Author Topic: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…  (Read 13552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Eleanor

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #645 on: August 04, 2021, 11:05:58 AM »
The fact is no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible, logical account of parental involvement, and if you try to put one together around the premise that Madeleine died in a fall between checks then that is definitely not plausible for reasons already discussed.  Your claim that the reason why there are so few examples (actually so far none found) of children dying in the home from falls (either instantly or within the time frame we are talking about) is because most children are supervised is utterly laughable, especially when you compare the number of child neglect cases in this country to the number of stranger abductions.  25,000 child neglect cases in 2019 and you'd think at least one or two of those cases would have resulted in instant or near instant death from a fall in the home  but as I say - no reports, no examples, nothing so far found in years of online news reporting worldwide. 

As for Amaral re-read what I said - I didn't say his book was an attempt to rubbish the abduction theory though clearly he gives no time to seriously considering it from Day One if his book is an accurate reflection of his opinion.   Does Amaral explain why abduction is implausible and illogical?  I think he gave it a go when he made some absurd claim that it was impossible to break into the apartment (the apartment was unlocked anyway!) and that the dogs proved a corpse lay in the apartment (no they didn't) - apart from that can you, he or anyone finally and definitively explain why abduction can be discounted as an implausible, illogical theory to explain Madeleine's disppearance?  The answer I would suggest is a big fat "NO you can't".

Billy Whizz is just trying to disrupt this Forum with a load of cherry picked, convoluted rubbish, none of which makes any sense.


Offline jassi

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #646 on: August 04, 2021, 11:06:04 AM »
"The fact is no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible, logical account of parental involvement"

That's an opinion.
'
Mostly any suggestion of what McCann might have done is greeted by screams of libel', so why bother ?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #647 on: August 04, 2021, 11:13:44 AM »
Billy Whizz is just trying to disrupt this Forum with a load of cherry picked, convoluted rubbish, none of which makes any sense.
Having read their contributions today I'm beginning to think you might be right.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #648 on: August 04, 2021, 12:22:12 PM »
Billy Whizz is just trying to disrupt this Forum with a load of cherry picked, convoluted rubbish, none of which makes any sense.

Billy is putting forward his point of view with supporting evidence. That isn't disruption, it's debate, which is what the forum is about. If you disagree with his point of view you can put forward your point of view with supporting evidence too. Demonstrate how his evidence is 'cherry picked convoluted rubbish' and explain why it makes no sense. If your posts are more logical and plausible than his, then readers will agree with you and reject his arguments.

Abduction is a theory, not a fact, and so are the other possible explanations for Madeleine's disappearance. There are so few facts that none of the theories can provide a complete explanation because missing facts could change the whole case completely. All the theories are based on incomplete information.

According to one holidaymaker Madeleine leapt into the water during the sailing on 3rd and had to be brought back into the boat. It took years for that fact to emerge, although the MW staff must have known about it. It was probably not important, but there could be other information which never emerged which was important, but no-one ever realised it.

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #649 on: August 04, 2021, 01:48:26 PM »
Billy is putting forward his point of view with supporting evidence. That isn't disruption, it's debate, which is what the forum is about. If you disagree with his point of view you can put forward your point of view with supporting evidence too. Demonstrate how his evidence is 'cherry picked convoluted rubbish' and explain why it makes no sense. If your posts are more logical and plausible than his, then readers will agree with you and reject his arguments.

Abduction is a theory, not a fact, and so are the other possible explanations for Madeleine's disappearance. There are so few facts that none of the theories can provide a complete explanation because missing facts could change the whole case completely. All the theories are based on incomplete information.

According to one holidaymaker Madeleine leapt into the water during the sailing on 3rd and had to be brought back into the boat. It took years for that fact to emerge, although the MW staff must have known about it. It was probably not important, but there could be other information which never emerged which was important, but no-one ever realised it.
In your opinion, having read both sides of the debat on this thread do you think it is plausible and logical that Madeleine died in a fall in the apartment between checks?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Online Eleanor

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #650 on: August 04, 2021, 02:06:58 PM »
Billy is putting forward his point of view with supporting evidence. That isn't disruption, it's debate, which is what the forum is about. If you disagree with his point of view you can put forward your point of view with supporting evidence too. Demonstrate how his evidence is 'cherry picked convoluted rubbish' and explain why it makes no sense. If your posts are more logical and plausible than his, then readers will agree with you and reject his arguments.

Abduction is a theory, not a fact, and so are the other possible explanations for Madeleine's disappearance. There are so few facts that none of the theories can provide a complete explanation because missing facts could change the whole case completely. All the theories are based on incomplete information.

According to one holidaymaker Madeleine leapt into the water during the sailing on 3rd and had to be brought back into the boat. It took years for that fact to emerge, although the MW staff must have known about it. It was probably not important, but there could be other information which never emerged which was important, but no-one ever realised it.

Billy's Comments don't make sense.  Therefor it isn't possible to answer them because they don't hang together.

The Gaspar Statements?  The Gaspars didn't even agree, so what was the point of throwing that one in?  Other than to mislead.

And I am certainly not going to try to dissect this mess of potage.  And I don't really care anyway.

