That doesn’t explain why the abduction theory is illogical or implausible. Try again.
This thread exists because, as you've often posted, you think the abduction theory is not just logical and plausible, but more so than any other theory. In my opinion the theory which best fits that description is that Madeleine left the apartment through the patio doors in search of her parents.
According to the evidence there was crying on the previous evening and Madeleine asked her parents on the morning of the 3rd where they were. As she was perfectly capable of looking for them, having done so on the Tuesday, it's fair to assume she did that on Wednesday and couldn't find them.
What they did in response, acccording to Fiona Payne, was to decide to leave the patio doors unlocked. The aim being;
"if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us" (Rogatory interview)
It seems to me to be logical to assume that in order for that to work Madeleine needed to know two things; that her parents were at the Tapas resaurant and that the patio doors were unlocked so she could get out and fetch them if there was crying. It's also logical to assume that the child gate was either left open, or they knew that she was capable of opening and closing it. Otherwise there was no point in leaving the patio doors unlocked.
There's never been a definitive answer as to when the patio doors of 5A were left unlocked, but Fiona Payne ertainly got the impression that Thursday May 3rd was the first time;
"it just strikes me, in awful retrospect, that, you know, Kate, I think, had done something that she wasn't quite happy with, in leaving the doors unlocked. And that is something again that she is going to beat herself up about for a long time to come because, you know, you, you like think that you acted on your instincts and I think her instinct was that that was something she wasn't really happy to do'." (Rogatory interview)
It seems unlikely that Kate would be unhappy about leaving the patio doors unlocked if she'd been doing it all week.