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: patb on October 18, 2013, 11:36:04 AM
-
As a new memebr to the forum, its clear that some members are very assertive in their feelings and own beleifs. Also, sometimes its easy to get bogged down in the small detail (not saying that these are not important) but it can be useful to step back. The test of reasonableness applies in that, even though we are talking about an extaordinary event, it took place within the context of our life and society as we know it with all of the norms that that implies.
So, for example, is it resonable to think that a child abductor would plan to take a young girl and carry her in his or her arms in plain sight down the road? (compared to a car for example) compared to is it reasonable for a father to collect their child from a local late night creche and carry them back to their holiday accomadation The first concept was always exptremely unlikely IMHO (even before we had the evidence that the latter was true). Of course it was possible but with such little other evidence, the possible but unlikely was turned into a liklely until dissproven (which it now seems is).
If we carry this forward and applie this to the second possible sighting, we have to apply the same principle, even though we are still waiting to see if it is proved or disproved. It is just not reasonable under the circumstances for a child adbustor to plan and act that way. So it is rational to look at what is a reasonable explanation under those circumstances ie the second sighting is spurious (like the first) or it is the actions of someone who never had the opportunity to create a plan and/or it is the actions of someone who is behaving very stragely (even within that context) caused by stress/anger/guilt/panic etc
Ready to be shot down completely in flames as seems to be the trend with some on this forum.
-
Interesting.
-
Agreed. If someone was to abduct a child they would want to getaway from the crime scene as quick as possible so a vehicle being involved would be my first thought.
-
Since it was usual for a parent to carry a sleepy child back to the holiday apartment at night from the night-time crèche .........it would not have been noticeable for an abductor to be in similar mode within the complex......Sort of "hiding in plain sight"
-
With the risk of the child waking up and screaming for her parents. Very risky and doesn't make sense to me.
-
I don't see how you can be 'shot down' for making such a sensible suggestion patb
I take it you are asking us to apply common sense to those aspects of this case which remain 'unproven'
They will either be :
1 Unproven - likely
Or
2 Unproven - unlikely
This is a good measure of logic, I think ... thankyou
-
Since it was usual for a parent to carry a sleepy child back to the holiday apartment at night from the night-time crèche .........it would not have been noticeable for an abductor to be in similar mode within the complex......Sort of "hiding in plain sight"
Either trust that the child will remain asleep, or drug her (with all the complications that brings) or use a car. No matter which way you look at it, anyone with basic common sense and the luxury of planning in advance would use a car. Once you accept that logic, the next stage would be to say that its rational not to use a car that is registered in your name so then we must consider the use of a hire car (hired using false ID), stolen car, false plates or borrowed in some way.
-
Welcome pat. I agree with you about being reasonable and also about a car or van being involved.
An opportunist in my opinion may very well have carried her off but would have been seen. Nobody walks the length of a village without being seen by someone so that is why I feel it unreasonable to assume that just because the Tanner sighting has been discredited that the Smithman should be any different. My view is that they are both not what they once seemed, they are both red herrings.
A professional child abductor would have planned the snatch to the finest detail. A motor vehicle was essential as was creating a diversion for the only police patrol in the area. A pretend robbery near Odiaxere would be perfect since it took the police to their outer patrol area and would distract them long enough for the perpetrators to get clean away.
-
With the risk of the child waking up and screaming for her parents. Very risky and doesn't make sense to me.
Very good point which nobody has yet mentioned. 8@??)(
-
Very good point which nobody has yet mentioned. 8@??)(
It has been mentioned, Angelo. In strange arms, in the cold and with nothing more than a pjm, even a toddler would wake up. SYman's child wasn't screaming because it was in his father's arms.
-
My view is that they are both not what they once seemed, they are both red herrings.
I don't agree with this, it is very likely that the 3/4yrs, medium blond white girl spotted by independent witnesses was Madeleine.
