Is there a plausible, logical theory of abduction?

[faithlilly]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the man allegedly seen watching the apartment spotted during the day ? With the McCanns involved in tennis and the children at the crèche at that time exactly what do you think he would have gleaned from 'watching'? As to the charity collectors, the same question. Were the McCanns bothered by anyone collecting for charity or did any of the witnesss who were have their child abducted?  Further wouldn't it be very strange for someone who intended to be part of a child abduction to make their face known to the parents of the intended victim and again what do you think a would be abductor would gain from standing on an apartment doorstep?

[Lace]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the man allegedly seen watching the apartment spotted during the day ? With the McCanns involved in tennis and the children at the crèche at that time exactly what do you think he would have gleaned from 'watching'? As to the charity collectors, the same question. Were the McCanns bothered by anyone collecting for charity or did any of the witnesss who were have their child abducted?  Further wouldn't it be very strange for someone who intended to be part of a child abduction to make their face known to the parents of the intended victim and again what do you think a would be abductor would gain from standing on an apartment doorstep?

The charity collectors could have been out looking for a child like Madeleine,   one of the witnesses said the man seemed more interested in her children than collecting money.

They could have been watching day and night,  to observe the McCann's daily activities,  what time they came back for lunch etc.   was Madeleine the right child that had been chosen,   they were making sure.

[faithlilly]

The charity collectors could have been out looking for a child like Madeleine,   one of the witnesses said the man seemed more interested in her children than collecting money.

They could have been watching day and night,  to observe the McCann's daily activities,  what time they came back for lunch etc.   was Madeleine the right child that had been chosen,   they were making sure.

Gail Cooper's statement said nothing about the charity collector being more interested in her children. It was only when her story was given the usual tabloid twist that that appeared. I wonder how much she was paid by the newspaper?

Further if they were watching day and night why did no one report seeing anyone watching at night? Why make yourself noticeable during the day but hide away at nigh and if they were going to snatch her at night, presumably while the parents were at dinner, why would they need to know when they came back for lunch?

[John]

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.

Ignored appears to be a common theme reported by numerous people who have contacted them.

[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?

Anyone who supports or excuses the McCann's self confessed careless attitude to childcare and child safety is, in my opinion. attempting to normalise unacceptable behaviour. I am not the only one holding that opinion, which is factually based and nothing to do with judging whether they behave 'innocently' or 'guiltily'.

[John]

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.

I believe we have covered that at length weeks ago.  Fully cooperating with those charged with finding out what happened to your missing daughter would have been a good starting point.  Then we have the launching of a private investigation contrary to Portuguese Law not to mention the Marcos Correia/ Amaral / Cipriano affair.  In missing children cases the parents are always the first to be investigated because in most cases it is the parents or another family member who is involved.

[Lace]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the man allegedly seen watching the apartment spotted during the day ? With the McCanns involved in tennis and the children at the crèche at that time exactly what do you think he would have gleaned from 'watching'? As to the charity collectors, the same question. Were the McCanns bothered by anyone collecting for charity or did any of the witnesss who were have their child abducted?  Further wouldn't it be very strange for someone who intended to be part of a child abduction to make their face known to the parents of the intended victim and again what do you think a would be abductor would gain from standing on an apartment doorstep?

They would only see Madeleine during the day wouldn't they?   How would they know the children were in the crèche and the McCann's were playing tennis unless they observed their day to day activities.   They were making sure Madeleine was the right child.

I wasn't talking about Gail Cooper either I was talking about this mother in this article -
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/508106/Madeleine-McCann-book-claims-prowler-seen-stalking-apartments

[Benice]

Anyone who supports or excuses the McCann's self confessed careless attitude to childcare and child safety is, in my opinion. attempting to normalise unacceptable behaviour. I am not the only one holding that opinion, which is factually based and nothing to do with judging whether they behave 'innocently' or 'guiltily'.

'Understanding' why they thought their childcare arrangements were OK is not the same as 'supporting' it.

