Why Madeleine ?

[Benice]

As we don't know why Madeleine was taken we can only speculate as to the reasons. 
But then who knows what goes through the mind of someone so evil they could steal a child without any conscience. 

[AnneGuedes]

In a burglary-gone-wrong scenario (or even in a childless-couple one), she might have woken up and been ready to holler the place down. If so, that could have influenced the choice. I find it unlikely that he/she would then proceed to take one of the twins leaving behind a) a hollering child and b) who was old enough to provide a description.

That's what I thought in the very beginning : he took the child who could describe him. But then I was expecting they would find him (I thought of a lonesome soul) and find him around since he was walking.

[AnneGuedes]

Why not Amelie instead ?

Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.

I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.

Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.

Madeleine would obviously be a pain in the neck. As the carrier had no equipment he most likely knocked her out. But what when she recovered ? Deep and unbearable sorrow, even if well cared of. 
Amelie would cry and keep wanting her mummy, but well cared of she might have resisted.
We shouldn't forget a point : evil is a judgement, not a fact. This man, whatever he was and did, is a human being and tells us something about human nature.

[debunker]

Why not Amelie instead ?

Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.

I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.

Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.

Madeleine would obviously be a pain in the neck. As the carrier had no equipment he most likely knocked her out. But what when she recovered ? Deep and unbearable sorrow, even if well cared of. 
Amelie would cry and keep wanting her mummy, but well cared of she might have resisted.
We shouldn't forget a point : evil is a judgement, not a fact. This man, whatever he was and did, is a human being and tells us something about human nature.

Very good point, the last one.

In accord with my beliefs.

[Carana]

In a burglary-gone-wrong scenario (or even in a childless-couple one), she might have woken up and been ready to holler the place down. If so, that could have influenced the choice. I find it unlikely that he/she would then proceed to take one of the twins leaving behind a) a hollering child and b) who was old enough to provide a description.

That's what I thought in the very beginning : he took the child who could describe him. But then I was expecting they would find him (I thought of a lonesome soul) and find him around since he was walking.

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

No one noticed whoever walked off with a plasma TV from one of those apartments...

[AnneGuedes]

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.

[Carana]

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.

Why would they?

Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.

[AnneGuedes]

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.

Why would they?

Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.

Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.

[Carana]

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.

Why would they?

Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.

Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.

I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?

There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.

[AnneGuedes]

Well on this we don't agree ! No drama !
The Smith carrier, nevertheless, couldn't but come from a larger part of the street with lots of discreet and dark spaces for cars. Why would he park his car close to an illuminated area with cafés, restaurants and bars ?

[DevilsAdvocate]

So, disappointingly there are no other inciteful reasonings why Madeleine as opposed to Amelie ?

[Redblossom]

I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?

There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.

Why would a car be waiting  a ten minute walk away from 5a  for the Smith carrier? Makes no sense whatsoever Carana.

[DCI]

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.

Why would they?

Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.

Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.

I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?

There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.

There is another car park, in the direction Jane saw this person walking in. It is on the road just past another apartment block.

[DevilsAdvocate]

He could have taken her to a nearby car.

What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.

Why would they?

Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.

Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.

I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?

There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.

There is another car park, in the direction Jane saw this person walking in. It is on the road just past another apartment block.

Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !

[Redblossom]

This is all of course pure speculation, where the alledged abduxtor stood, watched, where cars were or were not parked and waiting as there is no evidence of an abduction, not in any amber alert way or any other, no hard evidence of an abduction, no witnesses to Madeleine being taken