Smithman can't have gone very far after crossing the Smiths because he was entering a part of the PDL where he had more chances to meet people, whereas taking Escola Primaria the risks were weak (had he taken Primeiro de Maio he would certainly have been spotted).
-
Not screaming due to:
1. she was awake/drowsy but it was father or someone she trusted who comforted her
2. she was drugged
3. it wasn't her
4. she was dead
cant think of any other options. We have no firm evidence re any of these other than there is no reasonable explanation as to why an abductor would put themselves at such great risk when cars are easy to come by. Therefore option 2 does not apply IMHO and option 4 does not apply to an abductor. Option 3 has to be the most likely with option 1 the next most likely. IMHO
-
by saying it is lilely to be her, the implications are that it is lilely she was abducted by someone who thought the best plan was to drug her and carry her through the streets in plain sight (which in my view is very hard to beleive just on a common sense basis) or its likely she was being carried by someone she trusted. So therefore it was someone she trusted (with all that implies). Considering that the venue is popular with families, all you need are 2 or 3 kids being carried by men in that area and just by pure maths, even if she was in the area, its more likely that it was another kid.
On a roll here but am I right in saying that it was within the UK academic year? as this would have an effect on how many 3 to 4 year olds were in the area compared to school hols where, as a proportionan, many older kids would be around. Hols are so much cheaper during this time for young families.
-
by saying it is lilely to be her, the implications are that it is lilely she was abducted by someone who thought the best plan was to drug her and carry her through the streets in plain sight (which in my view is very hard to beleive just on a common sense basis) or its likely she was being carried by someone she trusted. So therefore it was someone she trusted (with all that implies). Considering that the venue is popular with families, all you need are 2 or 3 kids being carried by men in that area and just by pure maths, even if she was in the area, its more likely that it was another kid.
On a roll here but am I right in saying that it was within the UK academic year? as this would have an effect on how many 3 to 4 year olds were in the area compared to school hols where, as a proportionan, many older kids would be around. Hols are so much cheaper during this time for young families.
Easter half term was really early in 2007. I remember that the children were off school on April the 3rd. I don't know if that was the beginning or end of the holidays, but it's only two weeks at Easter so they'd be back by may anyway.
That applies to England and Wales. Scotland has different Holidays. I don't know about Ireland or the rest of Europe.
-
With the risk of the child waking up and screaming for her parents. Very risky and doesn't make sense to me.
The risk of Madeleine waking and screaming for her parents during a "stranger abduction" was a risk from the word go though.........at any time...........and the prospect of being caught by "checkers" makes it all the more puzzling why Madeleine would be selected in the first place.
-
Welcome pat. I agree with you about being reasonable and also about a car or van being involved.
An opportunist in my opinion may very well have carried her off but would have been seen. Nobody walks the length of a village without being seen by someone so that is why I feel it unreasonable to assume that just because the Tanner sighting has been discredited that the Smithman should be any different. My view is that they are both not what they once seemed, they are both red herrings.
A professional child abductor would have planned the snatch to the finest detail. A motor vehicle was essential as was creating a diversion for the only police patrol in the area. A pretend robbery near Odiaxere would be perfect since it took the police to their outer patrol area and would distract them long enough for the perpetrators to get clean away.
Can you tell us more? Sounds interesting.
-
Either trust that the child will remain asleep, or drug her (with all the complications that brings) or use a car. No matter which way you look at it, anyone with basic common sense and the luxury of planning in advance would use a car. Once you accept that logic, the next stage would be to say that its rational not to use a car that is registered in your name so then we must consider the use of a hire car (hired using false ID), stolen car, false plates or borrowed in some way.
The fact that she hasn't been found does tend to make me think that a means of transport was involved. And some means of disguising ownership would make sense if it was planned. On the other hand, a common model of vehicle might not attract much attention anyway.
A point to bear in mind, perhaps, is that there is far less CCTV in Portugal.
