There is a lot of plausible abduction theories, but no plausible theory which excludes "abduction by stranger to Tapas 9" ...
Only as an example the simplest (though maybe not the truest) abduction theory:
An unplanned abduction. The offender without a car was looking for a apartment to "break" (PdL is a very safe place but with a lot of "breakings" which means entering the apartment/house with or without damage to steal something). He found 5A window in a dark place. He opened the window form the outside (glass panes unlocked). Madeleine went to the window, somnolent and very tired, thinking he was one of her parents. He (versatile offender) caught her at 21:45. Jane saw him. The Smiths saw him.
I always think is very difficult to keep a secret on such a famous case if more than one person knows what really happened ...
Heri.
This is merely an hypothesis, where is your thesis?
I received Christmas presents religiously for 6 years until I decided I preferred the money because I din't like the presents, and I wrote that to Santa
When I lost my first tooth, mother told me to put it under the pillow and the Tooth Fairy would give me 500$00(2,5€ , old times, don't laugh), and the bank note was there.
Is there any proof that Santa Claus does not exist?
Is there any proof that the tooth Fairy does not exist?
For a child brain's, before those evidences, of course those proves were enough. But are they enough for a grown up?
Just because 2 persons come up with 2 accounts (one of them referring the father, not an abductor) that they saw a person with a child, that is not proof that a certain situation is what we think it is.
Many have asked why didn't the person that Jane Tanner saw never came out and related what he was doing, well, maybe because there was not such person.
Why didn't the Smith's testimony come out? Considering that Mr. Smith thought that "it" looked a lot like Mr. McCann it's difficult to consider Mr. McCann self appointing himself of being "it".
But are there facts that deny a non-abduction?! YES, there are, unfortunately facts that
point(I don't say prove) to a fatal accident/death.
Perceptions are not facts and facts only make sense within a frame of meaning that must be construed after sufficient and solid co-current observations.
If there are enough observations to build an hypothesis that the child died, that thesis has yet to be proven beyond doubt.
P.S. I stopped believing in Santa Claus (in my case it was Baby Jesus) when I was 4, I just dribbled mother&father until I could negotiate with them