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: Wonderfulspam on December 27, 2013, 12:42:37 PM
-
RTE Late Show Interview 13th May 2007
Gerry McCann:(21.00)
"I just knew someone had taken her there's no way she could have got out of that apartment alone"
Interviewer:(22.50)
"Why did you Kate, why did you think immediately that she was abducted & hadn't wandered out of the apartment or gone somewhere? Why was that such gut reaction for you do you think?
Kate McCann:
"There was absolouteley no way a 3 year old could open those shutters & the window.
Interviewer:
"Simple as that"
Kate McCann:
"Simple as that you know and people you know obviously saying 'you know are you sure she didn't wander off' I say well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=player_detailpage
And so thanks to Kate we now know that if the 'abductor' left via the patio door he must have closed the curtains behind him, closed the patio door behind him & locked the child gate behind him also.
-
RTE Late Show Interview 13th May 2007
Gerry McCann:(21.00)
"I just knew someone had taken her there's no way she could have got out of that apartment alone"
Interviewer:(22.50)
"Why did you Kate, why did you think immediately that she was abducted & hadn't wandered out of the apartment or gone somewhere? Why was that such gut reaction for you do you think?
Kate McCann:
"There was absolouteley no way a 3 year old could open those shutters & the window.
Interviewer:
"Simple as that"
Kate McCann:
"Simple as that you know and people you know obviously saying 'you know are you sure she didn't wander off' I say well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=player_detailpage
And so thanks to Kate we now know that if the 'abductor' left via the patio door he must have closed the curtains behind him, closed the patio door behind him & locked the child gate behind him also.
Very good point WS. An abductor carrying a child would not take the time to close the safety gate behind him. That point alone must put the emphasis firmly back on the front door yet again as the chosen point of exit.
-
Very good point WS. An abductor carrying a child would not take the time to close the safety gate behind him. That point alone must put the emphasis firmly back on the front door yet again as the chosen point of exit.
Interesting you should say that as I had come to the opinion the front door was locked & so had Kate....
Kate McCann ‘Madeleine’
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door."
It's quite clear then that the front door was locked and the 'abductor' required a key to exit.
-
Interesting you should say that as I had come to the opinion the front door was locked & so had Kate....
Kate McCann ‘Madeleine’
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door."
It's quite clear then that the front door was locked and the 'abductor' required a key to exit.
I don't think the "lock" part is clear. She means the abductor had a key to get in.
-
Very good point WS. An abductor carrying a child would not take the time to close the safety gate behind him. That point alone must put the emphasis firmly back on the front door yet again as the chosen point of exit.
Who said it was closed and, moreover, when ?
Besides why should that security gate be closed if children are sleeping ?
And why, after leaving the sliding door-window open for Madeleine to get out in case she wakes up, would they close the toddler security gate ?
-
I don't think the "lock" part is clear. She means the abductor had a key to get in.
So if he had a key to get in why on earth did he open the window & shutters?
(according to Kate which she was keen to stress she wasn't lying about, and in doing so clearly implies she is lying about something else).
-
So if he had a key to get in why on earth did he open the window & shutters?
(according to Kate which she was keen to stress she wasn't lying about, and in doing so clearly implies she is lying about something else).
?{)(** Yes, logically if she says she's not lying on A means she's lying on B..
The window and shutters were said open off the record for Mrs McCann knowing immediately that Madeleine had been taken. Officially they could be a red herring.
-
Interesting you should say that as I had come to the opinion the front door was locked & so had Kate....
Kate McCann ‘Madeleine’
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door."
It's quite clear then that the front door was locked and the 'abductor' required a key to exit.
The front door key scenario puts paid to the idea of a casual burglar / speculative abductor.
Which contradicts both Tanner and Smith sightings, as they are much more suggestive of a casual or amateurish operation.
-
Smithman is an abductor, a burglar, owned a key to the door, he must have some great inside information. >@@(*&)
An abductor having a front door key is the only possible way for it to be successful IMO. In and out the front door very quickly. That window is a No No! If he entered the back patio door way then I doubt he would have wasted time in closing everything behind him. None of this explains the moving door - moved before Gerry's check, moved again before Matt's check and unbelievably moved a third time before Kate's check (all in an hour). Once they've gone through all the possibilities they will only be left with one main suspect and his name is Smithman.
