"Charity collectors" data

[pegasus]

No, it's not common but it has happened, so what is your point?  It's not every day that a father carries the uncovered corpse of his daughter through a holiday village to throw it in a bin but that is precisely the scenario that a significant percentage of McCann sceptics believe happened.  Not you maybe, but you at least appear to tolerate this view and don't question its likelihood.

If a burglar thinks everyone is out, starts entering, then discovers a child is inside home alone,
by far the most likely outcome is:
the burglar will immediately go away empty handed,
the child will run away from the attempted entry point and hide.

[pegasus]

90% of ALL past crimes were carried out by males 16-30 yo. So next unrelated crime MUST be carry out by male 16-30 yo? It cannot be carry out by woman 50 yo, for example?

Think about possibility, not likelihood.

Exaggerating  ... Imagine 100% of past crimes of type X were carried out by males 16-30 yo. Could you be sure next unrelated type X crime will be not carry out by woman 50 yo?

That is over-generalisation. Here is something very specific - what does a home-alone child do when a burglar starts entering? Your theory states the child walked towards the burglar. You can probably quote only one case in the world where that has happened.

I can quote many cases where the child runs in the exact opposite direction and hides.
Why did you pick the extremely unlikely hypothesis of a child walking towards danger, when the commonsense normal behaviour is obviously to run away from danger?

[Heriberto Janosch]

That is over-generalisation. Here is something very specific - what does a home-alone child do when a burglar starts entering? Your theory states the child walked towards the burglar. You can probably quote only one case in the world where that has happened.

I can quote many cases where the child runs in the exact opposite direction and hides.
Why did you pick the extremely unlikely hypothesis of a child walking towards danger, when the commonsense normal behaviour is obviously to run away from danger?

If she thought he was one of her parents at the window, she could think there was no danger at all.

When she saw he was another person, maybe she was at arm's length.

You may be at danger, and think you are not.

[pegasus]

If she thought he was one of her parents at the window ... (snip)

But she wouldn't think that, Heri.

[G-Unit]

If she thought he was one of her parents at the window, she could think there was no danger at all.

When she saw he was another person, maybe she was at arm's length.

You may be at danger, and think you are not.

A few 'ifs' and 'coulds' in order to make it work then?  With regard to your system analysis of the timeline, what was your allowable margin of error in the reported times? Five minutes? Ten minutes? Fifteen minutes?

The first timeline written by three of the group had everyone present and seated in the restaurant at 8.45pm, for example. This later became 9pm, a fifteen minute difference. That may or may not be significant but with regard to the time of the alarm being raised fifteen minutes could be very significant indeed.

[Brietta]

But she wouldn't think that, Heri.

She may not have been thinking too clearly at all she could still have been befuddled having just awoken from a deep sleep.

[pegasus]

She may not have been thinking too clearly at all she could still have been befuddled having just awoken from a deep sleep.

"befuddled having just awoken from a deep sleep" is the sort of argument I last heard when returning an item to a shop in Ipswich.

[Alfred R Jones]

I can't find examples of either scenario having happened before. What I do know is that Madeleine disappeared. At the time of her disappearance she was either alive or she was dead. If she was alive she either left on her own or she was taken away by someone. If she was dead her body was taken away by someone and it was either covered or uncovered. People can speculate on all the different possibilities but no-one knows what actually happened. Therefore all scenarios remain possible and can't be ruled out, no matter how unlikely they may appear to some.

Therefore your original claim that a burglar when faced with a child in the place he is burgling would run away was not a fact, merely an assumption, or your own un-evidenced opinion.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Alfred R Jones]

If a burglar thinks everyone is out, starts entering, then discovers a child is inside home alone,
by far the most likely outcome is:
the burglar will immediately go away empty handed,
the child will run away from the attempted entry point and hide.

There has been an authoratative study of this then that you can cite?

[G-Unit]

Therefore your original claim that a burglar when faced with a child in the place he is burgling would run away was not a fact, merely an assumption, or your own un-evidenced opinion.  Thanks for clarifying.

There was a burglar who ran away, I have never heard of a burglar who decided to switch to child abduction mid-burgle as it were.

[Alfred R Jones]

There was a burglar who ran away, I have never heard of a burglar who decided to switch to child abduction mid-burgle as it were.

So what?

[pegasus]

So what?

It would fully explain the open shutter, the open window, the open bedroom door, and the fact the child was no longer in that room, that's what Alf

[Alfred R Jones]

It would fully explain the open shutter, the open window, the open bedroom door, and the fact the child was no longer in that room, that's what Alf

The fact that G-Unit had never heard of a burglar switching to child abduction would explain the open shutter, open window, open bedroom door an the fact that the child was no longer in the room how exactly?

Incidentally...

http://articles.philly.com/1994-09-14/news/25837083_1_surprising-burglar-tomlinson-car

[stephen25000]

The fact that G-Unit had never heard of a burglar switching to child abduction would explain the open shutter, open window, open bedroom door an the fact that the child was no longer in the room how exactly?

Incidentally...

http://articles.philly.com/1994-09-14/news/25837083_1_surprising-burglar-tomlinson-car

Have you forgotten even Mitchell said there was no evidence of a break in.

As to the window and shutters, nae verification of that either.

[pegasus]

(snip) Incidentally...
http://articles.philly.com/1994-09-14/news/25837083_1_surprising-burglar-tomlinson-car

That burglar had no desire to take the child Alf.