Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Nothing you have posted answers my question. Could you give me one example... Anywhere in the world... Ever... Which would match the situation amaral thinks maddie died from.
I can  give you plenty of stranger abductions.

That makes the accident t theory totally implausible

The fact is that "head injury is the commonest cause of death and disability in people aged 1–40 years in the UK" (NICE). I presume the figure is similar in Portugal. In a hypothetical scenario if an unsupervised toddler fell from a window sill onto a tiled floor there is a good chance this would cause loss of consciousness. A toddler's head is much bigger in ratio to the rest of the body compared to an adult. Therefore the risks of toppling head first become greater in toddlers. An unconscious child (or adult) is at great risk of being unable to maintain their own airway. When we anaesthetise a patient we maintain their airway with various adjuncts as soon as consciousness is lost. In hospital there are protocols for managing "difficult airway" situations when the first line adjuncts fail. Oxygen saturation in the blood falls very rapidly (especially in children). If an airway hasn't been made patent in about 3-4 minutes we would have to perform a cricothyrotomy and introduce a tracheostomy tube and then ventilate the patient on 100% oxygen. If the airway is fully obstructed and no-one is present to make any basic airway maintenance manoeuvres then the resultant hypoxia would lead to cardiac arrest in about 5-6 minutes. Despite head injury (and not rare stranger abduction) being the "commonest cause of death and disability in people aged 1-40 years in the UK I would suggest the reason that the mortality rate isn't higher after such injuries is because most toddlers are not left unsupervised. It's quite fanciful to pretend that rare stranger abduction is more common than accidental head trauma. Don't take my word for it. Write to your local Anaesthetic Dept and ask them which is more common accidental head injury or stranger abduction, and then ask what are the potential consequences of accidental head trauma.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The same source I posted earlier:

Where do accidents happen?

The largest number of accidents happen in the living/dining room.3 However, the most serious accidents happen in the kitchen and on the stairs. Every year more than 67,000 children experience an accident in the kitchen - 43,000 of these are aged between 0-4 years; 58,000 children have accidents on the stairs.3
When do accidents happen?

    Most happen between late afternoon and early evening, in the summer, during school holidays and at weekends
    Factors such as stress, death in the family, chronic illness, homelessness or moving home increase the likelihood of the child having an accident
    Some happen when the usual routine is changed or when people are in a hurry
    Distractions and inadequate supervision are often the cause of accidents
    Poor housing and overcrowded conditions lead to increased numbers of accidents
    Some accidents are caused by lack of familiarity with surroundings, for example, when visiting friends or relatives, or in holiday accommodation.


Cost of children's accidents

It is difficult to give a true cost of treating children's accidents as outpatients and inpatients but in the past it has been estimated at more than £275 million a year. It can cost as much as £250,000 to treat one severe bath water scald. 11

This figure does not reflect the long-term costs of prolonged treatment and rehabilitation or the cost of pain suffering to the patient. Nor does it reflect the lifetime disfigurement or disability and the financial loss to the patient and family or work hours lost caring for an injured child.

Who is at risk?

    0-4-year-olds have the most accidents at home.
    Boys are more likely to have accidents than girls.

Childhood injuries are closely linked with social deprivation. Children from poorer backgrounds are five times more likely to die as a result of an accident than children from better off families - and the gap is widening.

Why do children have accidents?

Because children are often absorbed in their own immediate interests they can be oblivious to their surroundings. They only have a limited perception of the environment because of their lack of experience or development. They are not aware of the consequences of the many new situations that they encounter daily.

Small stature

This may prevent a child from seeing above an obstruction or being seen by an adult.
Inquisitiveness

Curiosity and a spirit of adventure may lead a child into danger.

Bravado and horseplay

Boys are particularly prone to showing off and over reaching their abilities, especially among friends. Many accidents are caused by horseplay involving pushing, shoving and wrestling.

Stress

Tensions at home and emotional upsets caused by temper, jealousy and over excitement may cause a child to run blindly into danger. Such action may even be deliberate to seek attention.

Inexperience

A child's interpretation of a situation may be inaccurate and adults looking after small children should be aware not to expect too much of them.