-
Smithman is an abductor, a burglar, owned a key to the door, he must have some great inside information. >@@(*&)
An abductor having a front door key is the only possible way for it to be successful IMO. In and out the front door very quickly. That window is a No No! If he entered the back patio door way then I doubt he would have wasted time in closing everything behind him. None of this explains the moving door - moved before Gerry's check, moved again before Matt's check and unbelievably moved a third time before Kate's check (all in an hour). Once they've gone through all the possibilities they will only be left with one main suspect and his name is Smithman.
David Payne rogatory interview:
"...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment."
-
Smithman is an abductor, a burglar, owned a key to the door, he must have some great inside information. >@@(*&)
An abductor having a front door key is the only possible way for it to be successful IMO. In and out the front door very quickly. That window is a No No! If he entered the back patio door way then I doubt he would have wasted time in closing everything behind him. None of this explains the moving door - moved before Gerry's check, moved again before Matt's check and unbelievably moved a third time before Kate's check (all in an hour). Once they've gone through all the possibilities they will only be left with one main suspect and his name is Smithman.
Mine too. A casual burglar may have tried to enter the patio doors, seeing the house was dark. If he had not been surveilling the property in advance, he would not have known that the residents were dining so close by and were in view (roughly speaking) of the back of the apartment.
An abductor on the other hand would have had to have been far more organised and careful.
Hard to reconcile organisation and care with Smithman's antics, however. Hope SY aren't putting all their eggs in one basket.
-
David Payne rogatory interview:
"...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment."
Only one key in the universe to the apartment?
What if a guest lost it?
-
Only one key in the universe to the apartment?
What if a guest lost it?
Guests would appear to have lost far worse things than keys at the ocean club.
The loss of a key could easily be resolved by a locksmith.
-
Guests would appear to have lost far worse things than keys at the ocean club.
The loss of a key could easily be resolved by a locksmith.
I believe the key itself was hard to copy. Several references to this on earlier threads. In practice, it was more like a master key that not every locksmith would be willing / able to reproduce for any customer.
Not the kind of key you can get copied in the high street.
Possibly points to an inside job or someone who had a key from a previous operation?
-
Guests would appear to have lost far worse things than keys at the ocean club.
The loss of a key could easily be resolved by a locksmith.
The OC had obviously copies. Staff with access to the keys know very well that in case of a burglar they'll be interviewed, so they're careful.
-
The OC had obviously copies. Staff with access to the keys know very well that in case of a burglar they'll be interviewed, so they're careful.
Ok so 'abductor' enters through the front door opens the shutters & the window then grabs the sleeping Madeleine and makes his exit via the front door making sure to lock it behind him.
Or maybe there were 2 abductors, one to open window & shutters & the other to snatch Madeleine then they both escape via the front door and lock it behind them.
In this instance Smithman (who happens to bare a passing resemblance to Gerry McCann) and his Madeleine lookalike daughter are just complete coincidence & it's just another innocent night creche dad.
-
Ok so 'abductor' enters through the front door opens the shutters & the window then grabs the sleeping Madeleine and makes his exit via the front door making sure to lock it behind him.
Or maybe there were 2 abductors, one to open window & shutters & the other to snatch Madeleine then they both escape via the front door and lock it behind them.
In this instance Smithman (who happens to bare a passing resemblance to Gerry McCann) and his Madeleine lookalike daughter are just complete coincidence & it's just another innocent night creche dad.
Well, there do seem to have been a lot of little blonde girls there that week. I wonder if there were a similar number of little brunettes ?
-
Well, there do seem to have been a lot of little blonde girls there that week. I wonder if there were a similar number of little brunettes ?
It would seem to be an astonishing co-incidence if Smithman were to turn out to be an innocent parent.
But having said that, Bundleman - appearing from the car park of 5A itself - was an even bigger coincidence, and he seems to have been ruled out easily enough.
-
The OC had obviously copies. Staff with access to the keys know very well that in case of a burglar they'll be interviewed, so they're careful.
It is interesting that Scotland Yard chose to emphasise the spate of burglaries that had taken place leading up to the time of the disappearance.