My job is to make sure that this Forum isn't disrupted any more than necessary.  And I will be Deleting any further Add On Insults.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #651 on: August 04, 2021, 03:27:20 PM »
Billy's Comments don't make sense.  Therefor it isn't possible to answer them because they don't hang together.

The Gaspar Statements?  The Gaspars didn't even agree, so what was the point of throwing that one in?  Other than to mislead.

And I am certainly not going to try to dissect this mess of potage.  And I don't really care anyway.

My job is to make sure that this Forum isn't disrupted any more than necessary.  And I will be Deleting any further Add On Insults.

Your comments about Billy's posts and motives are opinions and should be identified as such. How do you describe 'disruption'? Posting on-topic without insulting other members is not disruption in my opinion.

I think Billy summarised the reasons for the suspicions the first investigation developed very well;

"There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wander at night."

As opposed to the evidence supporting the theory of stranger abduction;

"apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory."

Speculation and invention has been utilised to support the abduction theory, rather than evidence imo. The conclusions the first investigation reached may be wrong, but the evidence used is there for all to see.



Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline barrier

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #652 on: August 04, 2021, 04:18:17 PM »
Your comments about Billy's posts and motives are opinions and should be identified as such. How do you describe 'disruption'? Posting on-topic without insulting other members is not disruption in my opinion.

I think Billy summarised the reasons for the suspicions the first investigation developed very well;

"There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wander at night."

As opposed to the evidence supporting the theory of stranger abduction;

"apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory."

Speculation and invention has been utilised to support the abduction theory, rather than evidence imo. The conclusions the first investigation reached may be wrong, but the evidence used is there for all to see.
It's clear Bills post carry subject matter that is outside the remit of the defender's of the faith and should be culled or criticised lest the debate goes against the myth busters.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #653 on: August 04, 2021, 04:22:10 PM »
Your comments about Billy's posts and motives are opinions and should be identified as such. How do you describe 'disruption'? Posting on-topic without insulting other members is not disruption in my opinion.

I think Billy summarised the reasons for the suspicions the first investigation developed very well;

"There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wander at night."

As opposed to the evidence supporting the theory of stranger abduction;

"apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory."

Speculation and invention has been utilised to support the abduction theory, rather than evidence imo. The conclusions the first investigation reached may be wrong, but the evidence used is there for all to see.
On the abduction side there is also evidence from the German investigation which you can rubbish as much as you like but it's still evidence, and equal in its weight to the Gaspar Statement, the Smiths testimony, Mrs Fenn's statement etc IMO. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Online Eleanor

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #654 on: August 04, 2021, 04:22:33 PM »
Your comments about Billy's posts and motives are opinions and should be identified as such. How do you describe 'disruption'? Posting on-topic without insulting other members is not disruption in my opinion.

I think Billy summarised the reasons for the suspicions the first investigation developed very well;

"There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wander at night."

As opposed to the evidence supporting the theory of stranger abduction;

"apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory."

Speculation and invention has been utilised to support the abduction theory, rather than evidence imo. The conclusions the first investigation reached may be wrong, but the evidence used is there for all to see.

No more Comments of "What don't you understand."  okay.

The Gaspers did not agree.  Mr. Gaspar did not agree with the opinion of his wife about this incident.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Gaspar waited for two years to report it to The Police while she apparently thought that Gerry McCann could have been abusing his daughter.

Online Eleanor

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #655 on: August 04, 2021, 04:35:37 PM »
On the abduction side there is also evidence from the German investigation which you can rubbish as much as you like but it's still evidence, and equal in its weight to the Gaspar Statement, the Smiths testimony, Mrs Fenn's statement etc IMO.

The Gaspar Statements were self defeating and consequentially a complete waste of time.

But I wouldn't mind knowing what Katerina Gaspar thought was going on during the two years when she failed to report her concerns.

Two Years?  Good heavens.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #656 on: August 04, 2021, 04:42:26 PM »
It's clear Bills post carry subject matter that is outside the remit of the defender's of the faith and should be culled or criticised lest the debate goes against the myth busters.
In which Barrier gets his wooden spoon to stir the cauldron.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Online Eleanor

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #657 on: August 04, 2021, 04:52:59 PM »
In which Barrier gets his wooden spoon to stir the cauldron.

Not important.  Barrier only ever stirs the pot.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #658 on: August 04, 2021, 05:09:15 PM »
On the abduction side there is also evidence from the German investigation which you can rubbish as much as you like but it's still evidence, and equal in its weight to the Gaspar Statement, the Smiths testimony, Mrs Fenn's statement etc IMO.

You can't rely on that to uphold an opinion you held long before the Germans were involved.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Abduction is neither plausible nor logical because…
« Reply #659 on: August 04, 2021, 05:14:13 PM »
You can't rely on that to uphold an opinion you held long before the Germans were involved.
My opinion has only strengthened since the Germans got involved.  I always said that the most plausible and logical explanation was that a local paedophile took Madeleine and this is exactly the same conclusion they have drawn from the total sum of evidence they have amassed, I believe it is also the same conclusion as arrived at by the Metropolitan Police.  Now do explain why we’re all hopelessly misguided won’t you please?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly