was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide

by **PeterMac** 29.05.21 21:27

https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/

I have just come across this. From the comments, written about June last year - 2020

It is is a VERY long read, far too long to post here, but seems to take each piece of the evidence we have available to us,
and subject each one to scrutiny, without (too many) preconceptions.

The author clearly reads this forum, and has included things from it, but has chosen to gloss over one or two details,
- for which s/he is not to be blamed in an exercise of this magnitude - we all do the same when putting together our personal theories
There are some challenging ideas, and new ways of putting together the known facts.

I strongly suggest reading it with a completely OPEN mind.
First !

Peter

by **PeterMac** 30.05.21 15:17

Just copied it onto my computer so I can search it
72,000 words. Just under half a million keystrokes !
Adjusted to 12 point Calibri it is 192 pages

It is a hefty beast and worth the time to look at seriously.

S/he takes things very logically, and it is broken up into Chapters and headings
so individual aspects can be found and read in isolation

by **PeterMac** 30.05.21 15:26

This article is not accusing Kate and Gerry McCann of being responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance or for lying. The McCanns were considered suspects by the Portuguese police at one stage and for completeness, this article examines all theoretical scenarios and attempts to be as neutral and objective as possible.
Part 1- Introduction
Part 2- The Sniffer Dogs and DNA
Part 3- Did an Intruder Access the Apartment?
Part 4- Extra Evidence
Part 5- The Clues to Find Madeleine
Part 6- Theories

Part 1- Introduction
“Every solution to every problem is simple. It’s the distance between the two where the mystery lies.” – Derek Landy

Part 2- The Sniffer Dogs and DNA
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Soren Kierkegaard

Part 3- Did an Intruder Access the Apartment?
“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”– Anais Nin

Part 4- Extra Evidence
“The criminal is the creative artist; the detective only the critic.” – G.K. Chesterson

Part 5- The Clues to Find Madeleine
“You get a strange feeling when you’re about to leave a place. Like you’ll not only miss the people you love but you’ll miss the person you are now at this time and this place, because you’ll never be this way ever again.” – Azar Nafisi

Part 6- Theories
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct them to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

by **PeterMac** 31.05.21 7:12

It seems I have managed to post live links ! ! Which makes things easier

by **PeterMac** 05.06.21 15:49

I've had a chance to read this in more depth
Sadly most of it doesn't stack up, and the author actually reveals the hidden agenda.

"Conclusion About the Abduction Theory
The abduction theory is the explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance that I want to be true..."
**

The abduction theory is very well possible. I want to believe it. If the sniffer dog results were deemed 100% inaccurate, I would be vocally championing the abduction theory. Overall, I deem the abduction theory as possible. Partially due to the evidence, partially due to the only valid alternative- the PJ theory at present not providing a consistent framework that incorporates all of the evidence."

It is that 'want' which distorts the selection and presentation of evidence, and sadly, the invention of other bits.
I shall be writing a more detailed examination of parts of the piece at a later date.

The second part of that paragraph is almost as bizarre as some of the things Clarke wrote in the Olive Press.
Partly due to the evidence . . There isn't any evidence, that is the whole point
Partly due to the only valid alternative ... which is a value judgment by the author
not providing a consistent framework which incorporates all the evidence... none of the theories incorporate ALL the evidence, which in turn leads us to believe that some of the evidence presented is not correct. It is therefore not evidence.

by pdlsleuth1990 06.06.21 14:15

I have browsed through most of it. I would say that if you are wedded to a particular theory you might find it challenging and disagree with some of the conclusions.to I on the other hand found it interesting, and I don't totally agree with the theory that Madeline died on the Sunday so I obviously might agree with some of the conclusions in that area.

Colin Sutton mentioned that in his view every theory in this case has flaws, and after rereading the book I would tend to agree with him.

It also argues that Tanner sighting couldn't have been Julian Totman as as well as going in the wrong direction Tanner should have recognised him from the resort and playing tennis.

