Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[barrier]

When I lived there there were two policemen for 3 islands. They did have a car though, one of those Austin 1100's.

That takes me back .

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I already gave two plausible and logical reasons for opening the window which you either missed or ignored.   No forensic evidence found neither proves nor disproves any particular theory.

Have you tried climbing into a house through a closed window without leaving any evidence? Last time I did it I fell back and my foot went through a plastic garden table …. And then there was all the hand and boot marks on the glass and frame. Getting out with a child in arms passed very limited space and standing on a bed or chair without leaving any evidence is nigh on impossible imo and why do that risky exit when you know the door behind you is open? It doesn’t make sense.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Have you tried climbing into a house through a closed window without leaving any evidence? Last time I did it I fell back and my foot went through a plastic garden table …. And then there was all the hand and boot marks on the glass and frame. Getting out with a child in arms passed very limited space and standing on a bed or chair without leaving any evidence is nigh on impossible imo and why do that risky exit when you know the door behind you is open? It doesn’t make sense.

Do me a favour - read back my posts and stop erecting strawmen all over the place. 

[Mr Gray]

Have you tried climbing into a house through a closed window without leaving any evidence? Last time I did it I fell back and my foot went through a plastic garden table …. And then there was all the hand and boot marks on the glass and frame. Getting out with a child in arms passed very limited space and standing on a bed or chair without leaving any evidence is nigh on impossible imo and why do that risky exit when you know the door behind you is open? It doesn’t make sense.

I dont think anyone here  thinks an abductor took Maddie out  through the window

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Do me a favour - read back my posts and stop erecting strawmen all over the place.

Was it someone saying the window was open to start with? So who shut it before Matt's check? By the way can anyone remember if the  bedroom window opened inwards, outwards or slid to the side?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was it someone saying the window was open to start with? So who shut it before Matt's check? By the way can anyone remember if the  bedroom window opened inwards, outwards or slid to the side?

I don’t know what you’re on about inyour first two wuestions, I simply asked you to stop pretending that I had claimed the window was definitely the entry or exit point of the (theoretical) abductor.  The window slides I believe.

[Brietta]

I don’t know what you’re on about inyour first two wuestions, I simply asked you to stop pretending that I had claimed the window was definitely the entry or exit point of the (theoretical) abductor.  The window slides I believe.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone asserting that

(a)  the window was the entry point for the kidnapper or
(b)  the window was the point of exit for the kidnapper carrying the child

At least it does seem to indicate a general acceptance that the room was found as Kate described it at her check and that has to be progress of a kind.

I am somewhat intrigued at this sceptic insistence and invention ~ still ~ nowt as queer as folk and what I take to be their transparently disruptive tactics.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I dont think anyone here  thinks an abductor took Maddie out  through the window

So out through the patio door? And all you abduction proponents agree then?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I don’t know what you’re on about inyour first two wuestions, I simply asked you to stop pretending that I had claimed the window was definitely the entry or exit point of the (theoretical) abductor.  The window slides I believe.

There's no strawman from me. You are asking about the plausibility and logic of an abduction theory. So can you confirm what you believe was the most logical and plausible entry and exit point assuming you still believe Madeleine was still alive after 9:30pm and assuming you believe the abduction was from 5A?

[Vertigo Swirl]

There's no strawman from me. You are asking about the plausibility and logic of an abduction theory. So can you confirm what you believe was the most logical and plausible entry and exit point assuming you still believe Madeleine was still alive after 9:30pm and assuming you believe the abduction was from 5A?

I believe I already did so on this thread, but hey, it’s not for me to tell you what I believe - that’s not what this thread is about.  It’s for you to tell me in very simple terms why a young child simply could not be removed from an unlocked groundfloor apartment by a stranger whilst her parents were sat outside having dinner nearby.

[G-Unit]

I already gave two plausible and logical reasons for opening the window which you either missed or ignored.   No forensic evidence found neither proves nor disproves any particular theory.