Burglary is not at crime that it associated with abduction (or any of the Madeleine possible scenarios), so there must be another reason why Scotland Yard are interested.
-
It is interesting that Scotland Yard chose to emphasise the spate of burglaries that had taken place leading up to the time of the disappearance.
Burglary is not at crime that it associated with abduction (or any of the Madeleine possible scenarios), so there must be another reason why Scotland Yard are interested.
It's just a matter of finding the right dead theiving ex ocean club employee who could have had access to a key. pin it on him. job done.
-
It is interesting that Scotland Yard chose to emphasise the spate of burglaries that had taken place leading up to the time of the disappearance.
Burglary is not at crime that it associated with abduction (or any of the Madeleine possible scenarios), so there must be another reason why Scotland Yard are interested.
Yes, of course there is a reason. If they have reports of people around the complex who are suspicious, then they obviously want to know if said suspicious people can be ruled out as (in the context relatively harmless) burglars, or something worse. There's nothing complicated about that. That is how modern police forces work - eliminate lines of enquiry, one by one.
-
Yes, of course there is a reason. If they have reports of people around the complex who are suspicious, then they obviously want to know if said suspicious people can be ruled out as (in the context relatively harmless) burglars, or something worse. There's nothing complicated about that. That is how modern police forces work - eliminate lines of enquiry, one by one.
Yes, that makes sense, but I am still bothered by the fact that burglary has very little to do with abduction or children going missing.
I am wondering if SY have some real reason to believe that these people might have been in the vicinity for 'something worse', as you say.
Then there is the matter of access. If they had accessed the other apartments via keys, that could be a red flag for us in this case. Presumably the OC and SY have information on the methods of entry.
-
It is interesting that Scotland Yard chose to emphasise the spate of burglaries that had taken place leading up to the time of the disappearance.
Burglary is not at crime that it associated with abduction (or any of the Madeleine possible scenarios), so there must be another reason why Scotland Yard are interested.
How does SY know about a burglaries wave in the Algarve ? The Algarve Resident guy didn't know about that. If the burgled ones complained to the Consulate, they would have been sent to the PSP.
-
Yes, that makes sense, but I am still bothered by the fact that burglary has very little to do with abduction or children going missing.
I am wondering if SY have some real reason to believe that these people might have been in the vicinity for 'something worse', as you say.
Then there is the matter of access. If they had accessed the other apartments via keys, that could be a red flag for us in this case. Presumably the OC and SY have information on the methods of entry.
Good to see your sensible posts, Sherlock and Victorias too
-
"repeatedly gone over, and in recent posts that you must have seen . At least 7 reasons."
I'm still fairly new here as I've only been a member since october, I would love to see those at least 7 logical reasons why sadie, could you share them with me? That would be nice.
-
How does SY know about a burglaries wave in the Algarve ? The Algarve Resident guy didn't know about that. If the burgled ones complained to the Consulate, they would have been sent to the PSP.
Presumably these burglaries would have been known at the Ocean Club. The Club would have been duty bound to discuss them with police if asked about any suspicious goings-on at the club with regard to the Madeleine case / suspicious people in the area.
-
How does SY know about a burglaries wave in the Algarve ? The Algarve Resident guy didn't know about that. If the burgled ones complained to the Consulate, they would have been sent to the PSP.
It has been common knowledge for years Anne.
Are you trying to make out they didn't happen?
Why? There has to be a reason.
-
I saw an advert for Warner Villa Holidays at Christmas and couldn't help thinking about how they failed to take the most basic of security precautions at the Ocean Club Garden. Had they done so we wouldn't be here more than six years later discussing the abduction of an innocent little child from her bed. So sad and so pathetic.
I have always wondered why the McCanns never sued their arses off or did they pay up on the quiet in order to avoid greater damage?
-
"repeatedly gone over, and in recent posts that you must have seen . At least 7 reasons."
I'm still fairly new here as I've only been a member since october, I would love to see those at least 7 logical reasons why sadie, could you share them with me? That would be nice.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.msg114800#msg114800
If you truly have missed them then i apologise. This is the most recent ... 6 reasons here but a couple of otherrs that I cannot always remeber are on other similar lists. As you can see this was only 5 days ago.
Tbh, Wspam I am fed up to the teeth of typing the damned thing. I am a slow one fingered typist.
