Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Vertigo Swirl]

You missed out the garden gate & child gate, plus avoiding being seen by any of that swarm of tourists wandering around, which you always suggest there were whenever Smithman is concerned.

Probably best to time a reconstruction rather than plucking numbers out of the air.

Yeah, because it takes absolutely ages to open a garden gate.  No need to avoid the swarms of tourists if there's a car waiting for you a short walk from the apartment.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It could have been during his 9pm check

But also it should be kept in mind that there were no independent witnesses to Maddie's presence in the apartment after 6:30,  if you're generous & count Dr Payne as independent.

That leaves a three & half hour window in which anything could have happened.

So you're ruling out an accident that happened when one or both parents were there then?  But this is off topic - the thread is about the abduction theory being neither plausible or logical remember?

[Wonderfulspam]

Yeah, because it takes absolutely ages to open a garden gate.  No need to avoid the swarms of tourists if there's a car waiting for you a short walk from the apartment.

My mistake, you never mentioned the waiting car that nobody witnessed either.

[Vertigo Swirl]

My mistake, you never mentioned the waiting car that nobody witnessed either.

I didn't say there definitely was one, but as the chief suspect had a car then it is not unreasonable to suggest that he may have used it to carry out the abduction.  We are discussing a theory remember?  In any case two witnesses did see a dark coloured saloon in the near vicinity that evening.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Indeed, if you exclude Payne & McCann, when was the last time that Madeleine was seen at all ?

Are you one of those "Death Before 3rd of Mayers"?

[Wonderfulspam]

I didn't say there definitely was one, but as the chief suspect had a car then it is not unreasonable to suggest that he may have used it to carry out the abduction.  We are discussing a theory remember?  In any case two witnesses did see a dark coloured saloon in the near vicinity that evening.

Oh well that's quite surprising really because it's not often you see cars on public roads.

Could be significant.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oh well that's quite surprising really because it's not often you see cars on public roads.

Could be significant.

Right, so car as a get away vehicle can't be ruled out, thanks.

[Wonderfulspam]

Right, so car as a get away vehicle can't be ruled out, thanks.

Well if we're just imagining evidence now I believe Maddie was taken by rickshaw to a waiting hovercraft.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well if we're just imagining evidence now I believe Maddie was taken by rickshaw to a waiting hovercraft.

That's really stupid for 2 reasons.  1) rickshaws are not commonly used in PdL 2) neither are hovercrafts.  Cars howver (as you rightly point out) are quite common and it's not unreasonable to suggest (a theoretical) one may have been used by a (theoretical) abductor to remove the child from the vicinity.  Your posts are utterly facetious and trollish by the way but I expect your fan club finds them quite amusing.

[Wonderfulspam]

That's really stupid for 2 reasons.  1) rickshaws are not commonly used in PdL 2) neither are hovercrafts.  Cars howver (as you rightly point out) are quite common and it's not unreasonable to suggest (a theoretical) one may have been used by a (theoretical) abductor to remove the child from the vicinity.  Your posts are utterly facetious and trollish by the way but I expect your fan club finds them quite amusing.

I wonder if he had a getaway driver sat keeping the theoretical motor white hot?

Well, we don't have any evidence of that.

What we do have however, is evidence from a family that saw a man carrying a child closely matching Madeleine's description not far from the apartment at around the time Maddie was 'allegedly' found to be missing.

So, there's good chance the abductors car broke down.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wonder if he had a getaway driver sat keeping the theoretical motor white hot?

Well, we don't have any evidence of that.

What we do have however, is evidence from a family that saw a man carrying a child closely matching Madeleine's description not far from the apartment at around the time Maddie was 'allegedly' found to be missing.

So, there's good chance the abductors car broke down.

Yes, it's a possibility the abductor never even had a car, quite right, but that would mean he took a risk walking through the centre of town where he would have known there was a good chance of being seen by one or more people.  However, if we consider the behaviour of CB for example, he is known for taking risks, such as masturbating in front of children when there parents are within eyesight of their kids, so perhaps that was part of the thrill, the risk of being caught. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes, it's a possibility the abductor never even had a car, quite right, but that would mean he took a risk walking through the centre of town where he would have known there was a good chance of being seen by one or more people.  However, if we consider the behaviour of CB for example, he is known for taking risks, such as masturbating in front of children when there parents are within eyesight of their kids, so perhaps that was part of the thrill, the risk of being caught.

It still seems questionable to me that Maddie slept solidly whilst a stranger abducted her, carrying her out of the cosy apartment into the tundra, but saying that, maybe Brueckner had already murdered her by then & took her body away to hide the evidence, once he'd taken some photos of her that Wolters now has.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It still seems questionable to me that Maddie slept solidly whilst a stranger abducted her, carrying her out of the cosy apartment into the tundra, but saying that, maybe Brueckner had already murdered her by then & took her body away to hide the evidence, once he'd taken some photos of her that Wolters now has.

No I don't think that's likely.  Firstly, we know that children can be removed from their beds without waking up - there was even a video clip posted on here recently which showed just such an abduction occurring in which the child remained asleep.  He was taken away and murdered elsewhere.  Secondly, there is no tundra in PdL.  The evening temperature may have been cool, but it was not icy - this was Portugal in May, not Vladivostok in January.

[G-Unit]

He entered the apartment through the patio doors,  in the documentary he says they came in through the patio doors so that they didn't disturb the children opening the front door.

He seems oblivious to the fact that his wife was uneasy about leaving those patio doors unlocked on Thursday 3rd May.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well this thread has had a fair bit of interest to day though admittedly most of the posts have been off topic and/or trolling but so far we’ve had only one reason put forward for why abduction is neither plausible nor logical and that was “not enough time “.  How much time would therefore be needed to facilitate this theoretical scenario?  and is it true that there was virtually no point at all in the 90 minutes available when there wasn’t a member of the Tapas group in or right next to Apartment 5a?  I thought these parents were supposedly super neglectful yet the argument seems to be the abduction couldn’t have happeened because they were hovering about the apartment virtually all the time.