There were burglaries in the area, for example, but were they ever caught?
This is an intriguing one, I find:
She says that as far as she can remember, during the years that she has worked at the resort, she knows of some thefts from inside the apartments and most recently on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5 L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken.
As far as she knows, as she prepared the papers for the insurance company, the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm
-
Not screaming due to:
1. she was awake/drowsy but it was father or someone she trusted who comforted her
2. she was drugged
3. it wasn't her
4. she was dead
cant think of any other options. We have no firm evidence re any of these other than there is no reasonable explanation as to why an abductor would put themselves at such great risk when cars are easy to come by. Therefore option 2 does not apply IMHO and option 4 does not apply to an abductor. Option 3 has to be the most likely with option 1 the next most likely. IMHO
I'd agree with your options, with the addition, perhaps of a (2b) variation: that the child had an injury that caused her to black out, assuming that the Smith sighting was her, which it may not have been.
I don't see your reasons for excluding options 2 and 4.
Some people find it absurd that someone would walk more than a few metres with an abducted child, yet don't extend that to the idea of a father doing the same carrying his own dead child around the village.
What makes one more reasonable than the other?
-
I'd agree with your options, with the addition, perhaps of a (2b) variation: that the child had an injury that caused her to black out, assuming that the Smith sighting was her, which it may not have been.
I don't see your reasons for excluding options 2 and 4.
Some people find it absurd that someone would walk more than a few metres with an abducted child, yet don't extend that to the idea of a father doing the same carrying his own dead child around the village.
What makes one more reasonable than the other?
Some people find it absurd that someone would walk more than a few metres with an abducted child, yet don't extend that to the idea of a father doing the same carrying his own dead child around the village.
Around the village? No
Through the alley ways of a village in the dark, just a short distance to maybe another house, or down to the beach? I can go with that, it was dark & apparently not unusual to see tourists carrying their sleeping children around.
-
I have said that option 4 does not apply to the adductor based in the assumtion that you cant abduct a dead body so I think thats fair. I have excluded option 2 for an abductor based on the assumption that if an alleged abductor had the foresight to consider drugging her to keep her quit, they would equally have the foresite to have her in a car rather than walk through the streets. If the child is being carried by a parent or someone she trusts, it doesnt matter if she is drugged or not as she can be comforted by that person and, therefore will not cry.
Re your option of 2b, either there was have an injury casued by an abductor (unlikely as they want her in good health) or an injury followed by being carried by a trusted person which, again, makes no difference to her behavoir.
Still happy that option three is the most likely (as was confirmed with the first sighting) with option one next most likely. It just doesnt add up that you abduct a child and walk around with her in public when there are clearly lower risk options available. When you consider that the whole point of carrying someone is to get them to a specific point/location, then a car has every advantage in terms of getting them to that point. Following on from that, carrying her only makes sense if your aimed location is within walking distance. You would hardly park the car even 500 meters away and then carry her to the car from the apartment. On this basis, if we go with the abductor theory, what is a reasonable theory as to the location they were taking her to? Clearly, any place locally is extremely risky due to police searches etc so you would want to be as far away as quickly and smoothly as possible. Trying to be open minded but logic moves you away from the abductor walking down the street theory.
-
At present I believe it could've been Smithman who was carrying Madeleine as he seemed to be moving quickly through those back streets straight after she was reported missing by Kate. I notice the church is in that direction. Interesting.
-
A reasonable assumption to make in the absence of any evidence to the contrary
-
I have said that option 4 does not apply to the adductor based in the assumtion that you cant abduct a dead body so I think thats fair. I have excluded option 2 for an abductor based on the assumption that if an alleged abductor had the foresight to consider drugging her to keep her quit, they would equally have the foresite to have her in a car rather than walk through the streets. If the child is being carried by a parent or someone she trusts, it doesnt matter if she is drugged or not as she can be comforted by that person and, therefore will not cry.
