Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[faithlilly]

The denial of the plausibility or logic of stranger abduction in Madeleine McCann's case as discussed by some on this thread ... in my opinion ... is akin to denying that child abduction by strangers does not happen.
Would that we lived in such enlightened times. 

O tempora o mores! "A British property owner in the resort of Praia Da Luz said the police had pinpointed “persons of interest” to the blocks" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/kidnapper-spied-madeleine-mccann-police-1897649 is unashamedly and mockingly posted and unashamedly lauded.
Not a thought is given to the investigators who in 2007 failed to investigated ... while the investigators who did investigate in 2013 are derided.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7884.msg377825#msg377825
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7884.msg377832#msg377832

No one is deriding the present investigators because there is no evidence that these stories have anything to do with the present investigation. A unnamed British  ( aren't they always British)  property owner allegedly showed the churnalist a letter from an unnamed Met officer. Really ?  Haven't you supporters learned anything in the last 10 years ?

[Brietta]

To be perfectly blunt, I find this quite objectionable.

I have made it 100% crystal clear that I cannot provide sufficient evidence to support any particular scenario.

I have not explained how a scenario involving some or several of the Tapas 9 is feasible.  Further, I have accepted that other scenarios are possible.

IMO, you have done yourself a disservice with this post.

A child is missing.

When she first disappeared the main opportunities for recovering her or finding out what had become of her were missed because of incompetent investigation.
I have mentioned one example of that on this thread tonight and the amusement it engendered.

The old myths still hold sway mainly I think because they are necessary to keep the opprobrium going against the parents of a missing child.

On this forum we have the privilege of being able to express our opinions within the bounds of the forum rules.  Members are welcome to disagree ... and I have pointed out exactly how I think your posts have offended against objectivity when one set of named individuals are brought into the equation.
 

[ShiningInLuz]

A child is missing.

When she first disappeared the main opportunities for recovering her or finding out what had become of her were missed because of incompetent investigation.
I have mentioned one example of that on this thread tonight and the amusement it engendered.

The old myths still hold sway mainly I think because they are necessary to keep the opprobrium going against the parents of a missing child.

On this forum we have the privilege of being able to express our opinions within the bounds of the forum rules.  Members are welcome to disagree ... and I have pointed out exactly how I think your posts have offended against objectivity when one set of named individuals are brought into the equation.

And yet again to be perfectly clear, I have not argued for one camp or the other. If you think I have, re-read the thread and post the evidence.

You haven't got a clue, based on factual evidence, who is innocent and who is guilty.

Other than a belief, without a shred of evidence, that no one in the T9 was involved.  Mea culpa, that the McCans were not involved, since that seems to be the bit that is twinging a nerve at the moment

Why does it always boil down to the McCanns from McCann supporters?

Is there no room for Madeleine?

[Brietta]

And yet again to be perfectly clear, I have not argued for one camp or the other. If you think I have, re-read the thread and post the evidence.

You haven't got a clue, based on factual evidence, who is innocent and who is guilty.

Other than a belief, without a shred of evidence, that no one in the T9 was involved.  Mea culpa, that the McCans were not involved, since that seems to be the bit that is twinging a nerve at the moment

Why does it always boil down to the McCanns from McCann supporters?

Is there no room for Madeleine?

Starting with the investigating team at the time and continuing through the years until the present day is the theme that Madeleine was not abducted and that Madeleine is dead.
That truly helped her case ~ I think not. 
Time was squandered when the focus should have been on the recovery of a living breathing child and not trying to fit one even more ludicrous fantasy on top of another to justify yet another allegation of child murder where the remains had vanished in a puff of smoke.

How exactly did that leave room for any thought of Madeleine ... particularly the thought that she might be alive and had the right to be looked for ... particularly since there is not one single indication of her death?

I have as much of a clue who is guilty and who is innocent as you have.  The difference being that I respect the right of people to the presumption of innocence and deplore individuals being subjected to years of character assassination based on proven lies.

