Was stranger abduction unlikely due to the checking regime?

[ferryman]

Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.

Sharon Leal, just one name.

You will have to do better than that.

A post of blatant libel against Alan Pike, which you will doubtless get away with ....

[misty]

Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.

Sharon Leal, just one name.

You will have to do better than that.

You have to pay for your own witnesses in a Portuguese court.

[stephen25000]

A post of blatant libel against Alan Pike, which you will doubtless get away with ....

The McCann employed him.

They paid for him.

As to Pike, please remind me of his professional qualifications, with a cite.

Hold on, here it is.............


' The Manchester Metropolitan University
BA (Hons) Social Science, Psychology
1986 – 1989 '

 

[Alice Purjorick]

Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.

Sharon Leal, just one name.

You will have to do better than that.

This one ?
http://www.port.ac.uk/department-of-psychology/staff/dr-sharon-leal.html

[Alice Purjorick]

The McCann employed him.

They paid for him.

As to Pike, please remind me of his professional qualifications, with a cite.

Hold on, here it is.............


' The Manchester Metropolitan University
BA (Hons) Social Science, Psychology
1986 – 1989 '

 

https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/march/reading-people-behavioral-anomalies-and-investigative-interviewing

"When reading people, one important distinction interviewers must make is the difference between validated and nonvalidated indicators. Those that are validated have scientific and field evidence documenting the association between the behavior and specific cognitions or emotions. These anomalies are laboratory tested under strict scientific conditions and vetted in the field by practitioners. Nonvalidated indicators lack such data—either in scientific evidence, field operations, or both.[1]

Validation provides evidence for accuracy and consistency across various people in different contexts. Noticing that a suspect’s hands were held in a certain way when describing an incident that later turned out to be a lie is not evidence that the behavior is indicative of lying for other people in varying situations. Observation alone is not sufficient to label a certain behavior as a validated indicator because it has not withstood the scrutiny of rigorous testing in the laboratory and the field. Such testing would require establishing the conditions in which the indicator may or may not occur with multiple people. If the behavior ensued that would be evidence for its validation, and if it did not that would be verification for its nonvalidation".

[Brietta]

I haven't sidestepped anything.

I have made it clear I am not a behavioural expert.  Accordingly I have little basis on which to properly evaluate supposed analysis of the behaviour of those involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

So my opinion was formed by me without reference to anyone else.

Opinions are rarely formed in a Damascene moment.  It is my experience they are formed as a result of outside information of one type or another.

[Alfie]

So when professionals with first-hand knowledge of the situation say the McCanns behaved as expected, normal for parents in their position, then these professionals must be smeared and ridiculed.
When non-expert anonymous internet users of a chatroom with only third-hand knowledge of the situation say that the McCanns' behaviour was extremely odd then these views must be respected as valid opinion.

It's really quite laughable.

[Alice Purjorick]

So when professionals with first-hand knowledge of the situation say the McCanns behaved as expected, normal for parents in their position, then these professionals must be smeared and ridiculed.
When non-expert anonymous internet users of a chatroom with only third-hand knowledge of the situation say that the McCanns' behaviour was extremely odd then these views must be respected as valid opinion.

It's really quite laughable.

Not really. It is how the game is played out in court. Each side has its own experts and its own briefs. The brief of one side then tries to shred the credibility of the opposing sides experts. It is all part and parcel of the rules of engagement.

[Robittybob1]

Interesting but what's it all about?

[ChloeR]

If we are to entertain for one moment that an organised gang were involved, which I believe Scotland Yard is investigating then I think it's fair to assume that they are going to be very good as such activities. Especially if she was stolen to order as has been suggested. How long would it reasonably take for someone proficient in child abductions to find the unlocked patio door, locate Madeleine and be out of there without anyone seeing or hearing? Even with the checking routine the parents were using, anything over 5 minutes I would suspect gives someone looking to abduct Madeleine more than enough time.

The only thing that contradicts here is that Madeleine is not likely to have gone quietly should she have been able to realise what was happening. Which leads to the theory that she was in someway incapacitated making it far easier for the abductor to remain silent and low profile

The claimed open window causes problems here too IMO. What reason would the abductor have to open the window when it would literally take seconds to enter via the unlocked door, grab the child and leave the same way they came (as you say). Why spend precious time shuffling round the apartment between the two cots risking waking the babies, just to open a window for reasons unknown?

And if the window was not open, one has to wonder why Kate said it was.

[ChloeR]

I question the validity of shelving the investigation just because they failed to get sufficient evidence against the McCanns.

Failed to find sufficient evidence of any crime, surely. No solid evidence of involvement by anyone. Crime cannot be determined.

[Robittybob1]

The claimed open window causes problems here too IMO. What reason would the abductor have to open the window when it would literally take seconds to enter via the unlocked door, grab the child and leave the same way they came (as you say). Why spend precious time shuffling round the apartment between the two cots risking waking the babies, just to open a window for reasons unknown?

And if the window was not open, one has to wonder why Kate said it was.

It was open but why was it opened?  Kate read that as someone abducted Madeleine via the window, but it may be just a diversion.

[Brietta]

It was open but why was it opened?  Kate read that as someone abducted Madeleine via the window, but it may be just a diversion.

Why indeed?  Normal people probably wouldn't be able to work it out ... it seems to be an 'abductor' thing.

Quote
Security footage at an Elyria residence shows doors and windows being opened at the house between 5:08 a.m. and 5:23 a.m. on the day before the attempted kidnapping.

On the day of the attack, the footage shows multiple windows, including the victim’s, being opened between 3:16 a.m. and 3:37 a.m.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1988653/chilling-footage-of-serial-child-abductor-who-entered-victims-homes-in-early-hours-as-parents-slept/

[stephen25000]

Why indeed?  Normal people probably wouldn't be able to work it out ... it seems to be an 'abductor' thing.

Quote
Security footage at an Elyria residence shows doors and windows being opened at the house between 5:08 a.m. and 5:23 a.m. on the day before the attempted kidnapping.

On the day of the attack, the footage shows multiple windows, including the victim’s, being opened between 3:16 a.m. and 3:37 a.m.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1988653/chilling-footage-of-serial-child-abductor-who-entered-victims-homes-in-early-hours-as-parents-slept/

..and absolutely no proven connection to the Mccann case.

[Brietta]

..and absolutely no proven connection to the Mccann case.

Stalking the premises.

Opening windows.

Missing child.

The geographical distance between Cleveland and Praia da Luz doesn't appear to have affected the aberrant behaviour of perpetrators of home invasion and child abduction.