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

[Alfred R Jones]

'child that you intend to abuse and murder'

So where did you get this from ?

Are you therefore saying Madeleine was murdered ?

That is the direct implication.

Meanwhile absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of abduction, whilst SY continue to spend tax payers money.

Are you unable to read and understand plain English?  I made it clear right from the start that that is what I believe to be the most likely scenario in this case, not stolen to order for a childless couple etc.  Hence why I think your considerations about weight and whether or not the child would have memories of her past life would not have been shared by her abductor.  I hope this is clear enough for you and no, before you ask, I have no evidence to support my scenario.

[stephen25000]

Are you unable to read and understand plain English?  I made it clear right from the start that that is what I believe to be the most likely scenario in this case, not stolen to order for a childless couple etc.  Hence why I think your considerations about weight and whether or not the child would have memories of her past life would not have been shared by her abductor.  I hope this is clear enough for you and no, before you ask, I have no evidence to support my scenario.

and all you have is a belief.

ENOUGH SAID.

[Benice]

Do you accept evidence of accidental death could have been destroyed in the amount of traffic in 5A ?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

and we know who was responsible for that.

If an accidental death involved a loss of blood - then no I don't think that evidence would be destroyed as traffic/cleaning etc would not have removed it completely.  No evidence of a blood loss from Madeleine was found anywhere in 5A.

Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example -  could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A?   Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?

If not - can you explain why you don't?

[stephen25000]

If an accidental death involved a loss of blood - then no I don't think that evidence would be destroyed as traffic/cleaning etc would not have removed it completely.  No evidence of a blood loss from Madeleine was found anywhere in 5A.

Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example -  could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A?   Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?

If not - can you explain why you don't?

.



Death, accidental or otherwise, doesn't always result in blood loss, minor or otherwise , and please remember the forensics were inconclusive.

[Brietta]

.



Death, accidental or otherwise, doesn't always result in blood loss, minor or otherwise , and please remember the forensics were inconclusive.

Glad to see you acknowledging that ... what a pity that over the years the 'blood spatter' on the walls and the floor tiles has achieved such prominence and notoriety despite the fact that none of it was relatively fresh and none of it was Madeleine's.

Even had the intruder been kind enough to leave a full set of prints ~ footprints ~ cigarette ends with a full DNA profile, it is doubtful if the Portuguese police would have been able to obtain a match unless they were bothered enough to take forensics from the apartments which had already been burgled, two that we know of in block 5.

They would only have been of use if and when a perpetrator was apprehended.

[Benice]

.



Death, accidental or otherwise, doesn't always result in blood loss, minor or otherwise , and please remember the forensics were inconclusive.

Why are you ignoring my question?   I answered yours.

Here it is again in case you missed it.

Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example -  could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A?   Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?

[stephen25000]

Glad to see you acknowledging that ... what a pity that over the years the 'blood spatter' on the walls and the floor tiles has achieved such prominence and notoriety despite the fact that none of it was relatively fresh and none of it was Madeleine's.

Even had the intruder been kind enough to leave a full set of prints ~ footprints ~ cigarette ends with a full DNA profile, it is doubtful if the Portuguese police would have been able to obtain a match unless they were bothered enough to take forensics from the apartments which had already been burgled, two that we know of in block 5.

They would only have been of use if and when a perpetrator was apprehended.

Unfortunately I have seen dead bodies close up, so i speak from experience.

As to 'intruder', us this the alternative term to 'abductor' ?

[stephen25000]

Why are you ignoring my question?   I answered yours.

Here it is again in case you missed it.

Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example -  could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A?   Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?

Are you prepared by the same interpretation to say evidence of Madeleine's  accidental death could have been lost ?

Back later.

[Benice]

Are you prepared by the same interpretation to say evidence of Madeleine's  accidental death could have been lost ?

Back later.

LOL Why won't you just answer my question?   It doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs.

Do you agree that evidence of an abductor in 5A could have been destroyed by traffic or overlooked by the forensic team ?