Re your option of 2b, either there was have an injury casued by an abductor (unlikely as they want her in good health) or an injury followed by being carried by a trusted person which, again, makes no difference to her behavoir.
Still happy that option three is the most likely (as was confirmed with the first sighting) with option one next most likely. It just doesnt add up that you abduct a child and walk around with her in public when there are clearly lower risk options available. When you consider that the whole point of carrying someone is to get them to a specific point/location, then a car has every advantage in terms of getting them to that point. Following on from that, carrying her only makes sense if your aimed location is within walking distance. You would hardly park the car even 500 meters away and then carry her to the car from the apartment. On this basis, if we go with the abductor theory, what is a reasonable theory as to the location they were taking her to? Clearly, any place locally is extremely risky due to police searches etc so you would want to be as far away as quickly and smoothly as possible. Trying to be open minded but logic moves you away from the abductor walking down the street theory.
I disagree about the car. Cars are easily traced and a strange car parked near the apt may well have been seen, recorded on cyv and its number taken. A man carrying a child , although seen is much harder to trace
-
I thought it had been established that in Portugal CCTV does not point into the street as in the UK, but rather towards private properties.
-
I thought it had been established that in Portugal CCTV does not point into the street as in the UK, but rather towards private properties.
another myth? there are just so many
-
fair enough but its dangerous to start making assumptions just because evidence does not exist to disprove the theory (Bertrand Russell's flying teapot). The same logic was used re the first sighting and time and resources have possibly been wasted due to people making a connection rather then it being a co-incidence. The way the human brain works, we always look for connections and it is tempting to see them (and want them) even when there is little or no evidence. Yes, the timings a similar so that makes it more likley but does it make it more likely that it was somene else. Obviously, we dont know how many other kids were in the area being carried by an adult so its hard to get the exact odds (obviously, this leaves asside the possible claim via the witness that it actually was GM which is a massive game changer)
-
Not as far as I'm aware. It was fully explained by Anne a couple of days ago. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate to the contrary please feel free.
-
Not as far as I'm aware. It was fully explained by Anne a couple of days ago. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate to the contrary please feel free.
well anne is here...can she confirm that all cameras point towards private properties is that what she said...until confirmed I will continue to regard it as amyth
-
well anne is here...can she confirm that all cameras point towards private properties is that what she said...until confirmed I will continue to regard it as amyth
It was you that claimed it was a myth. Perhaps the onus is on you to prove that correct.
-
It was you that claimed it was a myth. Perhaps the onus is on you to prove that correct.
perhaps you need to read my post again and then your post will be more accurate
-
Not as far as I'm aware. It was fully explained by Anne a couple of days ago. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate to the contrary please feel free.
It was Amaral who stated the CCTV at Estrela da Luz would've captured the abductor, but it had been wiped. I find that strange anyway as I have a CCTV system (which cost less than a grand) that was accidentally wiped but the data was still stored on the hard drive and was restored by a company using software tools.
-
It was Amaral who stated the CCTV at Estrela da Luz would've captured the abductor, but it had been wiped. I find that strange anyway as I have a CCTV system (which cost less than a grand) that was accidentally wiped but the data was still stored on the hard drive and was restored by a company using software tools.
correct...
-
"I disagree about the car. Cars are easily traced and a strange car parked near the apt may well have been seen, recorded on cyv and its number taken. A man carrying a child , although seen is much harder to trace"
obviosly its a debateble point, but on the assuption that the abduction (if thats what it was) was planned and knowing what we know about the timing and location, if you gave someone the choice of escaping by car or on foot, to me its a no brainer. Once the kid is in the car (we should assume boot, tied and gagged) the car looks like any other car and its fair to assume false plates. If the car comes across a road black ahead or similar high risk scenario, you just park up and walk away (maybe to meet another car that was a plan B), if you are on foot and you are in that situation, what are you going to do? calmly put the girl on the pavement and walk away? When you add the risk of the child screaming their head off, one option is reasonable (to me at least) and the other option is just bizarre.
