Oh yes I recall this case now but again its circumstances colliding ie Hughes in the vicinity and spying on the children listening to the conversation about spending a night in the tent. Its the combi of an opportunity presenting and a vulnerable young child but the difference here is that Hughes was caught and convicted. Also he was seen lurking and identified. He did not have time to prepare it was that night or never.
Well I don't know the set-up here but anyone who wanted to abduct a child from such an environment would need to enter the tent perhaps not knowing exactly who was inside including any dogs and then the child would have to be assaulted/murdered then and there and/or spirited away elsewhere which may or may not have presented difficulties. And from what you're saying no child was actually assaulted, murdered or disappeared?
The situation with MM was far lower risk and the way in which the children were left night after night allowed the perps to plan ahead.
Hughes was convicted on the basis of certain eye-witness evidence. There was no forensic evidence linking him to Sophie, although the crime happened at a time when DNA harvesting & identification was far less sophisticated than today's methods. He did take a massive risk taking a child from a tent in which 2 other children were also sleeping.
Most petty burglaries require only basic planning & opportunity. Breaking & entering 5A was no different imo. There were no dogs, no nosey neighbours, security cameras or alarms to be bypassed and the only physical patrols were the sporadic checks by the Tapas Group. However, I don't believe Madeleine's alleged abduction was entirely opportunistic - I believe she was the target(reason as yet unknown), a plan was quickly formed & executed. It didn't necessarily boil down to knowledge of the children being left alone each night, bearing in mind that almost all the lurkers were seen during daytime hours; the absence of adult supervision just made the job less risky.
