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

[John]

Thanks Brietta, some interesting points.  I haven't got time just now to respond but will do so later.

[Mr Gray]

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.

Abduction by aliens has not been disproved so must still be  a valid contender and is about as likely as amaral's theory

[stephen25000]

Abduction by aliens has not been disproved so must still be  a valid contender and is about as likely as amaral's theory

You've spent far too much time in your celestial teapot.

and that is where the abduction theory should be laid to rest.

[Benice]

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.

Why on earth would I be trying to kid you?   That makes no sense. 

Anyway I take it you are not going to answer my question Stephen.    So nothing new there then.

[stephen25000]

Why on earth would I be trying to kid you?   That makes no sense. 

Anyway I take it you are not going to answer my question Stephen.    So nothing new there then.

Do you agree , yes or no, that there is missing evidence that could indicate accidental death ?

Yes or No will suffice.

[John]

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.

Given the shambles which existed that night, evidence could very well have been lost by a variety of means. With so many apparently intelligent people running around surely one of them could have suggested everyone vacate the scene of the alleged crime until CSI had an opportunity to assess it or was it a case of...

* too drunk to think
* in shock
* afraid to interfere
* just hoped she had got lost
* none of the above

[Alfred R Jones]

Do you agree , yes or no, that there is missing evidence that could indicate accidental death ?

Yes or No will suffice.

How can anyone agree that there IS missing evidence that could indicate accidental death? 

[Benice]

Given the shambles which existed that night, evidence could very well have been lost by a variety of means. With so many apparently intelligent people running around surely one of them could have suggested everyone vacate the scene of the alleged crime until CSI had an opportunity to assess it or was it a case of...

* too drunk to think
* in shock
* afraid to interfere
* just hoped she had got lost
* none of the above

I believe there did come a time when Gerry tried to keep people out of the bedroom John.

I really don't expect people who have just been catapulted from a completely relaxing situation into every parents worst nightmare - i.e. from one absolute extreme to the complete opposite - to even begin to think like policemen in the first 10/15 mins or so.   The shock would be immense - and with so many people involved an initial  'shambles' would be inevitable IMO.   Also of course they would search every inch of the apartment - who wouldn't?     However I do expect policemen to know better.  After all it is their job.

Whether evidence was destroyed or overlooked we don't know - but it is possible.   Also IIRC there is evidence which it has not  been possible to rule out as having no bearing on the case.  Partial fingerprints, etc.

Because evidence was not found does not mean it was never there.

 

[stephen25000]

How can anyone agree that there IS missing evidence that could indicate accidental death?

The dogs alfred, the dogs.

and after all, which mccann supporter could admit to the possibility of accidental death and all that entails ?

 &%+((£

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

Brietta did a good job of replying to these points which you addressed to me John, I would simply add that you could probably find similar reasons for questioning why any other child was ever abducted and / or murdered - why, for example, risk entering a house when a parent is home and stealing a child from a bath when there are children roaming about playing outside?  Why risk entering a building filled with adults and girls, entering a dormitory and raping and murdering one whilst her friends slept on around her - surely another target would have been far less risky?  Etc etc etc.

[Alfred R Jones]

The dogs alfred, the dogs.

and after all, which mccann supporter could admit to the possibility of accidental death and all that entails ?

 &%+((£

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "the dogs, Alfred, the dogs".  Are you suggesting that the dogs PROVE there is missing evidence...? &%+((£ 

[stephen25000]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "the dogs, Alfred, the dogs".  Are you suggesting that the dogs PROVE there is missing evidence...? &%+((£

Of course you don't understand alfred.

 

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course you don't understand alfred.

 

Perhaps you could explain then.

[DCI]

Given the shambles which existed that night, evidence could very well have been lost by a variety of means. With so many apparently intelligent people running around surely one of them could have suggested everyone vacate the scene of the alleged crime until CSI had an opportunity to assess it or was it a case of...

* too drunk to think
* in shock
* afraid to interfere
* just hoped she had got lost
* none of the above

I think the shambles which existed that night was down to GNR officers and Irene Travao. Amaral himself  said what a mess they made of things.
The McCanns had stayed in that apartment all week, yet not one trace of the other 4 family members was found. Very conveniently just Kates fingerprints were found.
i think those inadequate prints were from Gerry, Diane and Irene Travao. If that was their best Forensic people, god help the worst.

[pathfinder73]

No alibi for point 6 and it was nearly the perfect one until the Smiths arrived.

alibi - something that proves that someone was not where a crime happened and therefore could not have done it.