Have you never wondered why the vitriol directed against the McCanns and how it is in proportion to their efforts to keep the search for Madeleine McCann going?
In my opinion the consciences of those who wish them well in that (McCann supporters aka Madeleine supporters %£&)**#) are clear.

[ShiningInLuz]

...

Have you never wondered why the vitriol directed against the McCanns and how it is in proportion to their efforts to keep the search for Madeleine McCann going?

...

This is the bit I object to.  The implication is that I have directed vitriol against the McCanns.  I have not.  The McCanns would be more than welcome in my home and I would be also be happy to cook one of my (famous) dinners and engage in interesting discussion with them.

I predict this is not going to happen on so many levels, but that is how life works.

I hope to offer the McCanns an opportunity in the next three months to participate in an event which will clarify what happened to Madeleine.  I fully expect this invitation to be ignored.

Madeleine v the McCanns.

[Brietta]

This is the bit I object to.  The implication is that I have directed vitriol against the McCanns.  I have not.  The McCanns would be more than welcome in my home and I would be also be happy to cook one of my (famous) dinners and engage in interesting discussion with them.

I predict this is not going to happen on so many levels, but that is how life works.

I hope to offer the McCanns an opportunity in the next three months to participate in an event which will clarify what happened to Madeleine.  I fully expect this invitation to be ignored.

Madeleine v the McCanns.

It is disingenuous to suggest that I have made any such allegation.  I do however concede that the McCanns may very well ignore any such invitation you may wish to extend to them. 
This is their life as they have to live it not the distraction in which we participate ... but good luck with your endeavours ... I await with interest your solution.

[G-Unit]

So are you denying that Silvia ever made a comment where it was reported (after translation :The director of the Ocean Club's technical services, Silvia Batista, confirmed that on the same night Madeleine disappeared, she in person offered them the babysitting service, because the hotel is responsible for its guests, but they rejected her offer.")?

There were various reports as to what Silvia said.

But I do not think that was our fault. The resort is not responsible for the children of clients. We advise all to take care of security because of robbery only. And we offer the service of baby sitter (babysitter), which was not requested by the couple.

 "every month registries of robberies in the area are kept, and we therefore advise the service of a child-minder", but even knowing this, Maddie's parents did not accept it.

"We did not bear the blame for the disappearance of the little girl, it couldn't be said whose fault it was, but certainly not ours", assured the director and indicated that "the parents of the girl that night were very unconcerned", and there was no reason they should not have requested the service of a child-minder.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10908.html

She seems to be defending OC and pointing out that guests are responsible for the safety of their children, not the resort. I can't imagine why she would be offering people baby-sitters because child care services were nothing to do with her.

[Mr Gray]

This is the bit I object to.  The implication is that I have directed vitriol against the McCanns.  I have not.  The McCanns would be more than welcome in my home and I would be also be happy to cook one of my (famous) dinners and engage in interesting discussion with them.

I predict this is not going to happen on so many levels, but that is how life works.

I hope to offer the McCanns an opportunity in the next three months to participate in an event which will clarify what happened to Madeleine.  I fully expect this invitation to be ignored.

Madeleine v the McCanns.

Could you give us any reason why the McCanns should or would want to engage with you
I find the idea ridiculous

[Alfie]

Someone has a good memory or keeps good records.

Just as in the post you have quoted, I have no intention here of explaining precisely why multiple people in the Tapas 9 were able logically and plausibly to have dunnit.  That avenue is called libel boulevard.

It's simply that the logic you are using is seriously flawed, to the extent it is akin to McCann propaganda.  The light it sheds on the case is zero.

It is in the vein of could, should, must have, possibly, and other speculation that is not evidence-based.

One minute you're accusing me of dobbing the McCanns in it, the next of spreading McCann propaganda.  Please explain why what I have written on this thread is"flawed logic" by comparison to the post of yours I quoted in which you put forward an abduction theory.