Inadequate supervision

Children need constant supervision. Medicines, pills and toxic substances should be locked away and fires and stairs should be guarded.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

From the Melbourne Children's Hospital:

Head and neck injuries

Young children, with relatively large heads and underdeveloped musculature sustain higher proportions of isolated head injuries than older children. Traumatic Brain Injury is the leading cause of death in paediatric trauma patients. Young children are also more likely to injure their upper C-spine region (as opposed to the lower C-spine in adults) for the same reason - however due to the types of accidents they have cervical spine injury is rare in childen.  Spinal cord injuries are relatively uncommon in the paediatric trauma patient – however, children less than 8 may be susceptible to SCIWORA (spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality).

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Cardiac Arrest and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Wanchun Tang, Max Harry Weil, in Critical Care Medicine (Third Edition), 2008
Airway and Ventilation

In an unconscious patient, the normal muscle tone that typically maintains the jaw in an elevated position is lost. The tongue is likely to descend into the pharynx and align itself with the epiglottis, obstructing the airway.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Dear oh dear, such desperation to prove a point.  If children dying of massive head trauma is such a common occurrence in the home you should be able to find dozens of news reports detailing them.  Please cite some of those which occurred as a result of a fall causing instant or near instant death, from a window sill, piece of furniture or short fall such as from the height of the Apartment balcony.

[Vertigo Swirl]

An interesting analysis of falls by children from windows and balconies looking at over 100 incidents.  The most interesting aspect is the last sentence IMO
RESULTS
Overview
For the three years of the investigation, 108 children <15 years of age were seen in emergency departments for injuries due to falls from buildings. Ninety eight of these were residents of Dallas County (annualized rate: 6.2 per 100 000 Dallas County children age 0–14 years). Ages were known for 97 injured children, and ranged from 1 to 12 years (mean 2.7 years). The highest rate of these fall related injuries occurred in children 0–4 years (15.6 per 100 000), and was considerable lower in 5–9 years (1.5 per 100 000) and 10–14 years (0.8 per 100 000) (table 1). Fifty seven children (58%) were male. Rates of injuries were not significantly different by race or ethnicity (table 1). Seventy four of the cases (76%) were seen at the Children’s Medical Center of Dallas, which had the only pediatric emergency department the Dallas area. Thirty nine (40%) were admitted to a hospital; 56 (57%) were treated in the emergency department and released, and three (3%) were treated in the emergency department but information about whether they were admitted was unknown. Hospital admissions ranged from one to nine days, with a mean and median of two days. Two children had rehabilitation treatment after discharge from a hospital. No child died.

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/349

Bumping for Billy.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Anyway all of this belongs in the “Amaral’s Book Is A Load of Cobblers Because…” this one is about rubbishing the abduction theory, which is neither plausible nor logical because….

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Anyway all of this belongs in the “Amaral’s Book Is A Load of Cobblers Because…” this one is about rubbishing the abduction theory, which is neither plausible nor logical because….

His book isn't an attempt to rubbish an abduction theory. It is none of the scenarios he investigated. The book is his account of the investigation of the evidence in front of him. The fact remains that accidental head injury is common . in the home and certain factors increase the risk - not least the lack of adult supervision. It is actually the leading cause of death in young people.No-one is claiming that most accidents lead to death. It's a possibility however particularly if the child loses consciousness and is unsupervised.

Amaral's issue with an abduction (a scenario he himself lists as one of three possible scenarios) is that, apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory. There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wonder at night.

None of this evidence proved anything - but then neither did the evidence of abduction. The case remains unsolved. However, it would be remiss for any detective faced with the evidence above not to dismiss parental involvement so, as UK Police describe. to at least "clear the ground from under their feet".

[Eleanor]

His book isn't an attempt to rubbish an abduction theory. It is none of the scenarios he investigated. The book is his account of the investigation of the evidence in front of him. The fact remains that accidental head injury is common . in the home and certain factors increase the risk - not least the lack of adult supervision. It is actually the leading cause of death in young people.No-one is claiming that most accidents lead to death. It's a possibility however particularly if the child loses consciousness and is unsupervised.

