Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Brietta]

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.

I don't think it is a matter of opinion or less than intelligent discussion.

The police work to provide evidence.  It is not for them to 'prove' anything.  But it is obvious that following the evidence the BKA - SY - PJ have Brueckner firmly in their sights as the prime suspect in Madeleine's abduction.

I think that alone nullifies puzzling about which angle the bedroom door was at or how far the curtains were blown into the room.

Maybe now would be the time for toning down on the slurs the McCanns have suffered and allow logic to take over instead.

[barrier]

I don't think it is a matter of opinion or less than intelligent discussion.

The police work to provide evidence.  It is not for them to 'prove' anything.  But it is obvious that following the evidence the BKA - SY - PJ have Brueckner firmly in their sights as the prime suspect in Madeleine's abduction.

I think that alone nullifies puzzling about which angle the bedroom door was at or how far the curtains were blown into the room.

Maybe now would be the time for toning down on the slurs the McCanns have suffered and allow logic to take over instead.

How was Madeleine removed from 5a, Wolters hasn't declared his suspect took her out of there.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Opening the window was too risky but

1) entering an apartment unlawfully isn't?
2) stealing children or possessions from it isn't?
3) breaking into an old woman's house and spending hours there torturing and raping her isn't?
4) masturbating in front of children while their parents are in the near vicinity isn't?

or if you prefer

1) carrying the body of a dead child through town isn't?
2) Perpetuating a massive fraud and cover up isn't?
3) involving one or more of your friends and family in said massive fraud and cover up isn't?

Yes, what is considered "too risky" is a matter of opinion, and I think opening a window is the least of it.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

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.

That would be “possible” of course but only “plausible” in certain circumstances as you agree. For example you’ve already ruled out 8:20pm. Later, and excuse me if I’m wrong you talked about a plausible time frame being narrowed down to between 9:30 and 10pm. Later still you asked if  I could disregard all witness testimony to make it plausible!! And then the patio doors open / windows closed then open add another layer that makes it nigh on implausible to create an abduction scenario that fits witness testimony. I’m not talking about it fitting with all the inconsistencies because of course they are normal. I’m talking shutters closed at 9:35 and open at 10 etc. Entry via unlocked doors is certainly possible and plausible, exit via the window much less so!! Amaral considered what he was faced with. He writes about it in his book. The parents have also publicly spoken about the scene many times.

[Eleanor]

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

Wolters has never said Brueckner took Madeleine out of 5a and he's never said he didn't.

[Brietta]

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

Wolters doesn't have to do that.  I think the trail of evidence Wolters followed to make Brueckner the prime suspect didn't require selfies of him exiting the apartment carrying Madeleine ~ in fact perhaps no-one yet knows how the abduction was carried out.

Was Brueckner the carrier or did Brueckner pass the child to the carrier.  That is something we may never know.  Sufficient that the police have evidence which implicates him in what is a horrendous crime.

I have seen it said elsewhere that among the evidence Wolters may have could be Brueckner's phone.  They did turn up the number pretty damn quick when you think about it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Wolters doesn't have to do that.  I think the trail of evidence Wolters followed to make Brueckner the prime suspect didn't require selfies of him exiting the apartment carrying Madeleine ~ in fact perhaps no-one yet knows how the abduction was carried out.

Was Brueckner the carrier or did Brueckner pass the child to the carrier. That is something we may never know.  Sufficient that the police have evidence which implicates him in what is a horrendous crime.

I have seen it said elsewhere that among the evidence Wolters may have could be Brueckner's phone.  They did turn up the number pretty damn quick when you think about it.

Don't forget about the watchers & the getaway driver.

I'm throwing another one into the mix, The Planner, he was the criminal mastermind behind it all.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I don't think it is a matter of opinion or less than intelligent discussion.

The police work to provide evidence.  It is not for them to 'prove' anything.  But it is obvious that following the evidence the BKA - SY - PJ have Brueckner firmly in their sights as the prime suspect in Madeleine's abduction.

