why do people accept abduction like its a good thing?

thats what i dont understand certian people accept the mcanns versions of events like it a good thing and not to mention the shes alive and unharmed bullcrap after 2 anda half years IMO she is number 1 not with us anymore or 2 if she is alive witha swarmy abductor she is very much harmed both mentally and phyisically in a ideal world all of us want maddie alive and unharmed but this story isnt a fairytale this is about a real little girl

recovered in what way? if she is alive she will have to live with this for the rest of her life who knows what unspeakable things would have happned in 2 and a half years to her she would never trust people again either way what did happen to her will have deeply traumatised her and thats what everybody forgets it was not gerry and kates pain it was maddies and thats why saying she is alive and unharmed is just fantasy you have to live in the real world

It may sound harsh, but if she was abducted by paedophiles then I would have rather she had died quickly than to have suffered untold horrors. Poor, poor child.

Heartsease wrote:It may sound harsh, but if she was abducted by paedophiles then I would have rather she had died quickly than to have suffered untold horrors. Poor, poor child.

i agree and as i said above i dont understand why people believe she is alive and unharmed with a pedo its just not possible IMO and tyra of course if she was abducted i would want her found and helped but she would not ever fully recover but like heartsea i would rather her have died quickly then untold trauma and horror no child deserves that

The reason that some people like the idea of a stanger abductor is that it transfers the responsibility from the McCanns onto a third person. If this person had not entered 5A Madeleine would not have been taken.

Bullshit of course - If Madeleine's parents had been looking after her properly she wouldn't have gone missing, even if all the paedophiles in Portugal had been camping outside her door.

However, far better to blame some imaginary swarthy type, possible stealing to order, rather than accepting that the parents were at fault for not looking after her properly.

Most people would find the thought of an actual abduction to be abhorrent. However, sadly there are some for whom the theory of abduction is useful as it points any finger of blame firmly away from those who might be considered culpable.

To some degreee - yes.
I would exclude parent abduction, because very often in that type of case, the abducting parent has temporay custody of the child at that time.

We are all responsible for our actions and if another person comes to harm while in our direct care, then we in part are responsible.

jassi wrote:To some degreee - yes.
I would exclude parent abduction, because very often in that type of case, the abducting parent has temporay custody of the child at that time.

We are all responsible for our actions and if another person comes to harm while in our direct care, then we in part are responsible.

and thats the thing jassi all 3 children were NOT in the mccans care they were left to defend themselves at aged 2 and 3 even a nearly 4 year old would not have been able to defend herself

No - they were still in their parents' care, its just that the McCanns chose not to exercise that care in a responsible fashion.

Removed while parents sleeping - that happens a lot does it?

Part of a parent's responsibility is to ensure a secure enviroment for those they are responsible for.

I can see your point Nellie, but quite honestly, if an abductor had forced his way/made his way into the apartment in the middle of the night and there had been a number of independent witnesses to it, then most of us would believe the parents. It's just that without any real concrete evidence (and Jane Tanner's evidence isn't concrete imo) the abduction remains as much as a theory as any other idea about the events of that night in May.

tyra wrote:

Alfiefinn wrote:I can see your point Nellie, but quite honestly, if an abductor had forced his way/made his way into the apartment in the middle of the night and there had been a number of independent witnesses to it, then most of us would believe the parents. It's just that without any real concrete evidence (and Jane Tanner's evidence isn't concrete imo) the abduction remains as much as a theory as any other idea about the events of that night in May.

So without a witness then the parents stand no chance of clearing their names?

Thats about the size of it. Perhaps they should have been more cooperative and answered all the questions.

But Tyra, whether suspected by some of the public or not, if the abductor had been seen by a number of independent witnesses who were able to give accurate, verifiable statements to the PJ then people would have had to accept their innocence, like it or not. And although grieving terribly they would have been above suspicion.Unfortunately for them, the way things are this is not the case.

Nellie, to qualify, I did say that if there had been independent witnesses and signs of disturbance at the apartment.

Tyra, maybe answer all questions and take part in a proper chronological police reconstruction which might have helped to jog the memory of an independent, verifiable witness?

If there had been an abduction in the night then wouldn't that have meant someone had to actually break in? Is it likely the McCanns slept with their doors unlocked? Perhaps they would have seeing as they left the villa open while they were out. Didn't they have any valuables - no passports, no money, no jewellery?

Angelina wrote:If there had been an abduction in the night then wouldn't that have meant someone had to actually break in? Is it likely the McCanns slept with their doors unlocked? Perhaps they would have seeing as they left the villa open while they were out. Didn't they have any valuables - no passports, no money, no jewellery?

Keys.

Nellie wrote:

properdad wrote:Well the dogs up the ante a bit Nellie.

Sorry, No forensic evidence was found to support the death of Madeleine. And Eddie could have been alerting to blood. I do believe that an occupier after The Mcanns had left, and before the dogs came in, signed a statement to say that he cut himself shaving and bled quite a lot.

Behind the sofa? Strange place to shave.....

Deuce wrote:

Angelina wrote:If there had been an abduction in the night then wouldn't that have meant someone had to actually break in? Is it likely the McCanns slept with their doors unlocked? Perhaps they would have seeing as they left the villa open while they were out. Didn't they have any valuables - no passports, no money, no jewellery?

Keys.

Yes, that's a possibility if it had been the middle of the night.

Angelina wrote:If there had been an abduction in the night then wouldn't that have meant someone had to actually break in? Is it likely the McCanns slept with their doors unlocked? Perhaps they would have seeing as they left the villa open while they were out. Didn't they have any valuables - no passports, no money, no jewellery?

Also to break in during the night an abductor would have to force the security shutters,thereby waking the occupants.


Christine

The Player wrote:

Christine wrote:
Behind the sofa? Strange place to shave.....

Take it you have never walked whilst cutting yourself. Especially if the plasters are on a table behind the sofa.

The sofa in this case was against the wall. Can you provide a link with the statement of the 'shaver'?

Deuce, yes, keys might be used. But then how would the abductor find his/her way round the apartment without light? Would it not be likely that he/she would bang into furniture, make a noise without light, with shutters down etc. And if he/she had a torch wouldn't it wake up the parents? Also, if Maddie was deliberately targetted how did the abductor know which room she'd be sleeping in (it being a two bedroom apartment) and if she had been in with her parents, wouldn't he/she have made a noise whilst withdrawing thwarted? I assume we're still talking about what would have happened if, as Nellie suggested, she had theoretically been taken from the apartment in the middle of the night whilst her parents slept.

tyra wrote:

Angelina wrote:If there had been an abduction in the night then wouldn't that have meant someone had to actually break in? Is it likely the McCanns slept with their doors unlocked? Perhaps they would have seeing as they left the villa open while they were out. Didn't they have any valuables - no passports, no money, no jewellery?

Perhaps they would have, there are still a great number of areas in the uk alone where people don't lock their doors at night so it's hard to predict, they did have valuables such as passports and money etc that I beleive were also left in the apartment in the evening, I'm sure had they considered there was a high possibility of theft or that the area was at all unsafe then they wouldn't have left the children asleep never mind replaceable things like valuables.

I realise there are areas where people do feel able to leave their doors unlocked but they are used to living in the area, although I doubt very much if there are many areas where it can be done safely.. I find it very difficult to believe that people go on holiday from a busy area like the Midlands and suddenly feel totally safe enough to leave their doors unlocked.

Pedant speaking - you can't break into a house with a key - you just open the door

Sorry.I know what you mean Jassi, but, I was speaking of someone using a key with nefarious intent in reply to Deuce.