For any parents on the forum, seriously consider how your own child would react if a stranger entered your kid's bedroom at 10pm , picked them up and carried them down the street. Is it reasonble to assume that they would stay calm and is it reasonable that the abductor would come to the same assumption in advance (ie the child would freak (for want of a better word) and come to a better solution than carrying down the street on foot
-
It was you that claimed it was a myth. Perhaps the onus is on you to prove that correct.
I never claimed anything
-
Smithman seemed to be carrying this kid and moving very quickly. Is that normal behaviour? It is if you're trying to get away from the crime scene.
-
If as a result of the Crimewatch programme the person who the Smiths saw DOES come forward and is eliminated - then the use of a car by the abductor to make his escape - immediately becomes extremely credible - as both sightings will have been ruled out of the equation.
However, if that doesn't happen then we still have to wonder WHY that person has not come forward.
-
"I disagree about the car. Cars are easily traced and a strange car parked near the apt may well have been seen, recorded on cyv and its number taken. A man carrying a child , although seen is much harder to trace"
obviosly its a debateble point, but on the assuption that the abduction (if thats what it was) was planned and knowing what we know about the timing and location, if you gave someone the choice of escaping by car or on foot, to me its a no brainer. Once the kid is in the car (we should assume boot) the car looks like any other car and its fair to assume false plates. If the car comes across a road black ahead or similar high risk scenario, you just park up and walk away (maybe to meet another car that was a plan B), if you are on foot and you are in that situation, what are you going to do? calmly put the girl on the pavement and walk away? j When you add the risk of the child screaming their head off, one option is reasonable (to me at least) and the other option is just bizarre.
For any parents on the forum, seriously consider how your own child would react if a stranger entered your kid's bedroom at 10pm , picked them up and carried them down the street.
When I see posters on here trying to rationalise what happened, it reminds me of a child trying to do a jigsaw...a jigsaw with pieces missing...where pieces perhaps from another jigsaw are present and are tried to be forced into place....That's why so much does not make sense
-
If as a result of the Crimewatch programme the person who the Smiths saw DOES come forward and is eliminated - then the use of a car by the abductor to make his escape - immediately becomes extremely credible - as both sightings will have been ruled out of the equation.
However, if that doesn't happen then we still have to wonder WHY that person has not come forward.
I was just about to make a similar post. pat b is wrong, but then again she is not a detective, to try and exclude the smith sighting. the correct thing to do is to trace the suspect and eliminate them
-
yes, it is hard, but even though obviously child adduction is a horrible crime, its a potential mistake to then make the assumption that those who commit it are stupid or carry out the act in an irrational way. Look at 911. Obviously a horrible horrible crime. But they went about commiting that crime in a logical and reasoned manor and it was that which contributed to them achiving thier goal. We surely have to credit any adductor with the ability to make sensible choices on how best to acheive their goal. ie to think like they did. So its not just trying to rationalise the situation but to think about how rational people would plan this to minimise the risk of being caught and its on that basis that I come to the conclusion that they would choose a car. I cant see how abducting a child on foot mininises the risks. But I respent your point.
-
I have not excluded the smith sighting, I am trying to be very careful with my words and misquoting is always an issue with forums. I said that IF it was an abductor, the use of a car is far more likely (not fact) and therfore the sighting is unlikley to be her. But saying something is unlikley is not excluding.
PS Ironioc that you have excluded the possibility of me being male with zero evidence to base that on,
-
Desparate circumstances can result in desparate measures being taken.