I say 7 but if I collected all the possible reasons, there are probably more like 10
-
I saw an advert for Warner Villa Holidays at Christmas and couldn't help thinking about how they failed to take the most basic of security precautions at the Ocean Club Garden. Had they done so we wouldn't be here more than six years later discussing the abduction of an innocent little child from her bed. So sad and so pathetic.
I have always wondered why the McCanns never sued their arses off or did they pay up on the qt in order to avoid greater damage?
Apartment 5A was just outside the official perimiter of the club, so maybe there was a caviat that no responsibility for belongings etc. would be taken ? Even in an hotel where the site is more compact, the hotel doesn't normally take responsibility.
Nonetheless it must have been common knowledge in the area that there were no security men/ night watchmen at the club. This would have acted as a deterrent for all sorts of things and could have made the world of difference here, from deterring lurkers and reconnaissance people during the day, to burglars / abductors at night. This state of affairs was surely exploited.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3112.msg114800#msg114800
If you truly have missed them then i apologise. This is the most recent ... 6 reasons here but a couple of otherrs that I cannot always remeber are on other similar lists. As you can see this was only 5 days ago.
Tbh, Wspam I am fed up to the teeth of typing the damned thing. I am a slow one fingered typist.
I say 7 but if I collected all the possible reasons, there are probably more like 10
5) To give moral support to the lifter.
Peering through the window and cheering 'go abductor'!
-
It isn't as if the manager wasn't warned. The British staff complained that even during the daytime strangers were wandering in of the street to use the facilities.
-
Just to list a few
1) As an escape route in emergency
2) To take the investigators eye off the door as the entrance point. Why? Because this pointed to someone with access to OC keys being involved
3) To give the false impression for the Golden period that Madeleine had climbed out of the window and wandered off.. The first few hours are the Golden ones
4) To pass drugs and give instructions
5) To give moral support to the lifter.
6) For the lifter to watch for anyone coming from the car park direction
4) To pass drugs and give instructions
'Here you go mate, it's your turn on this spliff ,now pick that girl up off the bed & carry her out the door".
-
5) To give moral support to the lifter.
Peering through the window and cheering 'go abductor'!
What a factious comment !
Wspam, it appears thta two people were on the spot, because anyone lifting Madeleine would have had Madeleines head on her right arm, yet bundleman had the head on his left arm. Seems Madeleine was passed to someone else. There has been speculation that a member of OC Staff may have done the actual lifting, most likely a female member of staff that Madeleine knew. Like a cleaner or a waitress or a nanny. Someone who likely would need moral support.
Now before everyone starts shouting, I am aware that SY have let out about a father carrying his child back from the creche about 35 minutes later .... but that doesn't necessarily exclude bundlemman .... and neither does it exclude elaborate red herrings
Red herrings have been laid throughout this case.
-
Looking at the distance from the door to Madeleines bed it seems a bit far fetched that the abductor would waste time opening the window for an escape route. He need only pick her up and walk back out the door with her.
-
It isn't as if the manager wasn't warned. The British staff complained that even during the daytime strangers were wandering in of the street to use the facilities.
Financial expediency no doubt. Now they are paying for it. Can't imagine the resort will ever be as popular as it once was.
But back to an abductor. If the club was so easy to access, keys were theoretically attainable to far more people than just the staff.
-
Just to list a few
1) As an escape route in emergency
2) To take the investigators eye off the door as the entrance point. Why? Because this pointed to someone with access to OC keys being involved
3) To give the false impression for the Golden period that Madeleine had climbed out of the window and wandered off.. The first few hours are the Golden ones
4) To pass drugs and give instructions
5) To give moral support to the lifter.
6) For the lifter to watch for anyone coming from the car park direction
4) To pass drugs and give instructions
'Here you go mate, it's your turn on this spliff ,now pick that girl up off the bed & carry her out the door".
@)(++(*
Drugs as in Chloroform or some such
Come on WSpam, surely you are not that obssesed by drugs that you can only think of narcotics and the illegal type ? 8(>((
-
Looking at the distance from the door to Madeleines bed it seems a bit far fetched that the abductor would waste time opening the window for an escape route. He need only pick her up and walk back out the door with her.
