Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Because without statements there's no evidence.

It looks to me like Vertigo Swirl has finally realised that the only way to make abduction plausible and logical is to "totally dismiss" the Tapas group witness testimony.

Now surely logic tells us without this testimony there is also no evidence of abduction as you quite rightly point out.

[Wonderfulspam]

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?

Matt gave 3 versions.

He settled on not seeing the window open after Kate's check.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever actually read the statements.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It looks to me like Vertigo Swirl has finally realised that the only way to make abduction plausible and logical is to "totally dismiss" the Tapas group witness testimony.

Now surely logic tells us without this testimony there is also no evidence of abduction as you quite rightly point out.

Well that’s a turn up for the books.  For years we’ve been told there’s no evidence of abduction and now you’re telling us that the Tapas group testimony is evidence of abduction!  Amazeballs.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Matt gave 3 versions.

He settled on not seeing the window open after Kate's check.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever actually read the statements.

I am aware of that and I wasn’t asking you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

And you think THAT’S plausible or logical?  What about all the people who gave statements about Madeleine who weren’t the Tapas Group?  Are they all in on this amazing con trick?

[Wonderfulspam]

And you think THAT’S plausible or logical?  What about all the people who gave statements about Madeleine who weren’t the Tapas Group?  Are they all in on this amazing con trick?

None of them could verify Madeleine's presence in the apartment on May 3rd.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Well that’s a turn up for the books.  For years we’ve been told there’s no evidence of abduction and now you’re telling us that the Tapas group testimony is evidence of abduction!  Amazeballs.

I'm certainly not. I'm pointing out that if you accept all their statements then abduction become implausible and illogical.

As for "evidence" of abduction all we have is an open window and raised shutters and furthermore it is plausible to believe the shutters were opened from the inside in the normal way. There is no forensic evidence to suggest they were forced, damaged or jemmied from the outside. There's also no evidence of anyone climbing through the window carrying a child.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm certainly not. I'm pointing out that if you accept all their statements then abduction become implausible and illogical.

As for "evidence" of abduction all we have is an open window and raised shutters and furthermore it is plausible to believe the shutters were opened from the inside in the normal way. There is no forensic evidence to suggest they were forced, damaged or jemmied from the outside. There's also no evidence of anyone climbing through the window carrying a child.

I accept all their statements as each individual’s version of events as they experienced them, and as retrieved from their memories.  I accept that they mesh together imperfectly for that reason and IMO for that reason alone), because I am a reasonable person who understands multiple witnesses give multiple accounts of the same experiences.  You have so far been unable to explain why it is not plausible or logical that at some point that evening (probably after 9.30pm but before 10pm imo) Madeleine was abducted.  Good night, and I look forward to reading your convincing argument explaining exahow absurd my opinion is in the morning.

[G-Unit]

Only one witness claims that at 10pm the window, curtains and shutters in the children's bedroom were all open and a child had disappeared. It's very important, therefore, that this witness is reliable. Two other witnesses have made statements which contradict other aspects of this witness's testimony;

When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true... it is not true that a crib was in her room or in a room other than Madeleine's.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

The statements of the other witnesses are here;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I accept all their statements as each individual’s version of events as they experienced them, and as retrieved from their memories.  I accept that they mesh together imperfectly for that reason and IMO for that reason alone), because I am a reasonable person who understands multiple witnesses give multiple accounts of the same experiences.  You have so far been unable to explain why it is not plausible or logical that at some point that evening (probably after 9.30pm but before 10pm imo) Madeleine was abducted.  Good night, and I look forward to reading your convincing argument explaining exahow absurd my opinion is in the morning.

Well we are making good progress! We've now managed to knock half an hour off your time frame for a plausible and logical abduction. We need to go back to the how to examine the plausible and logical abduction theory. The one piece of evidence is the open window. I don't believe it is plausible that the shutters were the entry point since we have established by an independent witness that they were opened from the inside. Why go in through the unlocked patio doors but leave via the window? If that is the scenario you want me to comment on I personally would argue it isn't logical and not really plausible. Just about possible, yes, but the lack of any evidence to suggest such an exit makes it implausible to me.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

the window wasn’t locked so it would be possible to open it from the outside.

Where is your evidence that is wasn't locked? And locked or unlocked how do you reach the door handle through a closed window? How also do you manage this without leaving forensic signs of a break in? Again this is not a plausible explanation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well we are making good progress! We've now managed to knock half an hour off your time frame for a plausible and logical abduction. We need to go back to the how to examine the plausible and logical abduction theory. The one piece of evidence is the open window. I don't believe it is plausible that the shutters were the entry point since we have established by an independent witness that they were opened from the inside. Why go in through the unlocked patio doors but leave via the window? If that is the scenario you want me to comment on I personally would argue it isn't logical and not really plausible. Just about possible, yes, but the lack of any evidence to suggest such an exit makes it implausible to me.

IMO the window could have been used to leave the apartment because the abductor did not want to risk bumping in to the next person coming in to do a check, but actually I think it’s more likely they opened the window either to liaise with an accomplice or to check that the street was empty before leaving vis the front door.   Both scenarios entirely logical and plausible IMO, now tell me why they are not.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Where is your evidence that is wasn't locked? And locked or unlocked how do you reach the door handle through a closed window? How also do you manage this without leaving forensic signs of a break in? Again this is not a plausible explanation.

Who is suggesting you need to reach a door handle through a closed window?  You question doesn’t make sense to me.  I have no evidence the window wasn’t locked, but there again there is no evidence it was locked, making it a possibility IMO.  But as I have stated before, it’s not my opinion that the abductor entered via the window (but it can’t be ruled out).

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Who is suggesting you need to reach a door handle through a closed window?  You question doesn’t make sense to me.  I have no evidence the window wasn’t locked, but there again there is no evidence it was locked, making it a possibility IMO.  But as I have stated before, it’s not my opinion that the abductor entered via the window (but it can’t be ruled out).

It’s good that you don’t share the entry via the window scenario. My reference to the handle is that if a window is closed securely you need to access the handle on the inside to open it. The alternative is to force or Jemmie it open. This though tends to generate forensic evidence of forced entry. I’m with you entry via the window is of course possible it’s just not very plausible in this case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s good that you don’t share the entry via the window scenario. My reference to the handle is that if a window is closed securely you need to access the handle on the inside to open it. The alternative is to force or Jemmie it open. This though tends to generate forensic evidence of forced entry. I’m with you entry via the window is of course possible it’s just not very plausible in this case.

Do you ever sleep?  Off topic I know but I’m concerned that you may not be getting the requisite 7 hours.