Abduction ... what is the evidence ?

[icabodcrane]

What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on  ?

[Eleanor]

What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on  ?

Logistics.

[icabodcrane]

What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on  ?

Logistics.

I'm really interested in what evidence exists to lead people into thinking the missing child was abducted

[icabodcrane]

There is no forensic evidence that we know of which confirms an abduction but it's the ONLY plausible exlanation when all is said and done.  It's also the conclusion of the Scotland Yard review team as we already know. 

Two independent sets of witnesses saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of PdL at around the time Madeleine was taken.  Nobody has ever come forward to say it was he who was seen by JT / The Smiths.  It's the strongest circumstantial evidence in my opinion, but there is other stuff such as the spate of break-ins, the suspicious looking people seen around the resort in the days leading up to the abduction, etc.  I also find it uncomfortably coincindental that 2 young girls have both disappeared without trace from the same spar..ly populated area of the world within a couple of years of each other.  What are the odds of that happening I wonder?   

I believe the Scotland Yard review is still in progress,  and a remark made by Inspector Redwood a year ago cannot be presented as a conclusion 

Thankyou for the additional information you base your opinion on  (  that Madeleine was abducted )  ...  not  evidence  as such  ...  more a case of  'she must have been abducted because there is no other explanation'

Speculation really  then ?

[Carana]

There is no forensic evidence that we know of which confirms an abduction but it's the ONLY plausible exlanation when all is said and done.  It's also the conclusion of the Scotland Yard review team as we already know. 

Two independent sets of witnesses saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of PdL at around the time Madeleine was taken.  Nobody has ever come forward to say it was he who was seen by JT / The Smiths.  It's the strongest circumstantial evidence in my opinion, but there is other stuff such as the spate of break-ins, the suspicious looking people seen around the resort in the days leading up to the abduction, etc.  I also find it uncomfortably coincindental that 2 young girls have both disappeared without trace from the same spar..ly populated area of the world within a couple of years of each other.  What are the odds of that happening I wonder?   

Have you ever worked out what happened to the missing hairs taken by the PT forensic police and which never seem to have been received by the PT forensic lab? There were 10 markers on the bed indicating where the hairs were, but only 4 received by the lab.

A total mystery to me...

[Rachel Granada]

What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on  ?

Hello, icabodcrane - this is a good point which I'm sure will make for some interesting debate.  I go with the sightings of a man seen carrying a child, neither of whom have ever come forward if I am not mistaken? I also have a theory that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, and been hit by a car - driver had been drinking, panics and takes her away for burial.  Apologies if this sounds gruesome, or takes the thread off topic.  Just adding my thoughts to the mix.

[debunker]

All possibilities need to be considered. The Portuguese Prosecutor did this with full access to the evidence, and concluded that there was no evidence to indicate any crime.

People who insist on abduction are speculating above their pay grade.
People who deny abduction are speculating above their pay grade.

All options remain unproved and un-disproved.

Really the end of any rational and productive argument.

Speculation generally is a waste of time. Speculation that it was the McCans is a waste of time and a tort in law (defamation) and potentially a criminal offence (harrassment).

[icabodcrane]

What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on  ?

Hello, icabodcrane - this is a good point which I'm sure will make for some interesting debate.  I go with the sightings of a man seen carrying a child, neither of whom have ever come forward if I am not mistaken? I also have a theory that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, and been hit by a car - driver had been drinking, panics and takes her away for burial.  Apologies if this sounds gruesome, or takes the thread off topic.  Just adding my thoughts to the mix.

Hi Rachel

Your theory,  that Madeleine may have woken and wandered  ( and met some sad fate )  actually has more supporting evidence  than the abductor theory 

We have evidence, for instance that Madeleine was prone to waking up at night  (  the star chart at home )  and thatb she had woken several times during the holiday in Portugal  ...  when Gerry says she had gotten into their bed one night saying her sister had woken her up,  when Mrs Fenn says she heard two children crying for over an hour,  and again when Kate says Madeline asked her in the morning why she hadn't come when she and Sean were crying the night before   ...  so three out of five nights she had woken

Plenty of supporting evidence there, then,  to the suggestion that she may have woken again on that fateful night

As to the  'wandering'  part of your theory,  again it is supported by evidence, in as much as we know the patio doors had been left unlocked,  and it  was certainly  possible  for Madeleine to have left the apartment that night,  looking for mum and dad

[gilet]

And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.

As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.

An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.

The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).

I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.

As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.

It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.

[icabodcrane]

And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.