[Benice]

But you thought them innocent before you even knew what the police had and that's what I mean by blind faith. It wouldn't matter what evidence the police had or, indeed, if it had gone to trial. You would still have argued for their innocence. Be honest.

Why do you keep asking me to be honest - I don't lie.   When I first heard Madeleine had disappeared,  I - ( along with everyone else I knew) thought she had probably been taken by a paedaphile.      As there is a history of little girls being abducted for that reason -  that is not 'blind belief'.       It was not until several years later when I was shocked to discover that there were people on the internet claiming it was the parents 'wot dunnit' that I started to look into the case -   mainly because  I was so appalled at the level of cruelty and venom being directed at the McCanns and anyone associated with them.    I still am.

Since then - along with SY and in line with the other real experts involved in this case -   nothing has happened to make me change my mind.      The behaviour of the McCanns in the last 10 years is the complete opposite of how guilty people would behave IMO  - and that has confirmed my belief in their innocence.

You are completely wrong Faith -  if you think I would 'argue for their innocence' if I had any doubts about it - as I most certainly would not.

Why you are soooo determined for them to be guilty - I have no idea.

[Benice]

There's some very interesting comments on that site, do you believe all of them? The McCanns in Caplins and having to be brought back because of crying children, all the staff gossiping about them the morning after? No wonder they were offered a baby-sitter! If they were, of course. Silvia said nothing of that in her official statements. They knew there were baby-sitters, but preferred leaving the kids home alone.

This has been discussed before on here.        IIRC there was a statement by Silvia - giving all her movements for 3rd May - which did not include speaking to or meeting the McCanns at any time until after Madeleine's disappearance.  I'm sure if she had - she would have mentioned it in that statement. 

[G-Unit]

Why do you keep asking me to be honest - I don't lie.   When I first heard Madeleine had disappeared,  I - ( along with everyone else I knew) thought she had probably been taken by a paedaphile.      As there is a history of little girls being abducted for that reason -  that is not 'blind belief'.       It was not until several years later when I was shocked to discover that there were people on the internet claiming it was the parents 'wot dunnit' that I started to look into the case -   mainly because  I was so appalled at the level of cruelty and venom being directed at the McCanns and anyone associated with them.    I still am.

Since then - along with SY and in line with the other real experts involved in this case -   nothing has happened to make me change my mind.      The behaviour of the McCanns in the last 10 years is the complete opposite of how guilty people would behave IMO  - and that has confirmed my belief in their innocence.

You are completely wrong Faith -  if you think I would 'argue for their innocence' if I had any doubts about it - as I most certainly would not.

Why you are soooo determined for them to be guilty - I have no idea.

The problem with basing your opinion on someone's behaviour is that it can be interpreted in different ways. There's no set pattern of behaviour for the innocent or for the guilty. You have chosen to interpret their behaviour in a particular way, but that doesn't mean you're right.

[Alfie]

The problem with basing your opinion on someone's behaviour is that it can be interpreted in different ways. There's no set pattern of behaviour for the innocent or for the guilty. You have chosen to interpret their behaviour in a particular way, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Perhaps you'd like to be reminded of this post next time you tell us how the McCanns should have behaved and what they should have done in the circumstances, and about their alleged "odd" behaviour?

[G-Unit]

Perhaps you'd like to be reminded of this post next time you tell us how the McCanns should have behaved and what they should have done in the circumstances, and about their alleged "odd" behaviour?

Have you worked out yet how a would-be abductor would know the McCann kids were home alone purely by seeing their parents in the Tapas restaurant? By your illogical reasoning all the unaccompanied parents in the restaurant that night must also have left their kids home alone.

[Lace]

Have you worked out yet how a would-be abductor would know the McCann kids were home alone purely by seeing their parents in the Tapas restaurant? By your illogical reasoning all the unaccompanied parents in the restaurant that night must also have left their kids home alone.

They were being observed,   witnesses saw men observing the apartment.   Also there were charity collectors collecting for a bogus charity,   a bit of a coincidence they happened to be around at the time.