According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was it this post? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg453469#msg453469

 "If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?"

1.  the window was left open
2.  there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised.

Well done.  If you're a parent returning to the room where you last saw your little child, and she has gone, the window is open, and there is no sign of her after 12 hours despite dozens of people looking for her, is it a reasonable assumption that she has been taken?  Is it therefore not potentially evidence of an abduction?

[Carana]

I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are apparently perfect in this world. Never, ever, having done anything that could be criticised, or that they wish they hadn't done in retrospect, or managed in a different way.

Perhaps I should enrol for lessons.

[G-Unit]

No, it's not opinion we're debating here -you asked what evidence did the McCanns have to support  their belief that there daughter was abducted.  I've just pointed out what evidence they had that she was abducted.  The fact that you think they had a hand in her  disappearance is irrelevant to the question, your view of the McCanns has no bearing on the evidence of abduction they had, evidence which you yourself asked for, and evidence which supported their theory.

You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.

[Robittybob1]

Well done.  If you're a parent returning to the room where you last saw your little child, and she has gone, the window is open, and there is no sign of her after 12 hours despite dozens of people looking for her, is it a reasonable assumption that she has been taken?  Is it therefore not potentially evidence of an abduction?

I agree those are circumstantial evidences of abduction, even though there could be alternative reasons put forward for the same findings.

E.g.
1  Kate opened the window herself
2.  Body was hidden and taken further afield under the pretence of searching.

I suppose even had there been a ransom note, it could be falsified.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.

No, I don't always believe everything people tell me.  Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth?  If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.

Furthermore, the window was open according to at least one witness apart from Kate.  The child was not in the room when Kate did the 10pm check. The child WAS missing for 12 hours or more, according to numerous witnesses and the police.  So...

[Carana]

Well done.  If you're a parent returning to the room where you last saw your little child, and she has gone, the window is open, and there is no sign of her after 12 hours despite dozens of people looking for her, is it a reasonable assumption that she has been taken?  Is it therefore not potentially evidence of an abduction?

If Kate's account of finding the window open, and assuming it wasn't open prior to her check, I would find it to be a reasonable assumption that whoever opened that window could be responsible for her disappearance. Unfortunately, there are no independent witnesses to corroborate that.

An alternative (aside from the notion that she invented that) is that someone attempting a burglary caused Madeleine to wake up and run out. But then, there's the issue of where from? Hardly from the source of where the noise was coming from, which would have left the balcony.

The so-called evidence that her fingerprints were in a window-opening position doesn't appear to exist. There's no such evidence in the files. Why Amaral and pals kept repeating this isn't clear.

[jassi]

I agree those are circumstantial evidences of abduction, even though there could be alternative reasons put forward for the same findings.

E.g.
1 Kate opened the window herself
2.  Body was hidden and taken further afield under the pretence of searching.

I suppose even had there been a ransom note, it could be falsified.

Ooh you can't say that, it's not allowed. 

[Carana]

You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.

Then why did the PJ set such store by the (seemingly mistaken) initial impression that the window might have been jemmied, to conclude that she hadn't been abducted? They were aware that there two other plausible entry / exit routes...

[Carana]

Ooh you can't say that, it's not allowed. 

She might have done, but Amaral & cos assertions that her fingerprints were found in an opening position appears to be fact-free.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm wondering if it's difficult (impossible?) for those who doubt the McCanns to concede that they (the McCanns) might actually have been truthful about what they discovered that night, and that therefore there is circumstantial evidence of abduction?

[Brietta]

I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.

‘When I was a boy, I could cycle out of town and be in fields in ten minutes. I knew where the birds’ nests and badger setts were. Now children’s mothers would tell them they need someone to go with them, to make sure they weren’t molested by a sexual deviant.

‘When I was about 13, I cycled from Leicester to the Lake District and back again, collecting fossils and staying in youth hostels. I was away for three weeks, and my mother and father didn’t know where I was. I doubt many parents would let children do that now.’  Sir David Attenborough
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569361/Sir-David-Attenboroughs-childhood-memories.html#ixzz5AmH5pzeu


We've had this discussion ... how many times?

Until Kate returned to the apartment to find Madeleine gone the shutter raised and the bedroom window open it never occurred to her that the children were at risk from kidnap.
Praia da Luz was known as a child friendly holiday resort not the kidnap capital of the Algarve.

The fact that no one knows why the window had been opened or by whom or why it was put around by nationals familiar with that type of shutter that they were impossible to raise from outside when that is patently not so ~ are in my opinion evidence of illicit interference and poor interpretation of crime scene data.

[Brietta]

‘It was seven-thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the police station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey, the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he’d been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn’t allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U-turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimão. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.

Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograph, clearly taken from CCTV, of a blonde child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren’t told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. She wasn’t. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.’

Do we know when the CCTV from the second piece of film was given to the PJ ? Was it on the same day ? Would it have been possible to show it to the McCanns at the same time ? Were they shown it later ?

The links I have provided accompanying posts on this thread show that the police had the CCTV images in their possession on the 4th and that they were not shown to Kate and Gerry.

[slartibartfast]

No, I don't always believe everything people tell me.  Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth?  If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?

It’s a bit like using Ronnie Biggs’ evidence as proof he wasn’t involved in the great train robbery.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s a bit like using Ronnie Biggs’ evidence as proof he wasn’t involved in the great train robbery.

Another one who finds it difficult, or near impossible to answer the question asked.  You seem to be implying that the McCanns are like Ronnie Biggs, ie: guilty of a serious crime.  Was that your intention?  Moreover, what evidence did Ronnie Biggs put forward that he wasn't involved in the robbery?  Furthermore where did I mention proof?