As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.

An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.

The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).

I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.

As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.

It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.

We are all,  indeed,  speculating about what may have happened to cause  a three year old to disappear

I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted  could be based on

[Rachel Granada]

What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on  ?

Hello, icabodcrane - this is a good point which I'm sure will make for some interesting debate.  I go with the sightings of a man seen carrying a child, neither of whom have ever come forward if I am not mistaken? I also have a theory that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, and been hit by a car - driver had been drinking, panics and takes her away for burial.  Apologies if this sounds gruesome, or takes the thread off topic.  Just adding my thoughts to the mix.

Hi Rachel

Your theory,  that Madeleine may have woken and wandered  ( and met some sad fate )  actually has more supporting evidence  than the abductor theory 

We have evidence, for instance that Madeleine was prone to waking up at night  (  the star chart at home )  and thatb she had woken several times during the holiday in Portugal  ...  when Gerry says she had gotten into their bed one night saying her sister had woken her up,  when Mrs Fenn says she heard two children crying for over an hour,  and again when Kate says Madeline asked her in the morning why she hadn't come when she and Sean were crying the night before   ...  so three out of five nights she had woken

Plenty of supporting evidence there, then,  to the suggestion that she may have woken again on that fateful night

As to the  'wandering'  part of your theory,  again it is supported by evidence, in as much as we know the patio doors had been left unlocked,  and it  was certainly  possible  for Madeleine to have left the apartment that night,  looking for mum and dad

Hi icabodcrane - some thought-provoking points from you there.  I must admit that I have really considered the woke, wandered, met with an accident theory.  But that's all it is of course - a theory.  At the end of the day, none of us know what happened on that fateful night of course.  I am pinning my hopes on the Scotland Yard Review turning up something that may lead to Madeleine being found.

[gilet]

And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.

As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.

An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.

The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).

I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.

As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.

It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.

We are all,  indeed,  speculating about what may have happened to cause  a three year old to disappear

I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted  could be based on

The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.

Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.

[icabodcrane]

And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.

As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.

An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.

The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).

I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.

As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.

It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.

We are all,  indeed,  speculating about what may have happened to cause  a three year old to disappear

I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted  could be based on

The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.

Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.

I think this needs to be clarified

The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw  the same  man carrying a child that night

There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the  same  man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later  ...  indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute  gap between the two,   suggests they were  not  the same man  (  unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms ) 

This one belongs on the myth thread I think

[gilet]

And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.

As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.

An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.

The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).

I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.

As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.

It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.

We are all,  indeed,  speculating about what may have happened to cause  a three year old to disappear

I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted  could be based on

The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.

Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.

I think this needs to be clarified

The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw  the same  man carrying a child that night

There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the  same  man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later  ...  indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute  gap between the two,   suggests they were  not  the same man  (  unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms ) 

This one belongs on the myth thread I think

Were did I mention Jane Tanner?

I said "witnesses to an unexplained man".  You are leaping to conclusions there I fear.

However, now you have mentioned Jane Tanner, that is a second reason to believe in a potential abduction.

There are two separate incidents reported of men carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine disappeared both within one hour or so of that disappearance.

Until those two separate claims are fully explained then they remain as evidence of a potential abduction.

[icabodcrane]

And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.

As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.

An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.

The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).

I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.

As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.

It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.

We are all,  indeed,  speculating about what may have happened to cause  a three year old to disappear

I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted  could be based on

The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.

Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.

I think this needs to be clarified

The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw  the same  man carrying a child that night

There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the  same  man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later  ...  indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute  gap between the two,   suggests they were  not  the same man  (  unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms ) 

This one belongs on the myth thread I think

Were did I mention Jane Tanner?

I said "witnesses to an unexplained man".  You are leaping to conclusions there I fear.

However, now you have mentioned Jane Tanner, that is a second reason to believe in a potential abduction.

There are two separate incidents reported of men carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine disappeared both within one hour or so of that disappearance.

Until those two separate claims are fully explained then they remain as evidence of a potential abduction.

Men seen  'carrying away a child  ?

That is not factual, is it ?

Two men were seen carrying a child that night  ...  in itself not noteworthy at all  ...  in the context of a child having gone missing that night,  of significance/interest, certainly  (  but not,  in any way  'evidence'  of an abduction )

Your statement that both men were walking away from the area where Madeleine disappeared is also entirely speculative  ...  the man seen by the Smith family was seen some distance away from the McCann apartment,  and could have been coming from any direction