Why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible...

[Alfred R Jones]

This thread is to discuss the reasons why, when examining all the known facts of this case, abduction is neither probable nor plausible - can we please keep on topic, thanks!

[Mr Gray]

This thread is to discuss the reasons why, when examining all the known facts of this case, abduction is neither probable nor plausible - can we please keep on topic, thanks!

it obviously is probable and plausible...can anyone give a reason that it is not

[Alfred R Jones]

it obviously is probable and plausible...can anyone give a reason that it is not

That's what I'm asking.

[Alfred R Jones]

I wrote this on another thread, and in an attempt to bring this one back on topic I thought it would be helpful to repeat it here:

I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL.  It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm.  It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. 

Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?

[lordpookles]

That's what I'm asking.

I'll play devil's advocate.

1. The window being open is nonsensical.
2. Dogs woofing in the apartment.
3. The timeframe was extremely tight if you are following SY's Crimewatch timeline.
4. These types of abductions are extremley rare in Portugal. At least the available statistics seems to indicate this.
5. There would be easier children to snatch. Especially if you knew the parents/friends were back and forth and often as they say they were and an abductor was watching.
6. It is statistically speaking usually a family member or a close friend or someone who knew the child who is responsible.

Just some reasons off the top of my head. The trouble with this case is with no real clues how can we know? Sure I can imagine an opportunistic abductor darting in or opening the window and coaxing the girl over. It's happened before. I do agree that with the parents that dunnit angle it's hard to imagine how it could be done.

[Brietta]

If we look at the possibilities as to what happened to Maddie...look at all the facts then abduction is by a mile the most probable scenario...and SY seem to agree..

Despite all the bluster NO ONE has been able to come up with an a possible accident scenario......

No-one has been able to come up with any scenario at all which would fit with disposing of a child's body ... neither a plausible one nor an implausible one.

[Alice Purjorick]

As one does if discovering one's child has died after falling behind a couch the first thought that springs immediately to mind is to cover the death up and get all your friends to agree to be complicit.

Obvious is it not!!

Why would they have to be complicit?

[Alfred R Jones]

I'll play devil's advocate.

1. The window being open is nonsensical.
2. Dogs woofing in the apartment.
3. The timeframe was extremely tight if you are following SY's Crimewatch timeline.
4. These types of abductions are extremley rare in Portugal. At least the available statistics seems to indicate this.
5. There would be easier children to snatch. Especially if you knew the parents/friends were back and forth and often as they say they were and an abductor was watching.
6. It is statistically speaking usually a family member or a close friend or someone who knew the child who is responsible.

Just some reasons off the top of my head. The trouble with this case is with no real clues how can we know? Sure I can imagine an opportunistic abductor darting in or opening the window and coaxing the girl over. It's happened before. I do agree that with the parents that dunnit angle it's hard to imagine how it could be done.

Let's start with your first reason.

Why is the fact that the window was found open an indicator that abduction is an improbable and implausible theory?

[misty]

This has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Actually, it has. It is questioning whether the parents display acceptable post-traumatic personalities to render their abduction claim plausible.
The general consensus seems to be.......why does Mitchell still have to speak on their behalf?

[lordpookles]

The window point was rather a generalisation thrown out there as it's often an argument put forward to demonstrate the implausibility as per the despatches documentary and David Barclays comments. But ok, the reason imo it is implausible the window would be open is that there seriously would be no reason to open it. You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy and secondly no-one imo is going in and out of that window without leaving serious forensic traces. Even if those forensic traces are bootprints on the chair or bed to get out.

[Brietta]

Why would they have to be complicit?

Oh silly me ... is that not part and parcel of Mr Amaral's theory? ... I thought someone who agrees with it might be able to come up with a reason.
Obviously you do not deign to be that person.

[Alfred R Jones]

The window point was rather a generalisation thrown out there as it's often an argument put forward to demonstrate the implausibility as per the despatches documentary and David Barclays comments. But ok, the reason imo it is implausible the window would be open is that there seriously would be no reason to open it. You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy and secondly no-one imo is going in and out of that window without leaving serious forensic traces. Even if those forensic traces are bootprints on the chair or bed to get out.

So, in your opinion an abductor opening a window of the bedroom of his intended target is highly implausible and improbable?  If that is the case, then the only other explanation for the open window is that someone deliberately opened it to make it look like an abduction, yet if it is highly implausible for an abductor to open a window why would whoever staged the abduction open the window...? &%+((£

[Alfred R Jones]

The window point was rather a generalisation thrown out there as it's often an argument put forward to demonstrate the implausibility as per the despatches documentary and David Barclays comments. But ok, the reason imo it is implausible the window would be open is that there seriously would be no reason to open it. You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy and secondly no-one imo is going in and out of that window without leaving serious forensic traces. Even if those forensic traces are bootprints on the chair or bed to get out.

1) From your post - no reason to open a window - apart from to improve light levels, to keep a lookout, to communicate with other(s), to pass a child through.
2) You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy - and yet the twins slept through all the commotion that followed the alarm being raised. 
3)Serious forensic traces should have been left - maybe, maybe not, depends what the window was actually used for and how it was opened.  Also - can we be sure that the forensic examination was 100% thorough?

[lordpookles]

That's an easy one Alfred. Maybe it didn't matter if they did? What were tiny toddlers going to say to anyone especially as the window could have been opened at 10ish? Or maybe they knew the children would not wake? In fact it was obviously surprising they did not wake to both witnesses and indeed the parents.

Anyway, I'll let someone take over the helm of being a sceptic as I can't say that I feel too passionate about the job - you see I think the parents may be innocent whilst at the same time admitting I have my doubts. If there is a lack of information people tend to fill in the missing parts with their imagination....

[lordpookles]

1) From your post - no reason to open a window - apart from to improve light levels, to keep a lookout, to communicate with other(s), to pass a child through.
2) You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy - and yet the twins slept through all the commotion that followed the alarm being raised. 
3)Serious forensic traces should have been left - maybe, maybe not, depends what the window was actually used for and how it was opened.  Also - can we be sure that the forensic examination was 100% thorough?

To pass a child through - yeah makes sense. Also, in defence of the plausibility of abduction it could be that the front door was locked and they were too scared to exit via the patio door again as it was hairy getting in. The window argument is a point of debate though imo...