Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Vertigo Swirl]

Or they could just be lying about the whole window shutter business & the abduction.

That’s what you want to believe however that doesn’t help rule out an abduction on the basis that it is illogical or implausible.

[Wonderfulspam]

That’s what you want to believe however that doesn’t help rule out an abduction on the basis that it is illogical or implausible.

It does for me.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Entry via window is logical and plausible

Before or after Gerry notices the bedroom door is more open than he left it?

Before or after Matt's second check when the curtains were drawn and the shutters down?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It does for me.

That’s because you’re not thinking straight imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Before or after Gerry notices the bedroom door is more open than he left it?

Before or after Matt's second check when the curtains were drawn and the shutters down?

One or both of them could have been mistaken.  The door could have moved slightly when Gerry entered the apartment.  The window could have been open when Matt did his check, but he didn’t notice.  Plausible, logical explanations.

[Wonderfulspam]

That’s because you’re not thinking straight imo.

I'm thinking perfectly straight, the T9's statements & rogs are so terribly unreliable they can be dismissed as total bullshit.

Ta da! No abduction.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

One or both of them could have been mistaken.  The door could have moved slightly when Gerry entered the apartment.  The window could have been open when Matt did his check, but he didn’t notice.  Plausible, logical explanations.

It’s not plausible to believe Matt is mistaken about the curtains. Logic tells us that if scene hr witnessed was the same as what Kate found then it’s plausible and logical to expect him to at least return to the Tapas to comment on this striking situation. Instead he’s certain the curtains are drawn and the shutters are down. He describes to the UK Police that there weren’t any unusual draught. The plausible scenario is he returns to the Tapas Bar to report all is quiet.

[Wonderfulspam]

He even spent a few moments browsing the book shelf, whilst curtains never blew, doors never moved & all was quiet.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm thinking perfectly straight, the T9's statements & rogs are so terribly unreliable they can be dismissed as total bullshit.

Ta da! No abduction.

OK, dismiss their statements completely.  Now tell me why abduction is neither logical nor plausible. 

[Wonderfulspam]

OK, dismiss their statements completely.  Now tell me why abduction is neither logical nor plausible.

Because without statements there's no evidence.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

OK, dismiss their statements completely.  Now tell me why abduction is neither logical nor plausible.

Is that a serious question? You assert that the open window is evidence of abduction and now you want me to totally dismiss the evidence and still arrive at a plausible theory of abduction?!!!

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s not plausible to believe Matt is mistaken about the curtains. Logic tells us that if scene hr witnessed was the same as what Kate found then it’s plausible and logical to expect him to at least return to the Tapas to comment on this striking situation. Instead he’s certain the curtains are drawn and the shutters are down. He describes to the UK Police that there weren’t any unusual draught. The plausible scenario is he returns to the Tapas Bar to report all is quiet.

Did Matt enter the bedroom as Kate did?  Had he been in the apartment earlier that evening?  Are you accepting his statement as accurate and honest, if so do you accept his statement about the window being open after Kate raised the alarm as accurate also?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because without statements there's no evidence.

I thought you said there wasn’t any evidence anyway?  Dismiss all the Tapas 9 statements and then tell us why abduction is neither plausible nor logical.  You still have Jes Wilkins and the Tapas Staff statements to go by.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is that a serious question? You assert that the open window is evidence of abduction and now you want me to totally dismiss the evidence and still arrive at a plausible theory of abduction?!!!

yes. why not?

[Wonderfulspam]

I thought you said there wasn’t any evidence anyway?  Dismiss all the Tapas 9 statements and then tell us why abduction is neither plausible nor logical.  You still have Jes Wilkins and the Tapas Staff statements to go by.

I've dismissed the tapas statements so Maddie wasn't in the apartment at all.
No one saw her there.

She might not even have gone on holiday, or been born.