So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm not lying about that   

 

"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[pathfinder73]

"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Yes there's many things not possible in this case - moving doors, no screaming heard, raising noisy shutters and opening a window that was not used and was in full view of anybody present in the car park.

[patb]

There are people on this forum who have a much better background knowledge on this to mine. But if we add the word "independent" to my earlier question ie "what  independent admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)", I am not aware of any. That, of course, does not mean it didn't happen. Is there any? I am open on all theories but I have seen many many articles, threads etc that simply have assumed an abduction (and therefore excluded all other theories) and, on this basis, I ask the question.

[John]

There are people on this forum who have a much better background knowledge on this to mine. But if we add the word "independent" to my earlier question ie "what  independent admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)", I am not aware of any. That, of course, does not mean it didn't happen. Is there any? I am open on all theories but I have seen many many articles, threads etc that simply have assumed an abduction (and therefore excluded all other theories) and, on this basis, I ask the question.

You are correct Pat, there is no specific evidence which can lead one to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted.  Likewise the woke and wandered and the accidental death hypotheses are also similarly lacking any specific credible evidence.  This is why the mystery has endured for seven years so far.

[Mr Gray]

There are people on this forum who have a much better background knowledge on this to mine. But if we add the word "independent" to my earlier question ie "what  independent admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)", I am not aware of any. That, of course, does not mean it didn't happen. Is there any? I am open on all theories but I have seen many many articles, threads etc that simply have assumed an abduction (and therefore excluded all other theories) and, on this basis, I ask the question.

3 possibilities..

stranger abduction
maddie walked out
parents involved


Taking all the evidence into account I would say stranger abduction is almost certainly what happened...Im not sure maddie could open that heavy sliding patio door...

fatal accident ...off the scale unlikely then cover up...same...then fraudulent fund...then begging for case to be re opened etc...parents not involved...imo

[patb]

 so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards  it?

[Brietta]

so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards  it?

Hi Path, welcome to the forum.

I was in the process of answering your last post ~ but you were too fast for me.  I think you are right to point out that we can't really be certain about anything to do with Madeleine's case and some of us do hold very entrenched views on both sides of the argument.

There is so much misinformation about that it is probably quite difficult for those of us without ‘insider’ information to reach a conclusion. 

However those who do have access to all the information on Madeleine’s disappearance don’t have that inhibition. 

There was sufficient ‘new’ evidence for the PJ to reopen the case at the end of 2013.
Which followed on the Met decision that there was a raft of information that merited further investigation leading to their reopening of the case.

Neither the PJ nor the Met considered the Drs McCann to be persons of interest and are keeping them informed about developments. 

That confirms ~ IMO ~ that both law enforcement agencies are working on stranger abduction.

[Mr Gray]

so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards  it?

It isn't important to me what other posters think...many people think the world is six thousand years old...what's more important surely is what SY think...and they are investigating  a stranger abduction with the parents declared not suspects

[Benice]

so how can words like "almost certainly" be used when other forum members agree that there is no specific evidence to point to abduction? how can any theory be "almost certain" with no specific evidence to point towards  it?

IMO 'no specific evidence was found' is a more accurate description. That doesn't mean none ever existed.  Surely it can't be ignored that evidence which may have been present was destroyed because of the amount of traffic in 5A before it was cordonned off  - and also because of the the shortcomings admitted by Amaral himself in the recovery of forensics.

And what happened to the hairs found which IIRC according to Carana were not mentioned again after they were sent off to the lab?    I believe there were also unidentified partial fingerprints.






 

[pathfinder73]

It isn't important to me what other posters think...many people think the world is six thousand years old...what's more important surely is what SY think...and they are investigating  a stranger abduction with the parents declared not suspects

The police work in the art of deception.

[Mr Gray]

The police work in the art of deception.

so when amaral said they were involved...he meant they were not involved...dreamer

[pathfinder73]

so when amaral said they were involved...he meant they were not involved...dreamer

Maybe they read the Art of War.

37. By altering his arrangements and changing his plans, he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge. By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes, he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose.

[Victoria]

The police work in the art of deception.

No they dont, not in real life.

[stephen25000]

So here's one for the mccann supporters.

Why on the news broadcasts won't they tell the viewers that the mccanns left their children in unlocked accommodation, whilst they went out to wine and dine for several successive nights ?

Surely you all want the truth to be told ?   

[a.baker]

Sorry,but IF abduction,why does it have to have been carried out by a stranger?