Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

I?ve done it fairly recently in this thread but it doesn?t matter now anyway.  I realise now that it would be a physical impossiblity for a man to enter an unlocked ground floor apartment and remove a sleeping child while the parents were elsewhere, and get away with it unseen.  That just couldn?t happen in the 5 or 10 minutes available, so you are right.  The simplest Occam?s Razor solution is to ignore every single witness that night apart from the very vague Smiths who gave their evidence weeks after the event.  That makes the most sense. I see that now.  Thank you.

You can't do it. You simply cannot counter the Gerrylike trousers pyjama change scenario. Instead you have to completely dismiss the most likely sighting of Madeleine. Exactly as I mentioned McCann supporters will resort to in a previous post.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I then pushed back against stupid Granny on GPT and said:

But in my theory I believe Gerry waited until after the alarm was raised to carry the body through town and there is no reliable evidence to say exactly where he was after the alarm was raised

And this is what the retarded old bat came back with:

I see what you?re doing?shifting the timing to after the alarm removes one constraint. But even with that adjustment, the theory still runs into some major issues when you test it carefully.

After the alarm was raised, the situation around the apartment changed very quickly. Multiple people from the group and nearby apartments were moving around, searching, calling out, and checking areas. That creates a much ?noisier? environment with more potential witnesses, not fewer. For Gerry McCann to leave during that period carrying a child-sized body, pass through public streets, and not be clearly and consistently identified by anyone (aside from the ambiguous Smith family sighting) is still a big stretch.

On the point about ?no reliable evidence? of his exact movements: it?s true the timeline isn?t perfectly pinned down minute-by-minute?that?s common in real cases. But lack of precise tracking isn?t the same as positive evidence of an opportunity. Investigators generally look for corroboration (CCTV, multiple consistent sightings, forensics), and in this case, none has emerged to support body disposal by the parents after the alarm.

The Smith sighting also becomes harder to lean on the more you examine it. It wasn?t a clear, immediate identification, and later impressions can be influenced by media exposure. Investigators tend to give more weight to contemporaneous descriptions than to later reinterpretations.

And there?s a broader practical issue: your theory requires that, in a high-alert situation, he:

left without drawing attention,
transported a body through lit, public areas,
disposed of it in a way that has never been discovered,
and did all of this without leaving forensic traces or generating additional credible sightings.

Each of those steps is possible on its own, but together they make for a very low-probability chain?especially given the scale of the investigation by Pol?cia Judici?ria and Scotland Yard, who have not substantiated this scenario.

So even with your revised timing, the theory still depends heavily on uncertain assumptions and a single, inconclusive sighting. That doesn?t mean every detail of the case is resolved?but it does mean this particular explanation doesn?t hold up strongly against the available evidence.

Now I've got to go for a lie-down because I just don't know what to think anymore. 

[Wonderfulspam]

I want to hear your theory VS, not read a load of AI tripe. But you can't do it. You simply cannot debunk the Gerrylike trousers pyjama changing obvious basically. You have to just exclude the Smiths to be able to get past it.
I guess we'll just have to wait until Wolters finds Brueckner's button trousers & Gerry mask. Then we'll know for sure that I was wrong.

[Wonderfulspam]

I?ve done it fairly recently in this thread but it doesn?t matter now anyway.  I realise now that it would be a physical impossiblity for a man to enter an unlocked ground floor apartment and remove a sleeping child while the parents were elsewhere, and get away with it unseen.  That just couldn?t happen in the 5 or 10 minutes available, so you are right.  The simplest Occam?s Razor solution is to ignore every single witness that night apart from the very vague Smiths who gave their evidence weeks after the event.  That makes the most sense. I see that now.  Thank you.

At the around the same time Brueckner somehow got into the apartment, opened the window & carried Madeleine out without waking her. In a terrible sequence of unfortunate coincidence, there was a man resembling Gerry, he had buttoned trousers, like Gerry had, he was uncomfortably carrying a deeply unconscious child closely matching Madeleine's description. It's the most unfortunate coincidence but is just a fact of the case I'll have to learn to accept now because your amazing theory, although lacking in any real detail, has convinced me I should believe the McCanns.