Amaral's issue with an abduction (a scenario he himself lists as one of three possible scenarios) is that, apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory. There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wonder at night.

None of this evidence proved anything - but then neither did the evidence of abduction. The case remains unsolved. However, it would be remiss for any detective faced with the evidence above not to dismiss parental involvement so, as UK Police describe. to at least "clear the ground from under their feet".

Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog.

The Gaspars disagreed.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog.

The Gaspars disagreed.

Eddie was trained to alert to cadaver odour.

The Tapas Seven disagreed too.

[Eleanor]

Eddie was trained to alert to cadaver odour.

The Tapas Seven disagreed too.

Eddie was later trained to react to Pig Odour.

[Mr Gray]

Eddie was trained to alert to cadaver odour.

The Tapas Seven disagreed too.

And to blood...and ee dont know whst else

[Wonderfulspam]

And to blood...and ee dont know whst else

Not abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

His book isn't an attempt to rubbish an abduction theory. It is none of the scenarios he investigated. The book is his account of the investigation of the evidence in front of him. The fact remains that accidental head injury is common . in the home and certain factors increase the risk - not least the lack of adult supervision. It is actually the leading cause of death in young people.No-one is claiming that most accidents lead to death. It's a possibility however particularly if the child loses consciousness and is unsupervised.

Amaral's issue with an abduction (a scenario he himself lists as one of three possible scenarios) is that, apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory. There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wonder at night.

None of this evidence proved anything - but then neither did the evidence of abduction. The case remains unsolved. However, it would be remiss for any detective faced with the evidence above not to dismiss parental involvement so, as UK Police describe. to at least "clear the ground from under their feet".

The fact is no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible, logical account of parental involvement, and if you try to put one together around the premise that Madeleine died in a fall between checks then that is definitely not plausible for reasons already discussed.  Your claim that the reason why there are so few examples (actually so far none found) of children dying in the home from falls (either instantly or within the time frame we are talking about) is because most children are supervised is utterly laughable, especially when you compare the number of child neglect cases in this country to the number of stranger abductions.  25,000 child neglect cases in 2019 and you'd think at least one or two of those cases would have resulted in instant or near instant death from a fall in the home  but as I say - no reports, no examples, nothing so far found in years of online news reporting worldwide. 

As for Amaral re-read what I said - I didn't say his book was an attempt to rubbish the abduction theory though clearly he gives no time to seriously considering it from Day One if his book is an accurate reflection of his opinion.   Does Amaral explain why abduction is implausible and illogical?  I think he gave it a go when he made some absurd claim that it was impossible to break into the apartment (the apartment was unlocked anyway!) and that the dogs proved a corpse lay in the apartment (no they didn't) - apart from that can you, he or anyone finally and definitively explain why abduction can be discounted as an implausible, illogical theory to explain Madeleine's disppearance?  The answer I would suggest is a big fat "NO you can't".

[Wonderfulspam]

The fact is no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible, logical account of parental involvement, and if you try to put one together around the premise that Madeleine died in a fall between checks then that is definitely not plausible for reasons already discussed.  Your claim that the reason why there are so few examples (actually so far none found) of children dying in the home from falls (either instantly or within the time frame we are talking about) is because most children are supervised is utterly laughable, especially when you compare the number of child neglect cases in this country to the number of stranger abductions.  25,000 child neglect cases in 2019 and you'd think at least one or two of those cases would have resulted in instant or near instant death from a fall in the home  but as I say - no reports, no examples, nothing so far found in years of online news reporting worldwide. 

As for Amaral re-read what I said - I didn't say his book was an attempt to rubbish the abduction theory though clearly he gives no time to seriously considering it from Day One if his book is an accurate reflection of his opinion.   Does Amaral explain why abduction is implausible and illogical?  I think he gave it a go when he made some absurd claim that it was impossible to break into the apartment (the apartment was unlocked anyway!) and that the dogs proved a corpse lay in the apartment (no they didn't) - apart from that can you, he or anyone finally and definitively explain why abduction can be discounted as an implausible, illogical theory to explain Madeleine's disppearance?  The answer I would suggest is a big fat "NO you can't".

"The fact is no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible, logical account of parental involvement"

That's an opinion.