Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[John]

Not according to the final PJ report.

Rubbish, the final Report drew no conclusions other than to state that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence by the refusal of the group to partake in an official reconstruction.

[ferryman]

Rubbish, the final Report drew no conclusions other than to state that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence by the refusal of the group to partake in an official reconstruction.

You are confusing the final PJ report (which ruled out 'woke and wandered') with the archiving dispatch, written by the prosecutors, which said the McCanns have no case to answer, and that Madeleine was victim of an abduction

I've often wondered why that part of the archiving dispatch which said there is no place, in a real criminal investigation, for the type of hypothesising typical of Sherlock Holmes or Poirot, never made it into the files that we read on line.

From Joao Carlos' final report:

As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared.

[ShiningInLuz]

So long as you don't name anyone, neither are you libelling anyone, by merely posting a theory.

ETA: So long as nothing you say makes anyone (named and known!) identifiable.

I cannot post the known facts without pointing a finger at one or more identifiable individuals, and since I lack clear evidence/proof, it would definitely be libel.

[Alfie]

Then again she may have woken up, heard her fathers voice outside and tried to follow him only to be run over and carried off.  Point is, both scenarios are possible and plausible.

Your scenario is possible, but less likely as it doesn't explain the open window.  It is also problematic in that we would have to accept Madeleine was able to open and close the door behind her, including the stair gate if that was her means of exit.  She needn't have been run over to have been abducted in your scenario however. 

[Alice Purjorick]

I'm not sure you could draw up a well-thought-out analysis of how Peter Voisey carried out his crime.

The one fact beyond dispute is that he did.

And that more difficult, I would say, than the crime of which Madeleine was a victim.

How is that relevant to the case in point ?
So far I have not seen anyone get off first base with this conundrum. The best that is offered is "it happened cos we say it happened"  the start point being the prejudgement it was an abduction.

[Alfie]

I cannot post the known facts without pointing a finger at one or more identifiable individuals, and since I lack clear evidence/proof, it would definitely be libel.

If you don't have clear evidence or proof then they can't be known facts. 

[faithlilly]

It is plausible and logical to suggest that an abductor would have chosen his quarry prior to abduction and through a process of observation / reconnaissance / tip-off ascertained where and when to strike.  Method of entry is simple.  There was an unlocked patio door and an open window - take your pick.  alternatively we know that burglaries had taken place in the same complex with no sign of a break in, so it is plausible and logical to suggest that spare or skeleton keys could have been used to gain entry to the apartment.  All perfectly plausible, all perfectly logical.

Do we know if the other burglary victims had left windows open because it would seem that certainly Mrs Fenn's burglary was by way of an open window ?

How do you think things played out? Did the abductor set his sights on Madeleine and was just extremely lucky that her parents were virtually the only couple in the whole resort to leave their patio doors unlocked or did the unlocked patio doors offer the abductor the opportunity to steal a child, any child?

[John]

You are confusing the final PJ report (which ruled out 'woke and wandered') with the archiving dispatch, written by the prosecutors, which said the McCanns have no case to answer, and that Madeleine was victim of an abduction

I've often wondered why that part of the archiving dispatch which said there is no place, in a real criminal investigation, for the type of hypothesising typical of Sherlock Holmes or Poirot, never made it into the files that we read on line.

From Joao Carlos' final report:

A conclusion reached in 2007 has little validity in 2016 when we know so much more.  In any event several very senior British detectives have looked at the three scenarios in great detail and rightly don't rule woke and wandered out.  In fact, given the forensics or should I say the absence of any forensic evidence which could support a stranger abduction I see the woke and wandered scenario as the leading contender.  I hasten to add there could have been a live or dead abduction thereafter.

[ferryman]

I cannot post the known facts without pointing a finger at one or more identifiable individuals, and since I lack clear evidence/proof, it would definitely be libel.

OK

[Mr Gray]

I cannot post the known facts without pointing a finger at one or more identifiable individuals, and since I lack clear evidence/proof, it would definitely be libel.

#the fact that you lack clear evidence means your theory has no real basis in reality

[Alfie]

Do we know if the other burglary victims had left windows open because it would seem that certainly Mrs Fenn's burglary was by way of an open window ?

How do you think things played out? Did the abductor set his sights on Madeleine and was just extremely lucky that her parents were virtually the only couple in the whole resort to leave their patio doors unlocked or did the unlocked patio doors offer the abductor the opportunity to steal a child, any child?

To answer your first question - I don't know.  What is the evidence for the burglary of Mrs Fenn's being by way of an open window and if so, who left the window open?
To answer your second question - I don't know, but I would guess that the abductor, acting either on a tip-off or by observation, ascertained which child or children were the most vulnerable and easy to abduct.   Let's not forget that there had been a spate of break-ins to holiday apartments / bedrooms on the algarve in which children were targeted for the purposes of sexual molestation, so the concept is not that far-fetched.

[Mr Gray]

A conclusion reached in 2007 has little validity in 2016 when we know so much more.  In any event several very senior British detectives have looked at the three scenarios in great detail and rightly don't rule woke and wandered out.  In fact, given the forensics or should I say the absence of any forensic evidence which could support a stranger abduction I see the woke and wandered scenario as the leading contender.  I hasten to add there could have been a live or dead abduction thereafter.

so you think maddie opened the windows and shutters

[Benice]

Be honest Benice you thought the McCanns innocent even before the release of the files?

Yes - I've always thought they were innocent Faith - not because I like them particularly,  but because  I have never found anything to make me think otherwise.

[misty]

There were 4 apartments with unsupervised children in them, not just the one. Anyone observing the front of Block 5 during the day & evening would have been aware of the comings & goings, maybe noting that not one was seen to have a babysitter arriving as the adults left for dinner.
 I think that is why Robitty wanted to know how the arrangements for babysitting guests' children by the nannies was made. For Sylvia Batista to say that she personally had offered the babysitting service to the parents indicates that she, too, was aware of the supervision issue prior to the 3rd. How did she know, since the standing arrangement for the Tapas dining was made on the previous Sunday, or had there been an open discussion amongst staff about it?

[ShiningInLuz]

If you don't have clear evidence or proof then they can't be known facts.

You are mixing up two different requirements. 

The known facts of which I speak are contained in about a dozen pages of the PJ files and so are in the public domain.  These known facts do not constitute clear evidence or proof, a point I made crystal clear at the start of this exchange.

I cannot get my hands on one or more pieces of information that would be sufficient to change the situation from known facts to sufficient evidence to turn a named person or persons into arguidos.

I have discussed these known facts with visitors on my Luz Tours and on each occasion I have been urged to bring this material to the attention of Operation Grange

I finally got round to doing just that in November 2016.  I don't know what became of this communication.  The information could be sitting disregarded in a in-box in OG.  It could be that the simple test I suggested was carried out, and the individuals got the all-clear.  It could be that the individuals failed the test and Operation Grange is pursuing the matter further.

OG does not keep me in the loop, so I have no way of telling which it is.