Reasons which seem logical and plausible to you don't necessarily seem so to others.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12172.msg659765#msg659765
"liaise with an accomplice" suggests an accomplice was hanging around outside. If I was an abductor I would find it much more logical to open the front door if I needed to liaise with an accomplice. As it was recessed it would be less noticeable, reaching it would have been easier and it wouldn't have made any noise.

"check that the street was empty before leaving vis the front door." Peeping out of the door would be better than raising noisy shutters, it's easier to access and there's no risk of attracting attention by curtains blowing in the breeze, giving time to get away.

For those reasons I don't think an abductor would have seen it as either logical or plausible to pick his way past the cots and open the curtains, window and shutters. Opening the door would have been better; no risk of wakening the three children by opening the window and communicating with an accomplice and/or easy to exit once the child was picked up.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Reasons which seem logical and plausible to you don't necessarily seem so to others.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12172.msg659765#msg659765
"liaise with an accomplice" suggests an accomplice was hanging around outside. If I was an abductor I would find it much more logical to open the front door if I needed to liaise with an accomplice. As it was recessed it would be less noticeable, reaching it would have been easier and it wouldn't have made any noise.

"check that the street was empty before leaving vis the front door." Peeping out of the door would be better than raising noisy shutters, it's easier to access and there's no risk of attracting attention by curtains blowing in the breeze, giving time to get away.

For those reasons I don't think an abductor would have seen it as either logical or plausible to pick his way past the cots and open the curtains, window and shutters. Opening the door would have been better; no risk of wakening the three children by opening the window and communicating with an accomplice and/or easy to exit once the child was picked up.

If I was the abductor and had already tried thr front door from the outside I would assume it may be locked from the inside, therefore entering the kids’ bedroom and opening the window would give me a quick means of escape should I hear someone entering the apartment.  Also IMO it is quicker and easier to hand a child out of the window to someone on the otherside than try and open the front door whilst carrying a child, and certainly more easy to communicate with an accomplice than leaving the room to go and liaise via the front door.  That said I certainly do not preclude the idea that that is indeed what happened.  Both are plausible and logical IMO.  I also certainly don’t rule out the idea that the abductor worked alone.  I also don’t rule out the idea that the abductor opened the window and shutters from the inside and then thought better of exiting via this route and used the door instead.  There are various entirely plausible and logical reasons why having entered the apartment an abductor may have chosen to open the window.   It’s not overly unusual for intruders to use windows of houses to either gain entry and /or leave a building imo.

[G-Unit]

If I was the abductor and had already tried thr front door from the outside I would assume it may be locked from the inside, therefore entering the kids’ bedroom and opening the window would give me a quick means of escape should I hear someone entering the apartment.  Also IMO it is quicker and easier to hand a child out of the window to someone on the otherside than try and open the front door whilst carrying a child, and certainly more easy to communicate with an accomplice than leaving the room to go and liaise via the front door.  That said I certainly do not preclude the idea that that is indeed what happened.  Both are plausible and logical IMO.  I also certainly don’t rule out the idea that the abductor worked alone.  I also don’t rule out the idea that the abductor opened the window and shutters from the inside and then thought better of exiting via this route and used the door instead.  There are various entirely plausible and logical reasons why having entered the apartment an abductor may have chosen to open the window.   It’s not overly unusual for intruders to use windows of houses to either gain entry and /or leave a building imo.

It's obvious to me that one person's opinion of what is logical and plausible may not match the opinion of another person. In my opinion opening the curtains, window and shutters would have been too risky, in yours it makes sense. Therefore our opinions about which theory explaining Madeleine's disappearance is logical and plausible are likely to differ.

What is clear to me is that the open window and shutters cannot, without corroborating evidence, be used as evidence of an abduction.

[Eleanor]

Let's face it, there is no evidence of abduction.  Unless you've got more than half a brain.

[barrier]

Let's face it, there is no evidence of abduction.  Unless you've got more than half a brain.

Yet Wolters doesn't go down the road of his suspect taking Madeleine out of 5a, major sticking point imo.