[Vertigo Swirl]

At the around the same time Brueckner somehow got into the apartment, opened the window & carried Madeleine out without waking her. In a terrible sequence of unfortunate coincidence, there was a man resembling Gerry, he had buttoned trousers, like Gerry had, he was uncomfortably carrying a deeply unconscious child closely matching Madeleine's description. It's the most unfortunate coincidence but is just a fact of the case I'll have to learn to accept now because your amazing theory, although lacking in any real detail, has convinced me I should believe the McCanns.

It does feel like a striking coincidence when you line those elements up side-by-side?but the key question is whether they really all point to the same, specific conclusion once you examine how solid each piece is.

Start with the sighting itself. The account from the Smith family was not a firm identification of Gerry McCann at the time. It was a general description of a man carrying a child. The later suggestion that he resembled Gerry came after widespread media coverage, which is exactly the kind of situation where memory can become unintentionally reshaped. Investigators tend to treat those later associations with caution.

Then look at the details you?re linking:

?Buttoned trousers? ? very common, not distinctive.
?Uncomfortable carrying? ? subjective and open to interpretation.
Child in pyjamas ? broadly consistent with many children at night, not uniquely identifying.

Individually, none of these features strongly singles out one person. When combined, they can feel specific?but that?s partly a pattern-recognition effect. Our brains are very good at connecting vague traits into a seemingly precise match.

On the abduction side: it?s not established that someone ?opened the window and carried her out that way? as a proven sequence. That?s one early hypothesis that?s been debated and challenged over time. An intruder entering and leaving via a door is also entirely possible and arguably simpler.

As for Christian Br?ckner, investigators haven?t publicly claimed a detailed, minute-by-minute reconstruction of how an abduction occurred?only that they believe he is a viable suspect based on other lines of evidence. So your comparison is partly between a very specific, constructed scenario (involving Gerry) and a less fully specified one (involving an intruder).

The deeper issue is this: your theory depends on stacking several uncertain assumptions and treating them as if they reinforce each other. But if each element is weak or ambiguous, combining them doesn?t necessarily make the overall case stronger?it can just create the illusion of precision.

So is it ?the most unfortunate coincidence?? It?s better described as:

one ambiguous sighting,
later reinterpretation of that sighting, and
a set of non-unique details being fitted together after the fact.

That doesn?t make your theory impossible?but it does mean the ?coincidence? isn?t as improbably specific as it first appears.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I want to hear your theory VS, not read a load of AI tripe. But you can't do it. You simply cannot debunk the Gerrylike trousers pyjama changing obvious basically. You have to just exclude the Smiths to be able to get past it.
I guess we'll just have to wait until Wolters finds Brueckner's button trousers & Gerry mask. Then we'll know for sure that I was wrong.

You're only getting AI answers from me from now on, because I'm fed up of being called a moron and retarded.

[Wonderfulspam]

Copying & pasting AI because you can't actually make a coherent case yourself. Dear God. How embarrassing for you
 Have you no Shame?

[Wonderfulspam]

You're only getting AI answers from me from now on, because I'm fed up of being called a moron and retarded.

How incredibly convenient. When pressed for a bit more flesh on the bone to your skeletal theory, suddenly you go quiet. How extraordinary.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I said to Chat GPT

I think it's more likely that the abduction occurred after 9.30pm and after Matthew Oldfield's check - please put together a scenario based on that

They replied:

That?s a reasonable adjustment to explore. If you move the critical window to after Matthew Oldfield?s check (~9:30 pm), you actually get a cleaner and in some ways more realistic scenario, because it avoids relying on the earlier, disputed sightings.

Here?s how a plausible post-9:30 pm abduction scenario could look:

A later-window abduction scenario
~9:25?9:35 pm: The last known check

Matthew Oldfield looks into the apartment. He reportedly doesn?t physically verify Madeleine in bed (he listens/looks but doesn?t closely inspect).

