Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[Robittybob1]

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.

Take us through the logic of the file references instead then and see if someone else comes to the same conclusion.

[ShiningInLuz]

I think you have everything wrong in your rather bizarre post. It has been establishef by SY that the McCanns are not suspects and that a stranger abduction is a possibility.

There is no evidence whatsoever that OG has established that the McCanns are not suspects.  The remit appears to exclude the McCanns but I have yet to see evidence as to how that remit was arrived at, only pure speculation on that point.

The simple fact of the matter is that Alfie's argument leads to the possibility of others, including the McCanns, having 'dunnit' in a simple and straight-forward manner that cannot be disproved by OG.

The fact that it cannot be disproved is not proof that it did or did not happen that way.  It simply means it cannot be disproved.  And that same fatal flaw exists within Alfie's reasoning.

[Eleanor]

What is the name of the place to which the GNR were called on the evening that Madeleine disappeared?

Thanks for any help on this.

[misty]

What is the name of the place to which the GNR were called on the evening that Madeleine disappeared?

Thanks for any help on this.

Odiaxere.

[Robittybob1]

There is no evidence whatsoever that OG has established that the McCanns are not suspects.  The remit appears to exclude the McCanns but I have yet to see evidence as to how that remit was arrived at, only pure speculation on that point.

The simple fact of the matter is that Alfie's argument leads to the possibility of others, including the McCanns, having 'dunnit' in a simple and straight-forward manner that cannot be disproved by OG.

The fact that it cannot be disproved is not proof that it did or did not happen that way.  It simply means it cannot be disproved.  And that same fatal flaw exists within Alfie's reasoning.

Try and take us through the logic of the 12 file references and see if someone else comes to the same conclusion.   Sounds interesting.

[G-Unit]

Well that was fun. Abduction is logical and plausible because;

there was space in the timeline (which can't be proved)
there was an open window (which no-one saw)
there had been burglars and child molestors in the area (allegedly, but so what?)
SY said the parent's aren't suspects (true, ages ago)
The McCann's have never done or said anything suspicious (ha ha ha)
The PJ thought woke and wandered was unlikely (when did they become the experts?)

[Alfie]

Well that was fun. Abduction is logical and plausible because;

there was space in the timeline (which can't be proved)
there was an open window (which no-one saw)
there had been burglars and child molestors in the area (allegedly, but so what?)
SY said the parent's aren't suspects (true, ages ago)
The McCann's have never done or said anything suspicious (ha ha ha)
The PJ thought woke and wandered was unlikely (when did they become the experts?)

Great, you've rubbished all the evidence quite successfully.  So now tell us why abduction is neither logical, nor plausible. 

[ShiningInLuz]

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?

My issue with this is it requires a couple of dollops of speculation.

First, to have the inclination to monitor block 5 for extended periods of time, during both the day and evening.  The daytime is to twig block 5 is stuffed with kids deemed to be tasty (desculpe) and the locations thereof (which apartments in detail).  The evening time is to twig the parents are leaving the children alone, and further that there is a pattern to this.  It probably also requires observing the McCanns using the patio doors in the evenings, to know that this was an entry point.  It is a lot of effort on an off-chance.

Second, the issue of the block booking is troublesome.  I know Kate covers it in her book.  The trouble is, I can see no reference to it in the PJ Files, beyond the receptionist noting such a booking was made.  Kate's open note, viewable by Tapas staff and possibly visitors, does not appear to be in the PJ Files.  I am struggling to think why the receptionist would make such a note.  The only reason I can think of for this being done or discussed with other staff is that it may have been to forewarn of a heavier than normal number of diners, but since I don't know the usual number, I cannot rely on that.

