Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Vertigo Swirl]

This thread exists because, as you've often posted, you think the abduction theory is not just logical and plausible, but more so than any other theory. In my opinion the theory which best fits that description is that Madeleine left the apartment through the patio doors in search of her parents.

According to the evidence there was crying on the previous evening and Madeleine asked her parents on the morning of the 3rd where they were. As she was perfectly capable of looking for them, having done so on the Tuesday, it's fair to assume she did that on Wednesday and couldn't find them.

What they did in response, acccording to Fiona Payne, was to decide to leave the patio doors unlocked. The aim being;

"if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us" (Rogatory interview)

It seems to me to be logical to assume that in order for that to work Madeleine needed to know two things; that her parents were at the Tapas resaurant and that the patio doors were unlocked so she could get out and fetch them if there was crying. It's also logical to assume that the child gate was either left open, or they knew that she was capable of opening and closing it. Otherwise there was no point in leaving the patio doors unlocked.

There's never been a definitive answer as to when the patio doors of 5A were left unlocked, but Fiona Payne ertainly got the impression that Thursday May 3rd was the first time;

"it just strikes me, in awful retrospect, that, you know, Kate, I think, had done something that she wasn't quite happy with, in leaving the doors unlocked. And that is something again that she is going to beat herself up about for a long time to come because, you know, you, you like think that you acted on your instincts and I think her instinct was that that was something she wasn't really happy to do'." (Rogatory interview)

It seems unlikely that Kate would be unhappy about leaving the patio doors unlocked if she'd been doing it all week.

How does "Madeleine leaving the apartment after 8.30pm" fit in with the dog alerts then, or do you agree that they are likely a red herring?  Because you can't have Madeleine dying in the apartment and Madeleine wandering off out of the apartment after 8.30pm, being returned to the apartment to die and disappearing by 10pm to leave enough time for cadaver odour to develop. 

Incidentally, you have completely deflected from the thread which asks specifically what is implausible and illogical about the abduction theory.

[G-Unit]

I'm afraid this whole thing is a matter of faith - just like religion
We have believers and non-believers

There are those who are willing to have faith in God or in other people, but I'm not one of them. As Bertrand Russell said; "We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence...We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-auto-6

[Vertigo Swirl]

There are those who are willing to have faith in God or in other people, but I'm not one of them. As Bertrand Russell said; "We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence...We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-auto-6

Off topic, by a country mile.  If you want to debate faith and religion start a new thread about it elsewhere.  This one is to discuss why the abduction theory in neither plausible nor logical.

[G-Unit]

Off topic, by a country mile.  If you want to debate faith and religion start a new thread about it elsewhere.  This one is to discuss why the abduction theory in neither plausible nor logical.

I'd be more interested in discussing why it's described as logical and plausible.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'd be more interested in discussing why it's described as logical and plausible.

I bet you would, but as this thread is to discuss why it is not (something you yourself have claimed) perhaps you'd like to share your reasons for arriving at this conclusion?

[Mr Gray]

I'd be more interested in discussing why it's described as logical and plausible.

Im sure you would as youve mafe a statement and cant back it up it seems

[G-Unit]

I bet you would, but as this thread is to discuss why it is not (something you yourself have claimed) perhaps you'd like to share your reasons for arriving at this conclusion?

Means and motive are unknown, and the opportunity is extremely limited;

if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Brietta]

Means and motive are unknown, and the opportunity is extremely limited;

if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Who has claimed the abductor exited through the window.

[Wonderfulspam]

Who has claimed the abductor exited through the window.

The McCanns via Clarence Mitchell.

"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."

[Eleanor]

Who has claimed the abductor exited through the window.

No one.  But Madeleine could very easily have been passed through.

[Wonderfulspam]

No one.  But Madeleine could very easily have been passed through.

She more likely passed on.

[Wonderfulspam]

No one. But Madeleine could very easily have been passed through.

& Yes, no one, apart from the McCanns official spokesman.

[Lace]

That depends if the doors were locked or not.

How can we be certain the doors were left unlocked?

Didn't Matt say he went in through the unlocked patio doors?

[Wonderfulspam]

Didn't Matt say he went in through the unlocked patio doors?

At around 9.30....

Maybe Gerry unlocked them when he left after his check, bearing in mind he entered the apartment using a key, in McCanns abduction story version 1.

[Lace]

Matt never verified Maddie's presence in the apartment.

David Payne at around 6:30 never noticed Kate was dressed only in a towel, he claims to have entered the apartment, Kate claims he stood at the door.

I think David Payne might have stepped into the apartment.   David Payne probably looked away when he saw that Kate had been having a shower,  he may have seen something white but couldn't say if it was a towel or not.   You can pick holes in these statements but it all comes down to Madeleine being taken from the apartment. IMO