Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not all the doors! In this scenario she didn't close the bedroom window.... also she was known to wake and wonder.... could she have climbed up to the lounge window and then fell off the narrow sill, for example?

To her death you mean?  Inside the apartment or outside the apartment? Did her fall cause instant death?  If so that would have been highly unusual.  Was the lounge window not dusted for fingerprints, if so where were hers?  Did her parents have the presence of mind to think about removing them before the police got there?   Would you have Gerry as the person who found her?  Where did he hide the body?  When did he communicate her sudden death to his wife or do you think she still doesn’t know?  Do you think this scenario is more plausible than an abductor entering an unlocked apartment and removing the child in a few minutes?  If so why?

[Wonderfulspam]

Where has Wolters ever claimed concrete evidence of abduction.

You're right, he claimed concrete evidence Maddie is dead & that Brueckner killed her,  before later admitting Maddie might be alive & he has nothing solid.

Stop The Myths.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Maybe it's semantics but possible is one thing.... you don't need more than an educated guess to ascertain if something is possible.... but "plausible" tends to carry more weight. You are talking about something that was not only possible but probable. Death in the apartment, woke and wondered and abduction are all possible scenarios. To give an answer on  the plausibility of these scenarios you have to assess the evidence.So far I have not seen enough evidence to suggest an abduction was the probable scenario. Stranger abduction is very rare so with little direct evidence to support it I have no idea how you arrive at this being the probable explanation.

If stranger abduction is so rare then why would anyone ever consider it a plausible explanation for any missing person case where there was no evidence?   Do you seriously have “no idea” at all why anyone would consider stranger abduction to be a plausible, logical explanation in this case?  What evidence would you to expect to find in a case where a child is swiftly removed from an unlocked apartment and are you saying it is implausible and illogical to expect an abductor would not leave some sort of calling card of his visit?  Do most burglars leave clues as to their existence and / or identity?

[Eleanor]

Not all the doors! In this scenario she didn't close the bedroom window.... also she was known to wake and wonder.... could she have climbed up to the lounge window and then fell off the narrow sill, for example?

I think you will find that we have already done this one to death.  The blood behind the sofa wasn't that of Madeleine, but could have been the blood of the Tiler.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think you will find that we have already done this one to death.  The blood behind the sofa wasn't that of Madeleine, but could have been the blood of the Tiler.

Ah, so it’s more plausible that Madeleine fell off the sofa and bled to death I suppose.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There's no evidence of abduction either.

So are you saying that there is no plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance and that her disappearance defies logic? 

[Eleanor]

Ah, so it’s more plausible that Madeleine fell off the sofa and bled to death I suppose.

Don't forget the blood splatter all up the wall that wasn't blood.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Don't forget the blood splatter all up the wall that wasn't blood.

On the basis that children aged 4 falling off a sofa and dying instantaneously or bleeding to death from their injuries within 30 minutes is rarer than children being abducted by strangers I declare this theory implausible. IMO.

[G-Unit]

LOL, there is a big difference between plausible and probable.  Not once have I used the word probable and I am not asking you to consider abduction is probable, only plausible which is something no sceptic will ever admit to.   It’s plausible Claudia Lawrence was abducted despite there being no evidence of said crime, but not plausible that Madeleine was?  No one has been able to explain why not imo.

The Lawrence and McCann cases had different possibilities. Do you understand that?

[Lace]

Matt refutes this in his rogatory. He no longer says that the room is lit from outside, but says the light is coming from behind him (the lamp on the sofa):

 Now the room was, we talked also in the interviews about how light the room was and whether I could see the shutters, and I can't see the shutters because the curtains were shut and, they're similar curtains to the ones you've got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which his why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a questions of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet'.

4078 'So you weren't, just to clarify what you have said, you weren't conscious of any draught''

Reply 'Yeah'.

4078 'The curtains were drawn and weren't blowing around''

Reply 'Yeah'.

4078 'You weren't conscious of light coming through that window but the room was light enough for you to see into it''

Reply 'Yeah. I mean, the difficult thing about that is, when we talked about it afterwards, I agonised for whether it seemed as though there was light coming through the room. And I have to say my answer then was probably more accurate, in that, the room was lighter than I expected but I definitely didn't see the shutters up, the curtains were definitely not disturbed and the shutters would have had to have been completely up, I presume, not to get that sort of, because they were shutters that went solid but when you lifted them they had gaps of light, and I wasn't aware of that and it may well be that the light was just the source from behind'.

Thank you for your reply.

I do wonder when Matt says he got the impression of Green and Yellow.   How was that?   I remember Sadie saying that the street light may have turned the curtains a different colour,   that could have happened if the shutters were raised.  I doubt if the curtains would have a different colour due to the lamp lit outside the bedroom.   Matt says he couldn't say for sure if the shutters were open but the curtains were closed.   It probably wasn't windy when Matt did his check but when the wind did blow it opened the curtains.  IMO

[Lace]

I don't think other options have been eliminated. The PJ suspected her parents, but were unable to find evidence to charge them. That doesn't amount to eliminating them. An older child who could open doors and child gates would have been likely to have been trained to close doors and gates behind her to keep her younger siblings safe, so it wouldn't have been surprising had she done that. There's also a statement saying that the patio doors were left unlocked so she could get out.

I wouldn't expect an almost four year old to turn around on the steps outside in the dark and close a gate behind her.

[Eleanor]

Can we cut the personal, insulting add ons please?  Thank you.

[Wonderfulspam]

I wouldn't expect an almost four year old to turn around on the steps outside in the dark and close a gate behind her.

Why?

Was Maddie incapable of using gates?

[G-Unit]

So are you saying that there is no plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance and that her disappearance defies logic?

There are several plausible explanations, but not one which stands out. It has more in common with Ben Needham's case than with Claudia Lawrence's imo. The similarity is that both mothers have spent years claiming abduction. The difference is that the McCanns were able to mount a better campaign.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The Lawrence and McCann cases had different possibilities. Do you understand that?

I understand that both cases had their own individual sets of circumstances but what binds them together is the fact that in both cases a person disappeared without trace, no evidence whatsoever of where they went, or if they were taken against their will.  Nevertheless, in one case (Claudia's) people have no problem whatsoever with the theory that she was abducted (though she may have gone willingly, she may have gone off to start a new life with a secret lover,etc) but in the other case (Madeleine's) people believe that the idea that she was abducted is implausible and illogical because there is (according to them) no evidence that she was.  So - is evidence of abduction necessary to form an opinion on its plausibility or not? In one case yes, in one case no, it would seem.