It doesn't mention Sagres, which after rereading the Madeline book, to my mind is still unexplainable (why is it not mentioned in the book, why did they go there without the rest of the group, how did they get there etc.).

by **PeterMac** 06.06.21 14:50

I think I disagree with all the conclusions, but in a few minutes I'll post some reasons why I think s/he has 'massaged' his thinking to make it fit the foregone conclusions.

Hasta Lluego

by Guest 06.06.21 15:04

pdlsleuth 1990 wrote:Colin Sutton mentioned that in his view every theory in this case has flaws, and after rereading the book I would tend to agree with him.

It doesn't mention Sagres, which after rereading the Madeline book, to my mind is still unexplainable (why is it not mentioned in the book, why did they go there without the rest of the group, how did they get there etc.).

What book/s?

If you refer to the alleged trip to Sagres in April 2007, I think you'll find that to be a myth - at least there is no evidence to support the claim.

It's so long ago since the story first grew legs, I've forgotten it's origin but just like every other myth associated with this case, still it's being propagated.

by **PeterMac** 06.06.21 15:21

As Promised:
This is from the last part of the article. I quote and then make observations
***
Nonetheless, there are many factors supporting the notion that Madeleine was abducted.
[list=ol1]
[*]The raised shutters and open window are consistent with an abductor handing Madeleine through a window to a secondary abductor.
[/list]
COMMENT: There is no evidence that the shutters were raised and the window open, except the uncorroborated evidence of the McCanns. We may be thankful that the idea of climbing out of the open window is already discounted.

2. All the evidence at the scene of the children’s bedroom is consistent with two abductors with one inside and one outside. This would also provide a level of security as the outdoor abductor could monitor the apartment to ensure no adults were entering.
COMMENT: “All the evidence…”. There is NO evidence of anyone ever having entered, being in, or exiting the bedroom or even the apartment. The second abductor ‘providing security’ is laughable, since to receive the child he would have to be standing outsider the window, and any ‘adults entering’ by the front door would have physically to push past him making intimate bodily contact. Any adult entering through the patio doors would not be seen or heard

3. If an abductor opened the window from outside, they could have reached into the children’s bedroom and pulled on the shutter strap to raise the shutters. This scenario seems plausible. Following this, the abductor could have climbed through the window, grabbed Madeleine and taken her out through the front door.
Comment: You cannot open the window without first opening the shutters, (vide my video). we have been through all this before. The shutters are on the OUTSIDE. They are not venetian blinds.

4. Burglars had entered other ground floor apartments of the Ocean Club via the window.
COMMENT: Reference for this ?

5.  The back, sliding door of apartment 5a was left unlocked. This provides an entry or exit point to the apartment
COMMENT: except that Gerry McCann and JW were standing chatting immediately outside in the road.

6.  The McCanns may have left the front door of the apartment unlocked. This provides an intruder a secondary entry or exit point.
COMMENT: It provides an exit point, but only an entry point if a duplicate key is used. The door has no handle or knob. The lock is therefore self-locking and requires a key to open from the outside

7. Kate and Gerry left their children alone in the apartment each night. This repetition would have provided a budding abductor who was monitoring the apartment, a pattern so as to not get caught when abducting Madeleine

8.  The Tapas 9’s restaurant booking publicly listed the group as leaving their children in the beds whilst the Tapas 9 were dining.
COMMENT: This is a myth based on KM’s autobiography. It is specifically refuted by GA who read the note in question, and reports it was about using the apartments’ bathrooms rather than the small and dirty rest-room in the Tapas bar

9.  The ground floor apartments of the Ocean Club were the most prone to break-ins. The specific apartment of 5a was located in arguably the most ideal location in the resort for break-ins or abductions. It was situated at a T junction with multiple places to watch the apartment and enter or exit the apartment.
COMMENT: Exactly the opposite is the case. It is the most exposed so it can be seen by anyone passing on either road. Including by the Tapas group who allegedly passed and re=passed 10 times within a 45 minute period.

10.  It was very dark outside the children’s bedroom of 5a as documented by a previous resident of the apartment. This cloak of darkness would have provided any abductors a level of safety to not get caught.
COMMENT: No is wasn’t. It was very brightly lit, as can be seen on contemporaneous photos of the scene taken the following evening, freely available on the internet.