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

[Alfred R Jones]

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....

OK, well thanks for making an attempt at addressing the thread.  Personally, I think that giving an open window as a reason for why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible is a pretty poor one....

[Alfred R Jones]

Lord Pookles reasons 2 & 3 for why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible are:

2. Dogs woofing in the apartment.
3. The timeframe was extremely tight if you are following SY's Crimewatch timeline.

leaving the dogs for the time being (done to death on numerous other threads) and focusing on reason 3:

The Met have forensically examined the timeline and have stated that they believe there was a window of opportunity for an abduction to have occurred.  In other words they have confirmed that abduction by a stranger is a plausible theory.  It may be a tight window of opportunity but that does not mean abduction is implausible or improbable, in my opinion (or that of the Met's apparently!)

[Alfred R Jones]

Lord Pookles reason 4 why abduction theory is both improbable and implausible

4. These types of abductions are extremely rare in Portugal. At least the available statistics seems to indicate this.

Yes, this is true, not just of Portugal but of most countries, that is not a solid reason for ruling out an abduction though.  It is extremely rare for a child to be abducted from their baths whilst a parent is in the house or for a girl to be raped and murdered in a dormitory in which her fellow classmates slept but both events occurred. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Reason 5

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.

Which children were easier to snatch and why? 

[Alice Purjorick]

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:

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

The time span you quote is incorrect. The slot is 21:05 ish to 22:00 ish. Gerry made a check at 21:05 and saw Madeleine. Given that MO made a check at 21:30 via the patio gate it is becoming a bit more like 21:35 to 22:00. Andy Redwood said that the deffing out of Tannerman as the abductor increased the timeline, one wonders what he meant.
I have asked this before and never had a thought out reasoned response:
For the child to be abducted the paths of the child and abductor must cross; therefore the child left the apartment or the abductor gained entrance. There would appear to be no incontrovertible evidence that either happened.
Unless one goes all xenophobic and "Johnny Foreigner rozzer is a dullard" it is difficult to comprehend why the police would not have investigated and possibly eliminated all the obvious options for both possible occurrences?
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
 

[Alfred R Jones]

Reason 6

6. It is statistically speaking usually a family member or a close friend or someone who knew the child who is responsible.

Statistics are not a very good reason for discounting a theory, but if you insist - what ARE the statistics for child abduction?  None available for Portugal but these are recent(ish) from the UK

It highlighted a Home Office report from 2004, which looked at 798 police reports of child abduction in England and Wales. Just over half (399) were attempted abductions. Out of the 798 reports, 56% (447) involved a stranger, 47% (375) were attempted abductions by a stranger and 9% (72) of all reports were successful child abductions by a stranger; 23% (183) of all reported abductions were parental. Those parental reports are only counted as a child abduction by police if the children are taken abroad.

If we look at murders of children in the year 2007/8 in the UK (most recent figures I could find) 52 out of 63 deaths were committed by someone known to the victim.  That leaves 11 stranger murders in that year, nearly one a month, so whilst rare, not unheard of.  Certainly not rare enough to make abduction and murder implausible. 

[Alfred R Jones]

The time span you quote is incorrect. The slot is 21:05 ish to 22:00 ish. Gerry made a check at 21:05 and saw Madeleine. Given that MO made a check at 21:30 via the patio gate it is becoming a bit more like 21:35 to 22:00. Andy Redwood said that the deffing out of Tannerman as the abductor increased the timeline, one wonders what he meant.
I have asked this before and never had a thought out reasoned response:
For the child to be abducted the paths of the child and abductor must cross; therefore the child left the apartment or the abductor gained entrance. There would appear to be no incontrovertible evidence that either happened.
Unless one goes all xenophobic and "Johnny Foreigner rozzer is a dullard" it is difficult to comprehend why the police would not have investigated and possibly eliminated all the obvious options for both possible occurrences?
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.

Is 21:35 to 22.00 not sufficient time for a child abduction to take place then, in your opinion?

[Brietta]

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...

Perhaps there was never an intention to use the window for anything other than an escape route should the need arise.

(a)  slide the shutter up and open the window as demonstrated on various videos 
(b)  enter via front door using a key 
(c)  enter bedroom, lift child from the bed 
(d)  exit the apartment by the front door carrying the child
(e)  carry the child to a vehicle and drive off 

If someone had returned to the apartment the intruder would have heard and would have had plenty of time to exit and make good his/her escape.  The whole episode could have been concluded in minutes.

[stephen25000]

That is not answering the question I put to you.

Here it is again:


So, let's say there were two or three people involved in the abduction - if one person "snitched" on the other two do you think they would a) be rewarded financially or b) be charged with being involved in a child abduction?

Oh, that old chestnut.


They would turn states evidence, or in abdication, they wouldn't be charged if they weren't involved, would they.

[stephen25000]

Reason 5

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.

Which children were easier to snatch and why?

if there was an abduction, why not choose Madeleine's younger sister.

Same bloodline, after all.

The latter one was for sadie.

[slartibartfast]

if there was an abduction, why not choose Madeleine's younger sister.

Same bloodline, after all.

The latter one was for sadie.

 

[lordpookles]

These are all grains of sand that pile up though, no? The timeline, window, statistics, dogs etc. I'm also fully aware that anyone could make a case however weak, for their agenda, which is why people pay big money for good lawyers. FWIW, hopefully we will eventually find out the truth to quench this speculation. In my heart I believe the McCanns are innocent, but I would not be unduly surprised to find out the reverse is true. If we look at the situation from the parents that dunnit angle, Madeleine could have passed away before they went out for the night. If we also consider hypothetically that they are narcissists and quite in control of their emotions it is not inconceivable that thinking people would devise a plan to move the body and stage an abduction. This becomes even easier and even more believable imo if there was a conspiracy between 1 or 2 other members of the group. I don't know the McCanns and neither do I suspect people on this forum do though of course it would not be surprising if one or two of you did know them in some way. Therefore, I do not know what they may or may not be capable of. They had motive imo. And that motive was the complete loss of their way of life, income, children - basically everything.

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh, that old chestnut.


They would turn states evidence, or in abdication, they wouldn't be charged if they weren't involved, would they.

Anyone who has known for 8 years who abducted Madeleine McCann and didn't come forward sooner would be more likely to be charged than rewarded, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

[Alfred R Jones]

if there was an abduction, why not choose Madeleine's younger sister.

Same bloodline, after all.

The latter one was for sadie.

Why choose her? 

[stephen25000]

Anyone who has known for 8 years who abducted Madeleine McCann and didn't come forward sooner would be more likely to be charged than rewarded, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Exactly.

Another reason why I don't believe in abduction.