Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Mr Gray]

It isn't, and never has been, about 'trying to stitch up the McCanns' for me. It's about finding out what happened to a child who disappeared fourteen years ago by looking at the evidence without any preconceptions.

The evidence given by the McCanns and their friends raises questions, but they're not the only ones whose evidence does that. As far as I know none of those whose statements suggested that the alarm was raised before 10pm were reinterviewed, not even the receptionist who claimed he called the police before 10pm. The tennis coach said that the evening tennis activity on 3rd May ended at 19:00, but it was alleged he played until at least 19:30. This was never confirmed.

You seem to think you are the only one looking at the evidence without any preconceptions.
When I look at the evidence.. For many reasons it's clear the parents are not involved. Its also highly unlikely Maddie woke and wandered... Wasn't seen by anyone andd closed the patio doors and all other gates etc behind her.

If Maddie could have left the apt unseen by anyone then logically an abductor could too

[Vertigo Swirl]

It isn't, and never has been, about 'trying to stitch up the McCanns' for me. It's about finding out what happened to a child who disappeared fourteen years ago by looking at the evidence without any preconceptions.

The evidence given by the McCanns and their friends raises questions, but they're not the only ones whose evidence does that. As far as I know none of those whose statements suggested that the alarm was raised before 10pm were reinterviewed, not even the receptionist who claimed he called the police before 10pm. The tennis coach said that the evening tennis activity on 3rd May ended at 19:00, but it was alleged he played until at least 19:30. This was never confirmed.

IMO, your problem is that by focusing on the minutiae and finding small discrepancies in witness statements you are giving them far more significance than they merit and failing to see the bigger picture.  I expect you think you're being hugely observant and clever noticing these discrepancies but what you seem incapable of doing is understanding that such minor discrepancies are entirely to be expected and are not evidence of guilt, more evidence of the fallibility of human memory.  Once you finally face up to that and accept it you may find you come to the conclusion that actually stranger abduction is both highly logical and eminently plausible.

[Mr Gray]

IMO, your problem is that by focusing on the minutiae and finding small discrepancies in witness statements you are giving them far more significance than they merit and failing to see the bigger picture.  I expect you think you're being hugely observant and clever noticing these discrepancies but what you seem incapable of doing is understanding that such minor discrepancies are entirely to be expected and are not evidence of guilt, more evidence of the fallibility of human nature.  Once you finally face up to that and accept it you may find you come to the conclusion that actually stranger abduction is both highly logical and eminently plausible.

The problem is people cant face up to the fact they have been wrong for many years

[Eleanor]

The problem is people cant face up to the fact they have been wrong for many years

But what made them think they were right in the first place?

[Wonderfulspam]

The wheels really have come off the sceptic bus since OG & Wolters disclosed all the irrefutable abduction evidence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The wheels really have come off the sceptic bus since OG & Wolters disclosed all the irrefutable abduction evidence.

The wheels came off the sceptic trolley many years ago, it must be terribly galling to know that all those years of bitching and finger pointing has proven completely fruitless. 

[G-Unit]

The problem is people cant face up to the fact they have been wrong for many years

My opinions may be wrong, but it's not a problem imo if they are. It seems to be a problem to those who don't share my opinions, but why that is I don't know. Some seem exasperated because I don't share their opinion of what is logical and plausible, others because I don't agree with their definition of evidence and others seem determined to see my views as morally reprehensible or libellous.

I think we're all entitled to our own opinions and we should all accept that and stop the sniping and accusations. In my opinion there are no intellectually or morally superior people posting here, they just think they are.

[Wonderfulspam]

The wheels came off the sceptic trolley many years ago, it must be terribly galling to know that all those years of bitching and finger pointing has proven completely fruitless.

Well yes.

It's long since been proven Maddie was abducted, hasn't it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well yes.

It's long since been proven Maddie was abducted, hasn't it.

best you go tell Operation Grange and the BKA of their mistake then, eh?

[Wonderfulspam]

best you go tell Operation Grange and the BKA of their mistake then, eh?

No, I wouldn't want to interrupt all their hard work, they're going to nail Christian Brueckner any day now.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No, I wouldn't want to interrupt all their hard work, they're going to nail Christian Brueckner any day now.

Fingers crossed!

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

No we don’t, you just need to explain why it is neither plausible nor logical that Madeleine was abducted.

Because to show it is logical you have to answer when. For example, if you believe Madeleine McCann you was abducted at 8:20pm I would tell you that is illogical and implausible.

The how is also important. If you assert the abductor climbed through the window to access the apartment before opening the shutters and window from the inside I would tell you that is illogical and implausible.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because to show it is logical you have to answer when. For example, if you believe Madeleine McCann you was abducted at 8:20pm I would tell you that is illogical and implausible.

The how is also important. If you assert the abductor climbed through the window to access the apartment before opening the shutters and window from the inside I would tell you that is illogical and implausible.

I believe she was abducted between 9.00pm and 10pm.  Now tell me why abduction is neither logical nor plausible.

[Wonderfulspam]

I believe she was abducted between 9.00pm and 10pm.  Now tell me why abduction is neither logical nor plausible.

Gerry checked at 9:05 according to his statement, so you can rule out 9:00-9:05.

Plus, Gerry was in the apartment for a few minutes, so that makes it closer to 9:10 when he left the apartment & spoke to Jez for a further 3-5 minutes, if we trust the statements, which we cant because witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable.

Also, Dr Totman & Jane walked close to the front of the apartment around what would now be 9:15 & neither of them saw an abductor.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Gerry checked at 9:05 according to his statement, so you can rule out 9:00-9:05.

Plus, Gerry was in the apartment for a few minutes, so that makes it closer to 9:10 when he left the apartment & spoke to Jez for a further 3-5 minutes, if we trust the statements, which we cant because witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable.

Also, Dr Totman & Jane walked close to the front of the apartment around what would now be 9:15 & neither of them saw an abductor.

Gerry reckoned it was possible the abductor was already in the apartment when he entered.  It can’t be ruled out IMO.