Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[Alfred R Jones]

When I say it is workable, but not likely, please do not try to turn it into something else.

My statement says something about me.  Your twist says something about you.

I will stick with it is workable, but not likely.

You can go your own way. (Go your own way.)

You can call it another lonely day.

Ah, a Mac fan (but clearly not a McFan).  Can you please show me we what I twisted?  I asked a simple question.  If a theory of parental involvement strikes you as highly unlikely then please may I ask how it can be workable?  Unless we are expected to suspend disbelief in order to make it so?

[Alfred R Jones]

I can't work out whether you really don't understand or whether you're doing it deliberately. Think what you like, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

I understand alright, and so do you.  You just refuse to admit I have a valid point.  It's only to be expected I guess.

[pathfinder73]

That's brilliant, Pathfinder.      %&5%£

Was the time altered backwards or forwards?

Forwards of course when the prime suspect was seen (Smithman knew he was seen!). Have you seen the first timelines written down and compare them to the rogs? They're 10 minutes fast e.g. Jane left at 9:20 (it was 9:10). Gerry left at different times and much later (Matt said he left straight away when he returned to the table at 9). Bringing the times forward ultimately pushes the alarm time forward and rules them out of that sighting but nobody's ruled out of that sighting from that group 

Fiona Payne thought the alarm could have been raised as early as 9:45 not after 10pm. Somebody said Kate left the table after 10 (see below). Matt said 9:50. This is the key to fantasy luzland. Changing the time to be able to be in two places at once. And if SY detectives have forensically examined the timeline like they said then they should come to the same conclusion. None are ruled out!

[Benice]

Forwards of course when the prime suspect was seen (Smithman knew he was seen!). Have you seen the first timelines written down and compare them to the rogs? They're 10 minutes fast e.g. Jane left at 9:20 (it was 9:!0). Gerry left at different times and much later (Matt said he left straight away when he returned to the table at 9). Bringing the times forward ultimately puts the alarm time forward and rules them out of that sighting but nobody's ruled out of that sighting from that group 

Fiona Payne thought the alarm could have been raised as early as 9:45 not after 10pm. Somebody said Kate left the table after 10 (see below). Matt said 9:50. This is the key to fantasy luzland. Changing the time to be able to be in two places at once. And if SY detectives have forensically examined the timeline like they said then they should come to the same conclusion. None are ruled out!

Anyone who thinks 9 people  - (who unless they were specifically engaged in some pre-determined 'exercise' which required them to keep precise mental notes of the times of not only each and every one of their own movements -  but also those of 8 other people)  - could possibly be as exact as you seem to expect them to be is being totally unrealistic IMO   

FGS - they were on holiday - not military manouvres.

For example  - IIRC Russell first thought that Jane and Gerry had left the table together.  However, once he was reminded that she was still at the table when they were commenting on how long Gerry had been away - he would realise that he'd got that wrong and change his mind. 

No doubt you will be able to read something sinister into that.   Thank goodness SY know it's perfectly normal for different people to have completely different recollections of the same happening and so they do not assume that someone must be lying.   

It's also quite normal that when people discussed what happened amongst themselves that some people would remember what other people had forgotten or had not even noticed in the first place.   Therefore this combined knowledge would result in a more accurate overall  timeline. IMO.

   

[Eleanor]

I have a workable theory for Abduction.  But it involves too much of what Scotland Yard and The PJ could be looking at.

[Carana]

The shutter happens to be important.

The state of the shutter (open) increases the probability that 'the McCanns dun it' and decreases the probability that someone external was involved, obviously IMO.  Personally, I would love to see the result of a lie-detector test, by Kate, on the state of the shutter.  Clearly not admissible in court.  Shutter up?  Complex scene not suggesting abduction.  Shutter down?  Simple scene, weighted heavily in favour of abduction.

I don't think so, SIL.

If there had been a staged abduction, it would have been more convincing, IMO, to make sure that the shutter appeared forced from the outside and to ensure that several witnesses were present immediately to take note of it.

[pathfinder73]

I don't think so, SIL.

If there had been a staged abduction, it would have been more convincing, IMO, to make sure that the shutter appeared forced from the outside and to ensure that several witnesses were present immediately to take note of it.