The listening method of childcare may be unacceptable behaviour in your opinion and many others,  but it is not an opinion held by everyone, including all those parents who adopted the same childcare arrangements themselves when they went on holiday or those parents who use baby monitors for the same purpose.    In both cases children are left alone in their rooms while their parents go to dinner.

Pretending these people do not exist in their thousands is unrealistic IMO.

[ShiningInLuz]

&%+((£gCould you give us any reason why the McCanns should or would want to engage with you
I find the idea ridiculous

Did you miss this bit?  "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."

I find the attitude of those who elevate the McCann interests above the interests of Madeleine to be unfortunate, to put it mildly.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

Mine is based on facts in the files.

Yours isn't.  I assume it is based on belief, but that of course is an assumption.

As explained at least twice, my hypothesis is checkable by OG using a simple test.

Yours isn't.  It is not possible to test a pile of assumptions and hopes.

The theorem opened up using your flawed logic is that the McCanns had the ability to do it, therefore it is plausible and logical that they did.  This pile of crock builds in assumptions, and is non-testable.

I note for the record that although I have said this applies to those in the Tapas 9 who were conducting checks, you continually narrow this down to merely the McCanns.

We are back into the issue of which camp you fall into.  McCann supporter or Madeleine supporter.  Based on this thread, you appear to prioritise the McCanns at the expense of Madeleine.

Whereas I prioritise Madeleine.

[faithlilly]

They would only see Madeleine during the day wouldn't they?   How would they know the children were in the crèche and the McCann's were playing tennis unless they observed their day to day activities.   They were making sure Madeleine was the right child.

I wasn't talking about Gail Cooper either I was talking about this mother in this article -
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/508106/Madeleine-McCann-book-claims-prowler-seen-stalking-apartments

The right child? For what?

As to the link the mother wasn't even sure the two men were the same. Sounds rather more like an opportunist burglar to me than a child snatcher.

[Alice Purjorick]

What a strange pair you are, to find that article so amusing.

It wasn't so much the article which was funny, both haha and peculiar, but what the article was being passed off as evidence of. That was haha and peculiar as well.

[Alice Purjorick]

You logic is absolutely flawed. Just because an occurrence is more improbable than another does not mean it couldn't have happened. Peter Voisey is just such a case. It was highly improbable that an individual unknown to the family would have taken the risk of entering a house which he knew to be occupied and finding a child, alone and vulnerable, and having the nerve to abduct her, but it happened. A number of improbable events leading to a criminal offence.

Voisey had form for high risk burglary.
He also left a bloody great boot print behind him in the bathroom in the much quoted case.

[John]

Did you miss this bit?  "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."

I find the attitude of those who elevate the McCann interests above the interests of Madeleine to be unfortunate, to put it mildly.

They should be grateful for any help they can get from people who actualy live in the area.  Time will tell!

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

I have now been approached on 4 occasions by a total of 5 charity collectors, all within Luz.

Based on behaviour and conversation, I believe 3 of these occasions (4 collectors) to be bogus.  It is a common, frequent scam perpetrated (I believe) on non-Portuguese residents.  The last time I checked the minimum wage in Portugal, it was €5.70 per hour.  Getting €10 off a gullible foreigner is therefore a worthwhile activity.

The last time I was approached was in October 2016.  I had a visitor doing a Luz Tour and we were sitting outside Kellys, in fine sunshine, discussing the case, when a man approached us.  Thinking back on his behaviour and conversation, I believe he was genuine, but at the time, being aware of the charity collector scam, we declined to contribute. 

To be honest, I feel somewhat guilty about this now because frankly I can afford to donate €10 to a good cause.  The man was finding it tough going to get contributions, partly because of the scam awareness, and partly because workers in bars etc often get employed for a cash-in-hand rate of 4 or 5€ per hour i.e. they are trying to scrape a living themselves.

Now the fact that this approach occurred in the midst of a Luz Tour is sheer coincidence, but the fact is such coincidences do happen.

Since no child went missing on the 3 bogus events, and since these events were splattered across 3 different locations in Luz, and sine there was never a hint of burglary or robbery, I ascribe these 3 events as simplistic attempts at a scam, nothing more.