-
yes, it is hard, but even though obviously child adduction is a horrible crime, its a potential mistake to then make the assumption that those who commit it are stupid or carry out the act in an irrational way. Look at 911. Obviously a horrible horrible crime. But they went about commiting that crime in a logical and reasoned manor and it was that which contributed to them achiving thier goal. We surely have to credit any adductor with the ability to make sensible choices on how best to acheive their goal. ie to think like they did. So its not just trying to rationalise the situation but to think about how rational people would plan this to minimise the risk of being caught and its on that basis that I come to the conclusion that they would choose a car. I cant see how abducting a child on foot mininises the risks. But I respent your point.
Unless the first destination of the route was closer than we think?
-
yes, it is hard, but even though obviously child adduction is a horrible crime, its a potential mistake to then make the assumption that those who commit it are stupid or carry out the act in an irrational way. Look at 911. Obviously a horrible horrible crime. But they went about commiting that crime in a logical and reasoned manor and it was that which contributed to them achiving thier goal. We surely have to credit any adductor with the ability to make sensible choices on how best to acheive their goal. ie to think like they did. So its not just trying to rationalise the situation but to think about how rational people would plan this to minimise the risk of being caught and its on that basis that I come to the conclusion that they would choose a car. I cant see how abducting a child on foot mininises the risks. But I respent your point.
911 was meticulously planned by a group of very clever people...this may just have been an opportunist crime.. aburglary that went wrong. what if the apt was burgled and maddie cried out .The burglar panics and puts his hands over her mouth and eventually she suffocates. He carries away a dead child to remove any forensic evidence
-
absolutely agree, all of my contributions to this thread are discussing the idea of a planed abduction escaping on foot. Situations that develope in real time such as your example require a different chain of thought
-
I have not excluded the smith sighting, I am trying to be very careful with my words and misquoting is always an issue with forums. I said that IF it was an abductor, the use of a car is far more likely (not fact) and therfore the sighting is unlikley to be her. But saying something is unlikley is not excluding.
PS Ironioc that you have excluded the possibility of me being male with zero evidence to base that on,
sorry pat..I have to pick you up on that...there is some evidence to support this claim...in the uk the majority of pats are female..the evidence may be weak..but it exists
-
When I see posters on here trying to rationalise what happened, it reminds me of a child trying to do a jigsaw...a jigsaw with pieces missing...where pieces perhaps from another jigsaw are present and are tried to be forced into place....That's why so much does not make sense
When I see posters on here trying to make totally incredible claims fit their own theory, in the most pompous manner imaginable, I often think of Rimmer.
-
sorry pat..I have to pick you up on that...there is some evidence to support this claim...in the uk the majority of pats are female..the evidence may be weak..but it exists
Please don't post opinions as fact davel, it's very tiresome.
http://www.gpeters.com/names/baby-names.php?name=Pat&button=Go
-
When I see posters on here trying to make totally incredible claims fit their own theory, in the most pompous manner imaginable, I often think of Rimmer.
pompous is a word I quite like...in my line of work there are many pompous, arrogant people..and they are bloody brilliant at what they do...many very talented people are pompous
-
Please don't post opinions as fact davel, it's very tiresome.
http://www.gpeters.com/names/baby-names.php?name=Pat&button=Go
posting opinion as fact...not sure if you have noticed but posting opinion as fact is endemic on this forum..if we wer e to interrupt every thread when this happened then the debates would grind to a halt. you did not object to serendipity last night doing just this , infact you supported him. so why do you follow ME round the forum trying to highlight the slightest error...the answer is obvious
-
It was you that claimed it was a myth. Perhaps the onus is on you to prove that correct.
Theres a thread this evening..with a video showing very clearly that cctv cameras face the road..so its no myth its just untrue...be careful believing what people tell you
http://news.sky.com/story/1154733/madeleine-mccann-kidnap-was-pre-planned
im pretty well right the overwhelming majority of the time
-
When I see posters on here trying to make totally incredible claims fit their own theory, in the most pompous manner imaginable, I often think of Rimmer.
Yes it's as incredible as the moving door. SY are clever in not making a point of that in the crimewatch reconstruction.