Hi Scandi. As I see it, the only thing we know for certain is that she was taken from the flat and without concrete evidence that she was dead at the time, I believe that would be abduction until proven otherwise. Of course some people might believe she wandered off herself, but even then, her ultimate disappearance suggests that she must have been taken by whomever found her.
There is not one shred of doubt in my mind that she was abducted as her parents have claimed she was. Now whilst I have been a long term fencesitter in the Ramsey case, I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on the Ramseys being innocent. I concede that the Ramseys had means and opportunity to murder their daughter even if I think it's unlikely they did so. As I see it, the McCanns had neither means nor opportunity to murder their daughter and then dispose of her body.
Everything the McCanns have done speaks to me of their non-involvement. From their remaining at the resort for four months to their desperate trip to see the Pope.
I think this case will be solved when someone speaks out. It might take a relationship to break down for that to happen.
I'm afraid you begin with an incorrect premise which results in the rest of your thinking being fatally flawed.
You say 'the only thing we know for certain is that she was taken from the flat and without concrete evidence that she was dead at the time, I believe that would be abduction until proven otherwise'. Your belief is based on an assumption that undermines it.
You use the word 'taken' to infer that this was by a person other than the McCanns or their friends. There is no evidence that this is the case, any more than there is (apart from a great deal of circumstantial evidence) any evidence that can be used to safely prosecute the McCanns and their friends.
In fact the only evidential certainties in this case are that the McCanns did not take adequate care of their children and have sought to protect themselves. The fact that she is no longer in their care is evidence of inadequate care, whatever arguments they seek to make to reduce culpability - which is a stance they took immediately.
It is this stance and the immediate and consistant claim that she was abducted which creates the foundation for suspicion. Until they accept publically that abduction is just one possibility amongst others, any logical thinking right minded person (legally and historically referred to as 'the man on the clapham omnibus') will continue to question the assumption.
Their 'desperate trip' was too soon to be considered as genuine, but not too soon to be considered to be a funeral service. Where you get your view that they had no means or opportunity escapes me. How can you know that? Where you there? Have you not absorbed any of the information surrounding the case? There is no evidnce that madeleine was alive for at least an entire day before the claim she had been abducted was made.
I read with interest your statement and have recorded it and filed it along with others i have found in various forums. I beleive that your views are valid in that they are revealing. If someone could come up with some solid logical evidence of why and how Madeleine could have been abducted, I for one will definately examine it.
The one person who has provided evidence of abduction found herself exposed as having been more than a little inventive, and then found her timing contradicted by the one person who ought to have supported her - Gerald McCann! In writing on his blog he said he saw Madeleine at 21:15. Exactly the same time as Jane Tanner, in her interview on Panorama, claimed she saw 'the abductor'.
This is incontravertable evidence than Gerald McCann realised that the story of Jane Tanner was doing damage and needed to be undermined. Not the thinking of a distraught parent desperate to find his daughter and convinced that she was abducted, is it?
someone earlier posted that there was a 'stand off' - claiming that the idea of an abductor held equal weight to other theories. In my opinion such evidence as their is is in no way equally balanced. The abduction theory is based on emotinal assumptions and refuses to accept any other theory as in any way possible. It allows no consideration of detail of the days prior to the McCanns registering their claim that madeleine had 'vanished'.
In my view, there may have been an abduction, but once that theory has been considered and no evidence to support it found, other theories must be considered and pursued every bit as aggresively as uncontroleld media backed and intangable 'searches'.
Lets not forget, Gerry was indeed desperately searching very soon after Madeleine vanished, but he was searching the INTERNET!!! Illogical - and remember, this guy is, theoretically, a logical thinking intelligent person.
