Slarti's Simple Solution.

[Alice Purjorick]

I thought this thread was about Slarti's Simple Solution?

I was being sarcastic about the well planned abduction to order or whatever.
If an abduction took place something simple would be easier see one of my earlier posts on this very thread.

[Alfred R Jones]

I was being sarcastic about the well planned abduction to order or whatever.
If an abduction took place something simple would be easier see one of my earlier posts on this very thread.

Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation.  A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame.  This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.

[mercury]

Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation.  A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame.  This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.

No

Both are as plausible as each other but one theory has too many problems, dang!

[Alfred R Jones]

No

Both are as plausible as each other but one theory has too many problems, dang!

Yup.  Parental involvement.  You just can't come up with a simple scenario for it.  Never mind, keep trying!

[Alice Purjorick]

Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation.  A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame.  This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.

If a supporter can solve the basic conundrum of the mechanics of an abduction I might listen and have a rethink. No one has come up with anything which is much more than "the parents couldn't have done it QED", whatever "it" is, so it must have been an abductor. The supporters cannot even agree on how, when or by whom an abduction was executed, they only agree one did occur at sometime or another on 3rd May 2007. So not very convincing.
Until the basic conundrum is resolved I am left with a sort of "self selecting default position". Which I don't necessarily like as a principle. The principle you understand not the position. Any discussion eventually finishes up talking about foundation bolt sizes before you know the size of the structure, as it were, so we go around forever.

[ferryman]

If a supporter can solve the basic conundrum of the mechanics of an abduction I might listen and have a rethink. No one has come up with anything which is much more than "the parents couldn't have done it QED", whatever "it" is, so it must have been an abductor. The supporters cannot even agree on how, when or by whom an abduction was executed, they only agree one did occur at sometime or another on 3rd May 2007. So not very convincing.
Until the basic conundrum is resolved I am left with a sort of "self selecting default position". Which I don't necessarily like as a principle. The principle you understand not the position. Any discussion eventually finishes up talking about foundation bolt sizes before you know the size of the structure, as it were, so we go around forever.

I can quite see why answering all those questions would vital for nailing a perpetrator (named).

But I can't, for the life of me, see how any of them are remotely relevant to establishing the innocence of the McCanns.

[pathfinder73]

Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation.  A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame.  This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.

Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?

[pegasus]

"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
Discuss.

In this theory does "back entrance" mean the wooden main door, or the lounge sliding door?

[faithlilly]

Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?

An excellent question PF

[misty]

Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?

An abductor is unemotional.

[faithlilly]

An abductor is unemotional.

Both acts would be driven by fear of being caught.

[misty]

Both acts would be driven by fear of being caught.

Ok, the abductor would have had no emotional connection with the victim.

[Alfred R Jones]

If a supporter can solve the basic conundrum of the mechanics of an abduction I might listen and have a rethink. No one has come up with anything which is much more than "the parents couldn't have done it QED", whatever "it" is, so it must have been an abductor. The supporters cannot even agree on how, when or by whom an abduction was executed, they only agree one did occur at sometime or another on 3rd May 2007. So not very convincing.
Until the basic conundrum is resolved I am left with a sort of "self selecting default position". Which I don't necessarily like as a principle. The principle you understand not the position. Any discussion eventually finishes up talking about foundation bolt sizes before you know the size of the structure, as it were, so we go around forever.

does that mean you reject Slarti's Simple Solution?  On what basis?

[Alfred R Jones]

Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?

we know alot about the parents, in particular their movements and wherabouts that night, we know F all about the abductor.  Based on all the info we have about the parents we can make an informed decision that it wasn't them wot dunnit.  The same cannot be said for Person X who abducted Madeleine.

[Alfred R Jones]

Both acts would be driven by fear of being caught.

Eh?
A cover up would be driven by fear of being caught doing something wrong (in your scenario presumably it would be giving your kids Super Strength Sedative).  An abduction would be driven by something else entirely.