If an offender was already nearby or watching, this check might:

confirm the children are alone,
and signal the next likely gap before another check.
~9:35?9:45 pm: Entry and abduction

Shortly after Oldfield leaves, the offender:

enters via the unlocked patio door (fastest, lowest risk),
goes straight to the bedroom,
lifts Madeleine while she?s asleep.

This could realistically take under a minute or two.

No disturbance is reported by the other children, which fits a quiet removal.

~9:40?9:50 pm: Exit from the complex

The abductor leaves the apartment area.

This is the most sensitive phase, but:

foot traffic is low,
lighting is limited,
and people outside (including members of the group) are not actively searching yet.

This window also avoids the need to intersect with earlier movements like those of Jane Tanner.

~9:50?10:00 pm: Movement away from the area

The offender increases distance?possibly:

heading toward a parked vehicle,
or moving into darker, less visible streets.

At this point, even if seen briefly, it wouldn?t necessarily raise alarm because:

no one yet knows a child is missing.

The Smith family sighting (around ~10:00 pm) could, in this version, align with a later-stage movement?but it remains too uncertain to rely on heavily.

~10:00 pm: Alarm raised

Kate McCann discovers Madeleine is missing.

By now, in this scenario, the abductor is already in the immediate area, which explains:

why initial searches didn?t locate her,
and why no clear suspect was found nearby.
Why this version is arguably stronger
Avoids dependence on disputed early sightings (like Tanner?s original interpretation)
Fits a realistic offender pattern: wait → confirm routine → act immediately after a check
Minimizes coincidence stacking compared to earlier timelines
Explains lack of disturbance (quick, quiet removal during a known gap)
What still remains uncertain

Even this tighter version still has gaps:

No confirmed forensic trace of entry/exit
No definitive witness to the abduction itself
The exact movements of an offender remain unknown
Bottom line

A post-9:30 pm abduction, shortly after Matthew Oldfield?s check, is one of the more logically consistent reconstructions:

it uses a clear opportunity window,
avoids reliance on weak or reinterpreted sightings,
and requires fewer assumptions than more complex theories.

It doesn?t prove what happened?but it?s a scenario that investigators would consider entirely plausible given the known constraints.


If you want, I can stress-test this version the same way we did with your earlier theory and point out where it?s strongest and where it?s still vulnerable.

yes please

Alright?let?s properly stress-test the post-9:30 pm abduction scenario and treat it with the same level of skepticism you applied to your own theory.

Where this scenario is strong
1. Clear opportunity window

Placing the abduction just after Matthew Oldfield?s check (~9:30 pm) gives a defined gap before the next check.

That?s important because:

offenders typically act right after a ?safety check? passes,
it reduces the risk of interruption,
and it avoids needing perfect timing earlier in the evening.

👉 This is one of the strongest aspects of the scenario.

2. Simplicity (fewer assumptions)

Compared to alternative theories, this version only requires:

an offender present in the area,
knowledge (or observation) of the routine,
a quick entry and exit.

It does not require:

body concealment,
later disposal,
coordinated deception.

👉 Fewer moving parts = higher baseline plausibility.

3. Fits known crime patterns

Opportunistic or semi-targeted abductions often:

exploit unlocked access,
happen during short supervision gaps,
and are completed very quickly.

This aligns with how Scotland Yard have framed similar cases.

4. Avoids weak sightings

By moving later, it sidesteps reliance on:

Jane Tanner?s original sighting (now linked to Julian Totman),
overinterpretation of the Smith family account.

👉 That removes a lot of uncertainty.

Where this scenario is weak
1. No direct evidence of an intruder

This is the biggest problem.

There is:

no confirmed forensic trace of entry,
no clear eyewitness to someone entering or leaving the apartment at that time.

That doesn?t disprove it?but it means the scenario is inferred, not evidenced.

2. Oldfield?s check creates ambiguity

Matthew Oldfield didn?t definitively see Madeleine?he listened/checked generally.

So:

if she was already gone, he might not have noticed,
if she was there, the abduction must be after ~9:30.

👉 This uncertainty slightly weakens the ?clean window.?

