Let us, for the sake of argument, imagine there is an abductor phantasm in this story.
Bear in mind, it’s an opportunistic crime, because the criminal hasn’t had time to get to know the family because they’ve only just arrived at the hotel.
The phantasm waits until everyone is asleep, and either opens the kitchen window, or finds it already open. Oh look, right inside, on the table, is an expensive Apple MacBook. The phantasm elects to ignore it, and goes in search of his prey. On the way out, the MacBooth is right beside him. But again, he elects not to take it. Our phantasm isn’t an opportunist or a burglar.
One might argue the MacBook wasn’t on the table when the phantasm arrived, but only left out on the desk after he left. Okay then, so you really believe an abductor came through the window, which is still open, and stole your child, and your plan is to sit right beside that window, with your back to it, and then leave your computer there…?
For reference, in 25 0000 missing cases, more children got lost than the less than 1% that were abducted by strangers. We live in a strange world where, when something happens to a child, our first thought is a child abduction, when it should be our last thought.
More than four times as many abductions by strangers are committed by family members. So the idea that looking to parents when something happens to a child is anathema is patently ridiculous. We should look to the parents first, and look to exclude them, before turning our gaze towards stranger abductors.
It is also nonsense to conflate the terms Pedophile Abductor. Abductions aren’t always carried out for reasons of sexual assault. According to the New York Times:
Sometimes, children are abducted for ransom or because they are caught up in another crime like burglary, or carjacking, when an abductor drives off with a child in the back seat. On other occasions, children get trapped in gang violence, sometimes as acts of revenge.
Last month in Philadelphia, Erica Pratt, 7, was abducted by men who demanded $150,000 in ransom. The police suspected that the abduction might have stemmed from a feud between drug dealers. Erica escaped after chewing through the duct tape that bound her hands and feet.
6 thoughts on “Nora Quoirin: Why the Abduction Theory makes no sense, and Why it’s time to talk about What Really Happened”
A child abduction would involve preparation. Time to get to know and choose your victim. Staying hidden and out of sight until the time is right and knowing just when the time is right. Lying in wait or stalking. Being careful not to make a sound, and ensuring your victim also doesn’t make a sound. It’s not clear whether the parents think Nora was abducted from her bed or if they acknowledge she may have wandered outside where the abductor seized his chance and spirited her away then. Maybe they are suggesting the predator lives in the forest, and strikes when wayward hikers get lost. Hangs around resorts. With Madeleine her abductor knew just when the adults would check on their children, and chose the child that would make the most noise. There was no one around so they went out a small noisy window covered in blinds. And with Nora the abductor went out the way he came in – through an open window carrying a 120 pound teenager. Open floor plan – no one saw or heard a thing.
It’s not clear whether the parents think Nora was abducted from her bed>>>It is. They claim she was abducted from her bedroom while the whole family slept. The open window is also meant to suggest someone came from the outside in.
Sorry if this comes twice – having problems with WordPress login depending which device i use.
I’m now pretty much convinced there was no stranger abduction -no evidence, not feasible, and as you say extremely statistically unlikely. Which leaves 2 other broad options and actually they’ve created a bit of a conundrum for themselves. In order to insist it was an abduction it was necessary for them to also push the ‘never would have left on her own’ motif. If however the abduction scenario is thoroughly debunked, that would – by their own reasoning – leave the finger pointing at them and a much darker scenario.
Btw – we were discussing on this blog about whether Nora had been brought home. I’ve seen a couple of things since 13 August (when parents came home) that suggest she may still be there and that if a 2nd pm is held it might have to be there for reasons of continued jurisdiction. If you look at some of the news coverage around 13th there is more of a suggestion that she was brought home – whereas actually it might well be that the family claimed the body in the legal sense but she is still there. I thought it was odd because If She had been, the UK press would have been all over it with pictures etc but there’s just weasel words about claiming the body and ‘family returning’.. I honestly think she may still be over there.
If my hunch is true it’s a bit more misdirection and would also suggest that they didn’t hang around after identifying her – they were off and away out of Malaysian jurisdiction pdq.
(The Lucy Blackman trust who are supporting them also put a message out saying the family would not share when she was to be brought home
This really is a fantastic mystery story. It also shows how quickly a family will take the default position – an abduction. Why is that? Because they are in a foreign country, not their own, and can point to the incompetence of a foreign police force and investigation? Because if it’s happened before it can happen again? But now that she was found, and an autopsy showed an abductor didn’t harm her, they are oddly silent. Thanks for all of the links Julie.
It is a fantastic mystery. I think I got the date wrong above when I said 13th as being when it was implied Nora had come home in the press. It was a few days after that – 17/18th. But I stick by my theory that she’s still in Malaysia and that there were weasel words to suggest otherwise! It feels now like there’s a bit of an unnatural silence from family. I did notice there was a bit of turning against other relatives saying their comments were ‘unhelpful’ (presumably grandad for stressing she wouldn’t have left on her own – despite that being their own adamant words also). Which makes me wonder if a new narrative is going to be produced soon. Presumably waiting for toxicology etc results first. On a slightly separate issue – children with disabilities are 4 times more likely to suffer abuse than those without. There is a lot of research and data demonstrating that and looking at the factors why.
Pingback: Irish Media contacts CrimeRocket + CrimeRocket’s Response | True Crime Rocket Science II