Author Topic: Slarti's Simple Solution.  (Read 24357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Slarti's Simple Solution.
« on: February 23, 2016, 09:38:39 AM »
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".

Discuss.

Offline Slartibartfast

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2016, 09:40:56 AM »
Now if someone can explain why we need carriers, signals, forced Windows etc?
Helping Elite sufferers of NPD for over 2 years...

Offline Jean-Pierre

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2016, 09:57:48 AM »
I agree - no need for a convoluted international conspiracy, interpretation of forensics, endless discussions of last photos etc etc. 

So - something like that is perfectly credible.

(Cue 'there is no evidence of abduction')

Offline stephen25000

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2016, 10:01:06 AM »
I agree - no need for a convoluted international conspiracy, interpretation of forensics, endless discussions of last photos etc etc. 

So - something like that is perfectly credible.

(Cue 'there is no evidence of abduction')

How about the dogs jp, used by SY in Portugal ?

What were they being used for ?  &%+((£
The McCanns were solely responsible for their childcare arrangements and there is no one else to blame.

S and S, two more amateurs making money from a disappeared child, and clearly without a clue.

Offline Benice

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2016, 10:05:51 AM »
I've always thought it's very likely that Madeleine was immediately driven away by car.    Whether that was to a place in PdL or it speeded off to get as far away from PdL as possible - I don't know.
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Jean-Pierre

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2016, 10:29:43 AM »
How about the dogs jp, used by SY in Portugal ?

What were they being used for ?  &%+((£

What about the dogs?  They were brought in to help narrow the search for any forensic evidence which may cast light on the case.   

Offline stephen25000

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2016, 10:41:45 AM »
What about the dogs?  They were brought in to help narrow the search for any forensic evidence which may cast light on the case.

and perhaps  to look for a body
The McCanns were solely responsible for their childcare arrangements and there is no one else to blame.

S and S, two more amateurs making money from a disappeared child, and clearly without a clue.

Offline Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6592
  • Total likes: 2641
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.
Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2016, 11:08:12 AM »
Now if someone can explain why we need carriers, signals, forced Windows etc?

If as we are led to believe the apartment was under observation for a few days it must have dawned on the observers(s) that the way in was through the patio door in a suitable time gap in the "listening train". One snatcher and one look out max. both with burner phones. In and out like Flynn.

I tell you it's Burt Reynolds

Offline Carana

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2016, 11:20:48 AM »
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".

Discuss.

I haven't excluded a lone perp.

I have a few problems with your (ETA: Sorry, Slarti's) scenario above, though. Perhaps because I'm examining it as an opportunistic abduction.

- "Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked."

Yes, easy enough.

- "Waits until they gone into the tapas."

Assuming Gerry did see her in bed a bit after 9 pm, it couldn't have been as soon as they'd left for dinner. Someone hiding behind the children's door seems highly improbable, IMO. If someone had been hiding in the flat, then the parents' bedroom would seem feasible, though risky. Hiding in the garden and keeping an eye on the T7 at the Tapas might be a possibility.

At 9.30 pm ish Matt noticed a bit of light coming in, but no slamming doors or whooshing curtains. If she had already gone, then there would presumably have had to be a lull in the wind and he simply didn't pay much attention to the windows.

An alternative leaves being taken between Matt's visit and Kate finding her missing at 10pm.

- "Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment"
A couple of statements indicate that there were parked cars nearby, but a bit vague.

If a perp went in and out via the patio and the car was nearby, why open the shutters and window? Doing so would make more sense to me to disguise having a key to the front door. Or having an accomplice in an intended burglary situation at the front, or had raised them in the assumption that the door was locked prior to checking it and finding it could open (this would mean exiting via the front, whichever door was used for entering).

- "picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy).
For a long time, I couldn't imagine M not screaming her head off if she'd woken up. However, a little girl was taken from her bed in France this past summer and no one in her family sleeping nearby heard a thing. Threatening to harm the twins might have have made her keep quiet if the perp spoke English.

One possibility is that she wasn't in bed at the time, e.g., had got up to go to the loo and was grabbed at that point, with a hand over her mouth to keep her quiet.

That raises the question of why not just flee at that point and leave her behind? A run-of-the-mill burglar might have done, but one who'd changed "plans" might not.

If she'd been left unconscious , there could be a fear of evidence (being able to describe him/her, or forensic evidence). If dead, same fear of forensics, plus a far longer sentence than an intended burglary.



« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 11:27:04 AM by Carana »

Online ShiningInLuz

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2016, 11:41:19 AM »
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".

Discuss.
How does one connect knowledge of patio unlocked to knowledge of children inside?  That requires observation at high tea time and at Tapas time.

Otherwise one is into burglary gone wrong, and the issue of why not simply flee.
In mods I trust!

Offline Brietta

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2016, 11:52:02 AM »
How does one connect knowledge of patio unlocked to knowledge of children inside?  That requires observation at high tea time and at Tapas time.

Otherwise one is into burglary gone wrong, and the issue of why not simply flee.

Witnesses saw a person or persons taking an interest in the apartment which must have been quite marked to attract their attention at the time and for them to recall when they heard about Madeleine's disappearance..
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Carana

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2016, 11:53:18 AM »
Another issue I'd wondered about for quite a while (still from the perspective of a "burglary-gone-wrong" scenario) is why - in view of the massive reward - a possible accomplice wouldn't have turned on the primary perp to claim the massive reward.

I can now think of several reasons (some of which I haven't checked).

- The reward was for the safe return. If the accomplice knew that that child was dead - there was no reward.

- Perp A and accomplice could have close connections (complicity in previous crimes, fear of mafia-type revenge on family members, a "folie à deux"... )

- I haven't checked out the concept of "joint enterprise" in PT law yet. Nor potential amnesty / witness protection.

- Said accomplice (or even Perp A) may no longer be alive. Or could have moved elsewhere and as long as the focus was on the parents / T7 had nothing in particular to worry about.



Offline Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6592
  • Total likes: 2641
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.
Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2016, 12:04:13 PM »
I haven't excluded a lone perp.

I have a few problems with your (ETA: Sorry, Slarti's) scenario above, though. Perhaps because I'm examining it as an opportunistic abduction.

- "Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked."

Yes, easy enough.

- "Waits until they gone into the tapas."

Assuming Gerry did see her in bed a bit after 9 pm, it couldn't have been as soon as they'd left for dinner. Someone hiding behind the children's door seems highly improbable, IMO. If someone had been hiding in the flat, then the parents' bedroom would seem feasible, though risky. Hiding in the garden and keeping an eye on the T7 at the Tapas might be a possibility.

At 9.30 pm ish Matt noticed a bit of light coming in, but no slamming doors or whooshing curtains. If she had already gone, then there would presumably have had to be a lull in the wind and he simply didn't pay much attention to the windows.

An alternative leaves being taken between Matt's visit and Kate finding her missing at 10pm.

- "Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment"
A couple of statements indicate that there were parked cars nearby, but a bit vague.

If a perp went in and out via the patio and the car was nearby, why open the shutters and window? Doing so would make more sense to me to disguise having a key to the front door. Or having an accomplice in an intended burglary situation at the front, or had raised them in the assumption that the door was locked prior to checking it and finding it could open (this would mean exiting via the front, whichever door was used for entering).

- "picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy).
For a long time, I couldn't imagine M not screaming her head off if she'd woken up. However, a little girl was taken from her bed in France this past summer and no one in her family sleeping nearby heard a thing. Threatening to harm the twins might have have made her keep quiet if the perp spoke English.

One possibility is that she wasn't in bed at the time, e.g., had got up to go to the loo and was grabbed at that point, with a hand over her mouth to keep her quiet.

That raises the question of why not just flee at that point and leave her behind? A run-of-the-mill burglar might have done, but one who'd changed "plans" might not.

If she'd been left unconscious , there could be a fear of evidence (being able to describe him/her, or forensic evidence). If dead, same fear of forensics, plus a far longer sentence than an intended burglary.

Were it an opportunistic abduction then the legions of odd bods allegedly casing the joint for a few days were merely Messrs Innocent Bystanders.
I tell you it's Burt Reynolds

Online ShiningInLuz

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2016, 12:10:03 PM »
Witnesses saw a person or persons taking an interest in the apartment which must have been quite marked to attract their attention at the time and for them to recall when they heard about Madeleine's disappearance..
Witnesses did.

You need someone taking interest in the apartment at end of high tea time, 5:30pm, AND at Tapas time 8:30pm.  That's a lot of watching.

Is there a lot of witnesses to both?
In mods I trust!

Offline Carana

Re: Slarti's Simple Solution.
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2016, 12:13:37 PM »
Were it an opportunistic abduction then the legions of odd bods allegedly casing the joint for a few days were merely Messrs Innocent Bystanders.

Not necessarily if the original intention was a burglary.