[Alfie]

G-Unit's rubbishing of the abduction theory, and my responses in red.

there was space in the timeline (which can't be proved)

The Met are satisfied that there was an opportunity in the timeline for Madeleine to have been taken.  This was after careful and forensic examination of the timeline, by professionals.  you refuse to accept this, your problem.

there was an open window (which no-one saw)
Didn't they?  Are you sure?  I'm sure Kate saw an open window.  Is she a no one now?

there had been burglars and child molestors in the area (allegedly, but so what?)
Allegedly?  Are you calling the parents of these children or the children themselves liars?

SY said the parent's aren't suspects (true, ages ago)
And they have said nothing to the contrary since, nor even hinted at it.

The McCann's have never done or said anything suspicious (ha ha ha)
Purely subjective -your opinion.  Doesn't count.

The PJ thought woke and wandered was unlikely (when did they become the experts?)
When did you?

[G-Unit]

Point 1. How would a would-be abductor know there were children alone in 5A?

Unless he was able to observe both front and back doors continuously from 5.30pm to 8.30pm or he had inside knowledge he wouldn't.

[Alfie]

There is no evidence whatsoever that OG has established that the McCanns are not suspects.  The remit appears to exclude the McCanns but I have yet to see evidence as to how that remit was arrived at, only pure speculation on that point.

The simple fact of the matter is that Alfie's argument leads to the possibility of others, including the McCanns, having 'dunnit' in a simple and straight-forward manner that cannot be disproved by OG.

The fact that it cannot be disproved is not proof that it did or did not happen that way.  It simply means it cannot be disproved.  And that same fatal flaw exists within Alfie's reasoning.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I was under the impression that you viewed abduction by stranger as the most pausible and logical explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. 

[ShiningInLuz]

Take us through the logic of the file references instead then and see if someone else comes to the same conclusion.

Again, I do not mean to be rude, but I consider the only poster on here to be of sufficient capability and case experience to understand the known facts and come to an informed conclusion to be G-Unit.  Now possibly having insulted other posters on here, including the forum owner, let me explain why I am not going down this path.

It requires not only the page numbers but an interchange to ask pertinent questions and to point out both the presence of fact and the absence of fact, where relevant.

I am not going to do that on open forum, because it constitutes libel.  I am not going to do it via PM because it still constitutes libel.

I am safe in bringing the matter to the attention of OG, a recognised legal authority.

I am on stonier ground in discussing it with visitors, though I doubt there is a real issue with this.  I always make clear what can be proved and what can't, so people's reputations are not impugned.

[Alfie]

Point 1. How would a would-be abductor know there were children alone in 5A?

Unless he was able to observe both front and back doors continuously from 5.30pm to 8.30pm or he had inside knowledge he wouldn't.

It wouldn't be rocket science to work out that if the parents were in the Tapas restaurant that the children were probably unattended.

Here's how it could be done, for example
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/kidnapper-spied-madeleine-mccann-police-1897649

[Alfie]

Again, I do not mean to be rude, but I consider the only poster on here to be of sufficient capability and case experience to understand the known facts and come to an informed conclusion to be G-Unit.  Now possibly having insulted other posters on here, including the forum owner, let me explain why I am not going down this path.

It requires not only the page numbers but an interchange to ask pertinent questions and to point out both the presence of fact and the absence of fact, where relevant.

I am not going to do that on open forum, because it constitutes libel.  I am not going to do it via PM because it still constitutes libel.


I am safe in bringing the matter to the attention of OG, a recognised legal authority.

I am on stonier ground in discussing it with visitors, though I doubt there is a real issue with this.  I always make clear what can be proved and what can't, so people's reputations are not impugned.

WE'RE NOT WORTHY!!!!

[ShiningInLuz]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I was under the impression that you viewed abduction by stranger as the most pausible and logical explanation for Madeleine's disappearance.

Is there a relevance to this?  Are we participating in a democratic vote?  And whichever side wins gets a prize?

Your argument is both fatally flawed and raises the possibility that the MCCanns and/or other members of the Tapas 9 'dunnit'.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it.  That approach doesn't work.