I saw the parents on the Heaven and Earth show yesterday where they denied involvement in the girl's disappearance, then read this speculation from another forum:
I would like to examine the logical options based on the facts as they appear to stand, without drawing any conclusions based on guesses, emotional preferences or anything other than the facts.
The child was last seen alive by various people other than the parents, I believe, about four or five hours before "The Discovery". ONLY the parents and siblings (I believe) saw her in those last four or five hours. This leaves two possibilities, each with sub options: (1) the child was abducted by person or persons unknown between the last sighting by others and the discovery time or (2) the child disappeared at the hand of the parents between those times.
(1) If the child was abducted by another person, it must have been (a) with one or both of the parents' knowledge or (b) without the parents' knowledge.
If (1a) then it could have happened at any time during that period. The possibilities in that case are that it could have been for (i) for money, (ii) for blackmail (e.g. to stop Gerry being found-out and prosecuted for some crime such as being in a paedophile ring himself, for being involved with drugs, drug money laundering, or something else that he/she, as a surgeon, may have had access to, but which he didn't want to be found out for), (iii) by some agreement for some other reason that I couldn't guess at. Whether (i), (ii) or (iii) then either one of the parents may have been able to arrange this without the knowledge of the other by persuading the other to leave the children and go out to the meal on the grounds that they "would be all right" ... and of course doing the first few checks him/herself to give the accomplice time to escape.
If (1b), then assuming that none of the options in (1a) were true - namely that NEITHER parent knew, then it must have been during that last half hour. If that were the case, then (i) they must have broken in (which would have made a noise and would not have been a wise way to abduct a child, so unlikely) or (ii) have gained entry through an open window or unlocked door; an open window is most likely as the parents woould probably have locked the door (wouldn't we all?). If the window, then the child must have been removed though same window as the doors would probably have had Euro locks which need a key both sides. This would mean that an accomplice would be likely to hand the chld to.
If (1b), why did the abductor take the OLDER child and not a younger child who would have been far easier to carry, hide, quieten and generally to abduct - would also have been easier to train to forget the past and become a "naturalised" offspring. If an abductor were a woman wanting her own baby then she would almost certainly choose the younger child. While a logical possibility, the paedophile abduction theory would tend to be doubtful in my mind as there are very few such cases and even the case of the girl in the bath being taken, it turned out to be a person with local and personal knowledge who took her and was, I believe from memory, known as a possible suspect in any case.
If (2) then there are a number of possible scenaries, some of which are obvious and listable and probably many others which are less easy to guess. Clearly, there are two logical possibilities here: (a) that one parent caused the child to disappear without the knowledge of the other or (b) both were involved to a greater or lesser degree. History shows both are possible and have occurred. Hindley/Brady is an example of both working together and there have been numerous instances of one parent accidentally (e.g. in a rage) or intentionally killing a child and the other partner helping to cover it up and even hiding the body. Huntley/Carr was another example of a partner helping to cover up yet not actually having anything to do with the initial crime.
If (2a) then the parent would have had to cause the child to disappear alone without the knowledge of the other. This means that there would have had to be a period apart long enough to do the act. I use the words, "cause the child to disappear" as that may not necessarily have included the death of the child (at that stage, although it could have occurred later). From the general concensus (not evidence, I know), it seems that there was little time for the parents to be apart, leaving one alone with one child long enough to do all that would be necessary.
If (2b), excluding all type (1) possibilities, then the parents are unlikely to make the child disappear for any reason other than death, although that must be left as a possibility as (2b)(i). (ii) means that the child died. If (A) the child died of natural causes, the parents would not have needed to cover it up, so the child is most likely NOT to have died by natural causes (B).
(2.b.ii.B) is the option where the child is killed by a parent. This could happen in a fit of rage by one or other parent (i) intentionally or (ii) semi-accidentally (e.g. one parent throwing a heavy object and hitting the child either accidentally or intentionally) or (iii) accidentally (e.g. picking the child up very quickly to sit on the shoulder and not realising that there's a concrete door lintel in the way, thus smashing the small child's head in completely). This was a surgeon and wife who would know that any such death would be thoroughly investigated and it would be difficult to escape the consequences. Given that, then they could very quickly dream up the loss story and lose the body; being a surgeon and (doctor? nurse?) wife, means that death and dead bodies would not be as difficult to handle as they would for the rest of us.
In that scenario, the only solution remaining for them is to dispose of the body and "discover" her loss. Disposal would be relatively easy, I would have thought, with a beach (where a body could be buried in the sand or nearby dunes), with the sea (where a body could be weighted and dumped as far out as possible, the sea removing any evidence of DNA from the offending handler, etc.
While I said that I wouldn't make a judgement, nevertheless, the overall balance (of probability, but only in my view) does rather appear to fall on the parents as being responsible. This view is based on (1) the unlikely probability of the other options, (2) the question as to the REAL reason they are not returning to England (would there be more efficient questioning with British judiciary having a greater understanding of the nuances of their English words and phrases), could there be expectations of prosecutions for neglect, etc.), 3) the astonishingly convenient timing of everything, including the witnesses "proving" that they were at dinner at the time of the supposed abduction, etc.
What do people here think?
Slim