In view of your repeated claim that there is no evidence of an abduction - I think we should establish your opinion on that before proceeding further.

[Brietta]

Unfortunately I have seen dead bodies close up, so i speak from experience.

As to 'intruder', us this the alternative term to 'abductor' ?

There was neither a dead body nor was there evidence of such in the McCann apartment.

Despite the lie that Kate had washed the curtains and the bedding there was no evidence that there had been any attempt to clean up the premises to remove blood ... what blood may have been there had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the McCann family.
Nonetheless 'blood splatter' suggestive that a chainsaw massacre type of event occurred is common currency.

It takes a particular type of mentality to argue that something did not happen because there is no evidence ... but to argue that something did happen, despite the fact there is no evidence for that either.

The admitted botched forensic job is perhaps pivotal to why Madeleine McCann's case was not solved.  Bearing in mind that forensic evidence rules in as well as rules out scenarios ... and right from the start of the investigation ... the parents' logical conclusion that their daughter had been abducted provoked the smouldering outrage and indignation of the investigators, perhaps even an outright resistance and suspicion.

[Alice Purjorick]

No, because you haven't elucidated the reasons why, based on the on the known facts of this case, you personally believe abduction to be improbable in this instance.

I set it out in the post to which I referred.

[John]

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?

I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred.  The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?

My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.

The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.

To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.



Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:

1. Risk.  Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?

2. Publicity.  Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?

3. Appearance.  Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?

4. Age.  Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?

5. Locus.  Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk?  Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.

6. Time.  Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about?  Better the middle of the night.

[G-Unit]

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


I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred.  The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?

My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.

The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.

To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.



Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:

1. Risk.  Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?

2. Publicity.  Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?

3. Appearance.  Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?

4. Age.  Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?

5. Locus.  Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk?  Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.

6. Time.  Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about?  Better the middle of the night.

Why an apartment with three children - more risk of awakening, noise etc.
If the checks were as frequent as reported, why take the chance of getting spotted/caught.

[stephen25000]

LOL Why won't you just answer my question?   It doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs.

Do you agree that evidence of an abductor in 5A could have been destroyed by traffic or overlooked by the forensic team ?

In view of your repeated claim that there is no evidence of an abduction - I think we should establish your opinion on that before proceeding further.

Who are you trying to kid.

I have very good reasons  for not believing in abduction and I certainly don't believe there is 'missing evidence' to support that belief.

[Brietta]

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


I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred.  The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?

My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.

The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.

To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.



Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:

1. Risk.  Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?

2. Publicity.  Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?

3. Appearance.  Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?

4. Age.  Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?

5. Locus.  Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk?  Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.

6. Time.  Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about?  Better the middle of the night.

Without pretence of knowing what may be in the mind of an abductor ... there are some logical assumptions which could be made ...

1. Risk.  Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?

There was more suspicion and awareness in rural Portugal as a result of Joana's disappearance; the people of Figuera certainly come into that category.
I doubt if there could be many abductions carried out more easily and the child absconded with than in Madeleine's case.

2. Publicity.  Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?

The media attention was unprecedented and would have been totally unexpected.  The family were supposed to do the decent thing ... answer questions, then pack up and go home.

That the McCanns did not do this forms the genesis and the continuation of the vile attack they have been under for eight years.

3. Appearance.  Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?

If a targeted abduction, did they know about the coloboma and did they care?
If a random abduction it would have made no difference.


4. Age.  Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?

Ever tried to placate a two year old and try to 'control' it?  It isn't called 'the terrible twos' for no reason. I can only imagine the strop of a baby used to frequent changing if in a soiled nappy.
IMO an older child is much more 'manageable'.

Perhaps the four year old in age and appearance fitted the abductor's preference.

5. Locus.  Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk?  Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.

If the abductor had been 'lucky' Madeleine may not have been missed till the morning.  As events have shown there was no danger either of being disturbed or discovered ... Madeleine is still missing eight years after the event.

6. Time.  Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about?  Better the middle of the night.

 ... and if the McCanns had been in the game of 'staging' an abduction as per Mr Amaral's theory, would it not have been better for them to wait till the morning to do it?