I think that alone nullifies puzzling about which angle the bedroom door was at or how far the curtains were blown into the room.

Maybe now would be the time for toning down on the slurs the McCanns have suffered and allow logic to take over instead.

I’m not slurring the McCanns. CB might have killed Madeleine inside the apartment hence the alerts and we have to fit his alleged crime with the forensic evidence otherwise he’d not be convicted. The forum is here to discuss what we know and to rationalise what might have happened to poor Madeleine McCann.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That would be “possible” of course but only “plausible” in certain circumstances as you agree. For example you’ve already ruled out 8:20pm. Later, and excuse me if I’m wrong you talked about a plausible time frame being narrowed down to between 9:30 and 10pm. Later still you asked if  I could disregard all witness testimony to make it plausible!! And then the patio doors open / windows closed then open add another layer that makes it nigh on implausible to create an abduction scenario that fits witness testimony. I’m not talking about it fitting with all the inconsistencies because of course they are normal. I’m talking shutters closed at 9:35 and open at 10 etc. Entry via unlocked doors is certainly possible and plausible, exit via the window much less so!! Amaral considered what he was faced with. He writes about it in his book. The parents have also publicly spoken about the scene many times.

You are slightly misrepresenting what I wrote yet again - I did not say disregard the witness testimony in order to make abduction plausible - only that you seem to believe they cannot be relied upon, so don't - just rely on witness statements that you do consider reliable (presumably everyone else that was a witness to the events at the OC that evening). 
So the shutters we are told were closed at 9.35pm (but by a witness who may or may not be reliable) and we are told that the shutters and window were open at 10pm (but by a witness who may or may or not be reliable).  So let's suspend scepticism for a brief moment and accept that both witnesses were correct and telling the truth.  What can we deduce from the information they are telling us?  Could an abduction plausibly have occurred between those two times, or can it be ruled out on the grounds that....well I don't know, you tell me.

[Eleanor]

I’m not slurring the McCanns. CB might have killed Madeleine inside the apartment hence the alerts and we have to fit his alleged crime with the forensic evidence otherwise he’d not be convicted. The forum is here to discuss what we know and to rationalise what might have happened to poor Madeleine McCann.

It takes at least 90 minutes before a corpse leaks cadaver odour.

[Wonderfulspam]

Don't forget about the watchers & the getaway driver.

I'm throwing another one into the mix, The Planner, he was the criminal mastermind behind it all.

Then there was The Caterer.

Someone had to keep the gang fed.

[Anthro]

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.

Unless you are a skilled burglar (?)

[Wonderfulspam]

Was Brueckner a skilled burglar?

Not really if he got caught for it.

I never got caught for drug dealing, so I guess I'm a skilled dealer.

[Brietta]

I’m not slurring the McCanns. CB might have killed Madeleine inside the apartment hence the alerts and we have to fit his alleged crime with the forensic evidence otherwise he’d not be convicted. The forum is here to discuss what we know and to rationalise what might have happened to poor Madeleine McCann.

I've seen no evidence in your posts of your denial.  Nor is there a shred of evidence supporting your conjecture.  Nor do I think your posts evidence the slightest interest in Madeleine's best interests.

I think your posts do evidence that you hold the same interests as a pack of weird people who the more harm they can inflict on Madeleine's family and on hindering the investigation in every which way they can the better they like it.

You know nothing about evidence let alone forensic evidence and you have no locus in 'rationalising' anything.  The professionals who know about these things will do that.  We should be mere spectators in someone else's life and really should not try to be the movers and shakers as some have been doing for over fourteen years.

[Wonderfulspam]

Brueckner wasn't skilled at rape, hence the reason he's doing time for it.

Nor was he skilled at child molestation, since he got caught for that too.

He even done time for dealing.

The only skill Brueckner has is cartoon drawings by the looks of it.