a random burglar, I do. So there we go.

Gale Cooper saw the bogus charity collector who came to her apartment,  following the children from the crech on the beach.   Why are you dismissing all this,  you don't know if someone was watching Madeleine or not,  the Police have to go with evidence and witnesses.