UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: DevilsAdvocate on May 01, 2013, 07:27:57 PM
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple,
If ...
(Perhaps) that's your answer ...
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple,
If ...
(Perhaps) that's your answer ...
So you agree that it is highly unlikely Madeleine would have been taken over Amelia if the abductor's motive was to steal a child for a childless couple ?
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple,
If ...
(Perhaps) that's your answer ...
The unfortunate only other I stance where an abductor would steal a child to order would be for nefarious purposes, examples of which I do not want to highlight, if this was the circumstances in which the child was abducted then there is a very faint chance that she would have survived very long after her buyers were finished with her.
Getting back to the OP Ferryman, I'm interested on hearing your thoughts which are quite incisive at times and a pleasure to read, along with some other posters on this forum.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple,
If ...
(Perhaps) that's your answer ...
So you agree that it is highly unlikely Madeleine would have been taken over Amelia if the abductor's motive was to steal a child for a childless couple ?
No ...
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.
But if the abductor specifically wanted a female child, it might have been difficult to tell the difference between the sleeping twins.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.
But if the abductor specifically wanted a female child, it might have been difficult to tell the difference between the sleeping twins.
After such lengthy surveillance Shona, unlikely ! And not to be too descriptive but if he was unsure he could quickly ascertain which twin was which !
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.
But if the abductor specifically wanted a female child, it might have been difficult to tell the difference between the sleeping twins.
After such lengthy surveillance Shona, unlikely ! And not to be too descriptive but if he was unsure he could quickly ascertain which twin was which !
Yes, of course, if Amelie was wearing a nightie and not pyjamas, sorry, I don't know if that was the case. Otherwise, he would have to risk waking one by checking inside their nappy. 8(8-))
-
But if the abductor specifically wanted a female child, it might have been difficult to tell the difference between the sleeping twins.
-----
I think telling the difference between short hair and longer hair might be a clue
-
Madeleine met certain criteria which made her ideal for 'taking'. Exactly what the criteria was; we can only speculate.
-
In a burglary-gone-wrong scenario (or even in a childless-couple one), she might have woken up and been ready to holler the place down. If so, that could have influenced the choice. I find it unlikely that he/she would then proceed to take one of the twins leaving behind a) a hollering child and b) who was old enough to provide a description.
-
But if the abductor specifically wanted a female child, it might have been difficult to tell the difference between the sleeping twins.
-----
I think telling the difference between short hair and longer hair might be a clue
Yes, I agree, but looking at photos of the twins during that holiday, there wasn't THAT much difference in their hair. How were they dressed, by the way?
-
In a burglary-gone-wrong scenario (or even in a childless-couple one), she might have woken up and been ready to holler the place down. If so, that could have influenced the choice. I find it unlikely that he/she would then proceed to take one of the twins leaving behind a) a hollering child and b) who was old enough to provide a description.
You must realise that burglars and child abductors are two different animals.
-
As we don't know why Madeleine was taken we can only speculate as to the reasons.
But then who knows what goes through the mind of someone so evil they could steal a child without any conscience.
-
In a burglary-gone-wrong scenario (or even in a childless-couple one), she might have woken up and been ready to holler the place down. If so, that could have influenced the choice. I find it unlikely that he/she would then proceed to take one of the twins leaving behind a) a hollering child and b) who was old enough to provide a description.
That's what I thought in the very beginning : he took the child who could describe him. But then I was expecting they would find him (I thought of a lonesome soul) and find him around since he was walking.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.
Madeleine would obviously be a pain in the neck. As the carrier had no equipment he most likely knocked her out. But what when she recovered ? Deep and unbearable sorrow, even if well cared of.
Amelie would cry and keep wanting her mummy, but well cared of she might have resisted.
We shouldn't forget a point : evil is a judgement, not a fact. This man, whatever he was and did, is a human being and tells us something about human nature.
-
Why not Amelie instead ?
Given that the abductor is reckoned to have had the family under surveillance for some days which seems to be a well believed suggestion, then why take a child who could walk, talk and was at times a handful.
If the abductor was stealing on order for a childless couple, which has been widely suggested and would realistically be the only hope of ever finding Madeleine alive in the future, then would it not be more desirable to abduct a child who was yet to speak fluently in a particular language. And who most probably would not have had as strong a memory recall of past events including their parents and family etc.
I have thought this many times myself. I'll be very interested in your answers.
Hello Faithlilly, Amelie would be the logical abductee if the abductor had been watching the family.
Madeleine would obviously be a pain in the neck. As the carrier had no equipment he most likely knocked her out. But what when she recovered ? Deep and unbearable sorrow, even if well cared of.