We have witness statements of two messing with shutters. How do you know it wasn't their intention to force/damage them? Dianne twisted them and they stuck as seen in crime scene pics therefore she couldn't raise them any further. The question is, why did Kate get Dianne to take a look at them when Gerry claimed he already did so and could raise them from the outside? There was no point IF that is what happened.

[jassi]

Why fiddle with them in the first place?  Madeleine was gone and it didn't matter at that moment how she had gone. That would be a matter later for the investigators.

[Mr Gray]

Why fiddle with them in the first place?  Madeleine was gone and it didn't matter at that moment how she had gone. That would be a matter later for the investigators.

Of course it mattered how she had gone
If the shutters were opened from the outside......abduction is pretty well confirmed

[jassi]

Of course it mattered how she had gone
If the shutters were opened from the outside......abduction is pretty well confirmed

Indeed, but that  is/was for the police to decide, not the McCanns, even though Kate 'knew' right from the start that Madeleine had been taken.

[pathfinder73]

Of course it mattered how she had gone
If the shutters were opened from the outside......abduction is pretty well confirmed

At least you know if they were opened what it leads to. Why would an abductor leave shutters fully raised and an open window for the world to see? Nobody saw them raised except Gerry & Kate. God knows how David didn't when he entered at the same time  &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

Indeed, but that  is/was for the police to decide, not the McCanns, even though Kate 'knew' right from the start that Madeleine had been taken.

It was natural for the McCanns to want to work out what had happened immediately

[ShiningInLuz]

Ah, a Mac fan (but clearly not a McFan).  Can you please show me we what I twisted?  I asked a simple question.  If a theory of parental involvement strikes you as highly unlikely then please may I ask how it can be workable?  Unless we are expected to suspend disbelief in order to make it so?

How good is your understanding of probability theory?

According to probability theory, if you attach a value to each alternative, and sum up the totals, then the result should be 1 (one).  If it isn't, then there is something wrong with your model.

I would say that if I stick a value on each alternative that I know of, the total would be about 0.4 (zero point four).

That in turn tells me that I know that I don't know.  I can be pretty confident that I don't know.  I have a rigorously defined area of doubt and uncertainty.

In simple language, I can make parental involvement work, just as I can woke and wandered, non-planned abduction (burglary gone wrong) and pre-planned abduction.  I cannot get any alternative close to the point of being a slam-dunk.  But clearly, one of the alternatives must have happened.

So all I know is that my model is not good enough.

What I do not know is that 'highly unlikely' does not mean 'did not happen' or 'unworkable'.  One of these 'unlikely' scenarios happened.  All are workable.

[Mr Gray]

How good is your understanding of probability theory?

According to probability theory, if you attach a value to each alternative, and sum up the totals, then the result should be 1 (one).  If it isn't, then there is something wrong with your model.

I would say that if I stick a value on each alternative that I know of, the total would be about 0.4 (zero point four).

That in turn tells me that I know that I don't know.  I can be pretty confident that I don't know.  I have a rigorously defined area of doubt and uncertainty.

In simple language, I can make parental involvement work, just as I can woke and wandered, non-planned abduction (burglary gone wrong) and pre-planned abduction.  I cannot get any alternative close to the point of being a slam-dunk.  But clearly, one of the alternatives must have happened.

So all I know is that my model is not good enough.

What I do not know is that 'highly unlikely' does not mean 'did not happen' or 'unworkable'.  One of these 'unlikely' scenarios happened.  All are workable.

If you place parental involvement at 1%
The abduction and woke and wandered have to add up to 99%
That makes anduction odds on

[ShiningInLuz]

I don't think so, SIL.

If there had been a staged abduction, it would have been more convincing, IMO, to make sure that the shutter appeared forced from the outside and to ensure that several witnesses were present immediately to take note of it.

This requires the presence of a forcing tool (whether that is a jemmy or otherwise).  Plus the ability to get witnesses to the scene quickly to see the evidence of such forcing.  Plus an explanation of how such an intruder managed to get in through the window, which was also undamaged.

All the while, the unlocked patio door is a simple means of entry.

The shutter up/window open can be worked into any of the scenarios I am aware of.  It complicates each and alters the relative probabilities of each.

If the shutter was down or the window locked, the probabilities would change, and things would become simpler.  To cut a long story short, we would be focussing on the front door (key required) or the patio door (Known to be open? Tried at random?).

But as I say, the chance of such a lie-detector test is about as likely as my roof being buzzed by a low-flying pig.