Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[Eleanor]

Odiaxere.

Thanks, Misty.

Am I correct in thinking that this was a false crime report?

[Alfie]

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.

I asked you a simple question, why are you refusing to answer?  It is an extremely relevant question considering the fact that you are attempting to rip my argument to shreds, when as far as I recall you actually share my opinion that abduction is the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance.  Indeed you presented some bizarre little maths equation not long back in which (IIRC) you put abduction at the top at 20% or something (even though with the other two possibilities the sum did not add up to a hundred). 

I'm seriously wondering what I'm doing even attempting to engage with you as you appear so outwith the realms of reasonable, rational discussion it hardly seems worth the bother.  Sorry if this seems rude.   

[barrier]

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

Are you ignoring the PJ who after all have primacy over the investigation.

[G-Unit]

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.

I also cannot find that note, so who knew the children were being left at night?

The Mark Warner booking team (based in the UK, I assume)
The person who arranged for the apartments to be together, if he was given the reason. (Vitor Santos)
The receptionist who took the booking (Luisa Coutinho)
The Wilkins.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Most arguments appear to be based on a different thread title. The words plausible and logical being totally ignored.

Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?
The incident happened some time May 3rd 2007 but in discussions on here it's not long before Messrs Grime Amaral and sundry dawgs come into the conversation..............time lords all.

[G-Unit]

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

Really? So glib. Just because the parents are in the Tapas? The children could all be together in one apartment with the baby monitor being used. They could all be together in one apartment with a baby-sitter. They could all be in their own apartments with between one and four baby-sitters caring for them. One of the group could be baby-sitting (Sun Matt, Tues Russ, Wed Rachael were all absent). They could be in the night cheche.

Please identify the viewpoints in those four blocks which would enable someone to watch the front and back doors of 5A from 5.30 to 8.30?

[Alfie]

Really? So glib. Just because the parents are in the Tapas? The children could all be together in one apartment with the baby monitor being used. They could all be together in one apartment with a baby-sitter. They could all be in their own apartments with between one and four baby-sitters caring for them. One of the group could be baby-sitting (Sun Matt, Tues Russ, Wed Rachael were all absent). They could be in the night cheche.

Please identify the viewpoints in those four blocks which would enable someone to watch the front and back doors of 5A from 5.30 to 8.30?

SO you don't think it would have been possible for a would be abductor to figure out that the children were left in their own apartments?  What babysitters?  Were there any in evidence seen entering apartments? 

But perhaps you're right.  Perhaps they chanced it, Apartment 5a being the easiest to access, nothing ventured, nothing gained, they got lucky, Madeleine didn't.  Who knows?  Intruders have entered apartments that were known to contain parents, after all....
As for your other question - no idea.  Ask the resident expert.

[Mr Gray]

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.

you are not being rude but simply showing your prejudice. I find gunits posts and your posts to be quite lacking in understanding the evidence. You have stated that there is no evidence that the McCannns are not suspects totally ridiculous. The statement by SY that they are not suspects is evidence in itself. Add to that they have never been arrested and i think we can a ssume never interviewed under caution.

gunit maintains that the twice translated non verbatim statements are accurate when anyone who knows anything about translations understands that errors will be made.....particularly when the pj were not using professional translators

[Alice Purjorick]

The mechanics of an abduction are ridiculously simple and the degree of risk involved using either potential method is ridiculously low.  It matters not a jot whether the timeline of checks that night is accurate or whether it is inaccurate.  It happens to get even easier with less frequent checks but it does not require them.  And both methods can be done by a single person.  Neither requires a team effort.

A while back I started from this point.  Given what we know of the checking, is it possible to mount an operation that results in the abduction of Madeleine, and better still, is low risk?  The answer is that there are two ways that satisfy both criteria.

There was low or zero risk until such times as an abductor entered the front door of apartment 5A or until an abductor passed through the unlocked patio doors.  From that point on it is simply a question of speed.

However, in the absence of evidence to support these two methods, I cannot claim that this is what happened, merely that both are feasible logistically.

Yeah the child got out and bumped into an itinerant abductor or the abductor gained access to the apartment.
That much is apparent if you have prejudged the state of abduction. Clarence Mitchell said there was no evidence of break in. There is no evidence whether the patio door was open or closed as that seems to have been a moveable feast. Over to you with the simple logistics. Start with the easy one : which door ?

[Mr Gray]

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.

Your reasoning is totally flawed. If we were to say it is most likely that the abductor was male that does not mean we are pointing the finger at Gerry

[Alfie]

Oddly, SIL has made numerous posts on the thread below arguing how easy it would be to abduct a child from Apartment 5a, and how the conditions in PdL at the time of the disappearance supported the possibility of an abduction, and yet when I say the same things apparently I am supposedly pointing the finger at the  McCanns!  Bloody bizarre.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7173.780

[G-Unit]

SO you don't think it would have been possible for a would be abductor to figure out that the children were left in their own apartments?  What babysitters?  Were there any in evidence seen entering apartments? 

But perhaps you're right.  Perhaps they chanced it, Apartment 5a being the easiest to access, nothing ventured, nothing gained, they got lucky, Madeleine didn't.  Who knows?  Intruders have entered apartments that were known to contain parents, after all....
As for your other question - no idea.  Ask the resident expert.

You said;

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

I answered pointing out it wasn't so simple.

Are you able to explain how seeing the parents in the Tapas tells the would-be abductor the kids are home alone or not?

[Alfie]

You said;

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

I answered pointing out it wasn't so simple.

Are you able to explain how seeing the parents in the Tapas tells the would-be abductor the kids are home alone or not?

Did you not read my post?  Also, I suggest you read the Mirror article I linked to, it may shed some light.

[Mr Gray]

if an abductor can walk into a house where the mother is present and take a child out of a bath then Maddie could have been abducted

[Robittybob1]

You said;

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

I answered pointing out it wasn't so simple.

Are you able to explain how seeing the parents in the Tapas tells the would-be abductor the kids are home alone or not?

If they had spoken to Silvia Batista they would know the McCanns didn't have a babysitter that night , and if they could see both Gerry and Kate seated at the restaurant they would be correct in assuming the kids were home alone.