Amelie would cry and keep wanting her mummy, but well cared of she might have resisted.
We shouldn't forget a point : evil is a judgement, not a fact. This man, whatever he was and did, is a human being and tells us something about human nature.
Very good point, the last one.
In accord with my beliefs.
-
In a burglary-gone-wrong scenario (or even in a childless-couple one), she might have woken up and been ready to holler the place down. If so, that could have influenced the choice. I find it unlikely that he/she would then proceed to take one of the twins leaving behind a) a hollering child and b) who was old enough to provide a description.
That's what I thought in the very beginning : he took the child who could describe him. But then I was expecting they would find him (I thought of a lonesome soul) and find him around since he was walking.
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
No one noticed whoever walked off with a plasma TV from one of those apartments...
-
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.
-
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.
Why would they?
Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.
-
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.
Why would they?
Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.
Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.
-
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.
Why would they?
Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.
Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.
I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?
There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.
-
Well on this we don't agree ! No drama !
The Smith carrier, nevertheless, couldn't but come from a larger part of the street with lots of discreet and dark spaces for cars. Why would he park his car close to an illuminated area with cafés, restaurants and bars ?
-
So, disappointingly there are no other inciteful reasonings why Madeleine as opposed to Amelie ?
-
I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?
There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.
Why would a car be waiting a ten minute walk away from 5a for the Smith carrier? Makes no sense whatsoever Carana.
-
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.
Why would they?
Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.
Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.
I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?
There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.
There is another car park, in the direction Jane saw this person walking in. It is on the road just past another apartment block.
-
He could have taken her to a nearby car.
What about the Smiths ? Don't forget they saw a little girl, not only pyjamas...
Carrier witnesses have something in common : it didn't pass their minds that the carrier was a predator, even if the child was exposed to the coldness of the night. There was nothing in his holding her that denoted carelessness.
Why would they?
Both could have seemed like a dad carrying a sleeping child home or transferring the child to a car after a dinner, or whatever.
Carana, you know very well that the answer is no. There was no car, that's the trouble, neither in one carrier's case nor in the other.
I wish to pinpoint that both carriers were behaving with care. Nothing more.
I don't actually. The JT carrier could easily have been carrying a child towards a car. Why would that be impossible in the Smith sighting once the person had reached the main road?
There was no CCTV to verify which cars were stationed where.
There is another car park, in the direction Jane saw this person walking in. It is on the road just past another apartment block.
Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !
-
This is all of course pure speculation, where the alledged abduxtor stood, watched, where cars were or were not parked and waiting as there is no evidence of an abduction, not in any amber alert way or any other, no hard evidence of an abduction, no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
-
This is all of course pure speculation, where the alledged abduxtor stood, watched, where cars were or were not parked and waiting as there is no evidence of an abduction, not in any amber alert way or any other, no hard evidence of an abduction, no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
Correct and right Redblossom, but that is probably why we are here discussing the subject ! Not one person here, irregardles of how they put their point across can prove exactly what happened 6 years ago tomorrow evening !
We are all entitled to our opinion and we are all entitled to express that opinion as long as we do not slander or suggest wrongdoing on behalf of the principle persons in this sad case.
Mature and logical discussion / debate is always welcome and enlightening, it is a shame when that mature debate descends into petty name calling and personal insults.
I am aware that there are so called Pro & Anti fora that trawl the dregs of perceived righteousness, I prefer to liken them to sad lifeless souls who have no other interests in their lives than to sit at a keyboard hurling insults across the battlefields !
Sadly there are some of their ilk amongst us here in this forum who go scuttling back to their respective cess pits looking for plaudits from their peers for disrupting debate.
I as a member of this forum can categorically state that I am not a member of any pro or anti site and masquerading here under a pseudonym than that which I am known. I just wonder can the same be said for my fellow members ?
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
No there are not, no one saw Madeleine being taken despite certain people saying she was seen being taken
DA will answer you later I have to dash for an hour
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !
-
Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !
Yes, and, unless the carrier was living in PDL, the unique exit from PDL was rua D
AdS and up Primeiro de Maio.
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !
There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine.
Aofe Smith.
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !
There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine.
Aofe Smith.
Ferryman, you are an educated individual, that is obvious from your posts !
'could have been' is million miles apart from 'definitely was' ! Surely you will concede this point ?
-
Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !
The car park is not that big by 5a, window.
If he did have the family under surveillance then, he would have known checks were being done. Starting a car engine up, could have been heard, by anyone.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/5Acarpark.jpg)
-
Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !
The car park is not that big by 5a, window.
If he did have the family under surveillance then, he would have known checks were being done. Starting a car engine up, could have been heard, by anyone.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/5Acarpark.jpg)
Hi DCI, there is another part to that car park (directly opposite and to the right of the vehicles in the photo), there is in total parking for at least 6 cars in that car park, there is also ample room to reverse a car in between the car spaces for quick loading / unloading of luggage etc. and may I dare say in the instances of an abduction, a child !
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !
There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine.
Aofe Smith.
Ferryman, you are an educated individual, that is obvious from your posts !
'could have been' is million miles apart from 'definitely was' ! Surely you will concede this point ?
Afoe Smith was/is a witness to a little girl being carried who, she says,could have been Madeleine.
Of course, it might not have been.
But Red Blossom's categoric statement that there are no witnesses is wrong, precisely because it is categoric, not conditional.
If the person Aofe Smith saw had come forward and made plain that he was the father of a little girl, not Madeleine, whom he was carrying home that night, Red Blossom would be correct.
But with that sighting unconfirmed, the possibility that a known witness did see Madeleine being carried remains.
-
Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !
The car park is not that big by 5a, window.
If he did have the family under surveillance then, he would have known checks were being done. Starting a car engine up, could have been heard, by anyone.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/5Acarpark.jpg)
Hi DCI, there is another part to that car park (directly opposite and to the right of the vehicles in the photo), there is in total parking for at least 6 cars in that car park, there is also ample room to reverse a car in between the car spaces for quick loading / unloading of luggage etc. and may I dare say in the instances of an abduction, a child !
Hi DevilsAdvocate, Yes I know, but he would have to walk nearly half way up the corridor, to where the entrance is. There is only one entrance.
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !
There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine.
Aofe Smith.
Ferryman, you are an educated individual, that is obvious from your posts !
'could have been' is million miles apart from 'definitely was' ! Surely you will concede this point ?
Afoe Smith was/is a witness to a little girl being carried who, she says,could have been Madeleine.
Of course, it might not have been.
But Red Blossom's categoric statement that there are no witnesses is wrong, precisely because it is categoric, not conditional.
If the person Aofe Smith saw had come forward and made plain that he was the father of a little girl, not Madeleine, whom he was carrying home that night, Red Blossom would be correct.
But with that sighting unconfirmed, the possibility that a known witness did see Madeleine being carried remains.
Ferryman, with respect, Redblossom stated that there were no witnesses to the abduction of Madeleine, which is a true statement ! There literally are no witnesses to the actual abduction of Madeleine from her bed !
In relation to Aoife Smith claiming that the child she saw 'could' have been Madeleine you must then concede that the man her father, Martin, saw carrying the child 'could' have been Gerry McCann, as Martin Smith was 80 - 90% certain !
You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the hare Ferryman !
-
Devil'sAdvocate - Martin Smith was 60 - 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann - not 60 - 90% as you have stated.
And apropos of a point you made in your opening comment, I am a "pro," I am a member of a pro forum, and I use the same username name here as I do in the other forum.
-
Devil'sAdvocate - Martin Smith was 60 - 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann - not 60 - 90% as you have stated.
And apropos of a point you made in your opening comment, I am a "pro," I am a member of a pro forum, and I use the same username name here as I do in the other forum.
Hello Chinagirl, thank you for the clarification on the percentages, you are quite correct and I stand corrected. Also thank you for stating that you post here under the same name as you do on other fora !
Nice to make your acquaintance...
-
Going back to why Madeleine was targeted and not one of the twins.
I have always thought it could be because she could be told a tale. Such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you'
'Mummy and Daddy asked if I can look after you they have to go somewhere' or even 'Theres been an accident Mummy and Daddy are in hospital' or whatever. It would be very difficult to try and fob the twins off with a tale, they would just scream for their Mummy and Daddy.
Another reason could be that the person had lost a child of the same age and sex.
-
Have you heard of a father having lost his child and stealing a same sex same age (or appearance, then blond and blue eyed) child ?
When kids were stolen (see for example "the man who laughs") it was not in order to love them but to make them work and exploit them.
-
no witnesses to Madeleine being taken
???????
That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !
I meant no one saw her definitively being carried, not that no one saw her being lifted out of bed, obviously that isn't possible. Jane Tanners uncorroborated statement of seeing a man could have been any child, despite the Mccann commissioned documentary stating she did actually she her being taken away being misleading, as was Kate Mccanns comments on Oprah that Jane Tanner saw the child's bare arms, which she did not. the Smiths *may* have seen Madeleine, but its quite tentative as there are many young children who might look similar from the back. not to mention the girl the Smiths saw had trousers and long sleeves, hardly a description of Madeleine's pyjamas.