3. Exit risk is still significant

Even after 9:30:

people were moving around the resort,
the Tapas group members were doing checks,
visibility, while limited, wasn?t zero.

An offender carrying a child still risks being seen.

The fact that there?s no strong, immediate sighting remains a gap.

4. The Smith sighting is still awkward

The Smith family sighting (~10 pm) could fit?but:

it?s not definitive,
descriptions are inconsistent,
later identification issues muddy it.

👉 So it neither strongly supports nor cleanly fits the scenario.

5. Requires prior knowledge or luck

The offender must either:

have observed the routine beforehand, or
get extremely lucky with timing.

Both are plausible?but it?s still an assumption without direct proof.

Direct comparison to your earlier theory

Your original theory (involving Gerry McCann) vs this one:

Factor                  Your theory (Gerry Dunnit)                                            Post-9:30 abduction
Number of assumptions   High                                                                    Moderate
Reliance on single sighting   Heavy (Smiths)                                                    Low
Forensic support           None                                                                    None
Complexity                   High (concealment, transport, deception)            Lower (single act)
Timeline pressure           Very tight                                                            More flexible

👉 The key difference:

Your theory needs multiple things to go right without evidence
This one needs fewer things?but still lacks direct proof
Final assessment

Strength level:
👉 Plausible, but unproven

Biggest strength:

Clean timing + simplicity

Biggest weakness:

Total lack of direct evidence of the abductor
Bottom line

This version holds up better under scrutiny than more complex alternatives, including the one you proposed earlier?but it still isn?t strongly evidenced.

It survives because:

it doesn?t contradict known facts,
and it doesn?t require unlikely chains of events.

But it remains just that?a plausible reconstruction, not a demonstrated explanation.

Thanks Chap GPT, it's so nice to chat to someone (something) that writes like a grown up, completely logical anfd unemotional and isn't horribly abusive. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Now I suggest that anyone who thinks Chat GPT is a moronic retard takes it up with them, because I'm done arguing with the WUM on here. 

[Wonderfulspam]

You've suddenly decided to stop conversing with me as soon as things got a bit tricky for you. I haven't called you a retarded gullible moron in over 24 hours & you were talking to me, but now, as soon as things get difficult for you, it suddenly becomes a problem. You're more transparent than glass.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You've suddenly decided to stop conversing with me as soon as things got a bit tricky for you. I haven't called you a retarded gullible moron in over 24 hours & you were talking to me, but now, as soon as things get difficult for you, it suddenly becomes a problem. You're more transparent than glass.

It's not difficult for me Spam, I'm just bored of repeating myself and being insulted so I thought I would bring in an impartial opinion, one that works by objectively and logically looking at all the known facts without resorting to argumentum ridiculum as you usually do.  I suggest you read what Chat GPT has said and then tell it why it is wrong, see if you can bend it to your will and then report back.  Have a nice day. 

[Wonderfulspam]

It's not difficult for me Spam, I'm just bored of repeating myself and being insulted so I thought I would bring in an impartial opinion, one that works by objectively and logically looking at all the known facts without resorting to argumentum ridiculum as you usually do.  I suggest you read what Chat GPT has said and then tell it why it is wrong, see if you can bend it to your will and then report back.  Have a nice day.

You wouldn't be repeating yourself because you've never really presented your abduction theory in the first place. Now you're relying on AI to make your case for you because you yourself cannot. It really is pathetic VS. Your main aim is to win arguments & when you're not winning, suddenly you don't want to play anymore.

[Eleanor]

Thirteen years of Spammy Spamming; You'd think he might have improved somewhat after all that time.

[Joe Blogs]

I said to Chat GPT

I think it's more likely that the abduction occurred after 9.30pm and after Matthew Oldfield's check - please put together a scenario based on that

They replied:

yes please

Thanks Chap GPT, it's so nice to chat to someone (something) that writes like a grown up, completely logical anfd unemotional and isn't horribly abusive.

Why has chat GPT ignored the claim from the McCanns that the bedroom window was open, Vertigo?