Thinking cap on WSpam
If someone came thru the patio doors, the lifter would not walk towards that person. He/she would dash away ... NOT towards and get thru that window as fast as possible..
Now can we stop wasting time on rather twee comments, please.
-
What a factious comment !
Wspam, it appears thta two people were on the spot, because anyone lifting Madeleine would have had Madeleines head on her right arm, yet bundleman had the head on his left arm. Seems Madeleine was passed to someone else. There has been speculation that a member of OC Staff may have done the actual lifting, most likely a female member of staff that Madeleine knew. Like a cleaner or a waitress or a nanny. Someone who likely would need moral support.
Now before everyone starts shouting, I am aware that SY have let out about a father carrying his child back from the creche about 35 minutes later .... but that doesn't necessarily exclude bundlemman .... and neither does it exclude elaborate red herrings
Red herrings have been laid throughout this case.
Well that's the way that Jane Tanner's bundleman was carrying his child. And SY's innocentman agreed to be photographed carrying a child in that position, so he must have remembered carrying the child like that on the night, or acknowledged the possibility - and presumably given a reason for it.
How does it follow that a carrier other than JT's bundleman / SY innocentman - red herring or not - was also carrying a child in that unusual manner ?
-
Well that's the way that Jane Tanner's bundleman was carrying his child. And SY's innocentman agreed to be photographed carrying a child in that position, so he must have remembered carrying the child like that on the night, or acknowledged the possibility - and presumably given a reason for it.
How does it follow that a carrier other than JT's bundleman / SY innocentman - red herring or not - was also carrying a child in that unusual manner ?
Agreed. Good observation . A very tiring way to carry a child. My guess is that the child had not been carried very far.
The night creche, when coming by that round about route, up the main road, was a good distance. Did work it out once.
-
Presumably these burglaries would have been known at the Ocean Club. The Club would have been duty bound to discuss them with police if asked about any suspicious goings-on at the club with regard to the Madeleine case / suspicious people in the area.
SY can't investigate in Portugal. There's nothing in the files.
-
Agreed. Good observation . A very tiring way to carry a child. My guess is that the child had not been carried very far.
The night creche, when coming by that round about route, up the main road, was a good distance. Did work it out once.
So in other words, we're still saying there was a passer?
Wasn't the passer's presence an inference from the way the child was being carried in the street? Take that out of the equation and there is nothing to suggest the presence of another person...
-
SY can't investigate in Portugal. There's nothing in the files.
I didn't think there was anything in the files.
But SY must have got their information from somewhere. Presumably the PJ?
-
It isn't as if the manager wasn't warned. The British staff complained that even during the daytime strangers were wandering in of the street to use the facilities.
Where have you seen that, John ?
-
I didn't think there was anything in the files.
But SY must have got their information from somewhere. Presumably the PJ?
No. The PJ isn't in charge of burglaries, unless there's some agression. The PSP (public security police) is.
-
No. The PJ isn't in charge of burglaries, unless there's some agression. The PSP (public security police) is.
What I mean is, they must have acquired the information about burglaries from a reliable source before deciding to mention them on the crimewatch programme (presumably). Presumably they got the info relatively recently from a Portuguese source.
The PJ surely must have had information on those burglaries eventually, in connection with the Madeleine investigation, even though they (the PJ) were not the first port of call for someone reporting them.
Or perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree in assuming the burglaries were ever reported to police. Perhaps the OC kept the details to themselves.
-
'Here you go mate, it's your turn on this spliff ,now pick that girl up off the bed & carry her out the door".
It doesn't beat your Christmas message, wonderfulspam....
-
Reasons for the window open and shutters raised have been gone over time and again ... and there are at least 7 possible reasons
Just to list a few
1) As an escape route in emergency
2) To take the investigators eye off the door as the entrance point. Why? Because this pointed to someone with access to OC keys being involved
3) To give the false impression for the Golden period that Madeleine had climbed out of the window and wandered off.. The first few hours are the Golden ones
4) To pass drugs and give instructions
5) To give moral support to the lifter.
6) For the lifter to watch for anyone coming from the car park direction
Just a thought, Sadie.
Wouldn't the first three reasons have been better served by opening the patio doors?
-
Reasons for the window open and shutters raised have been gone over time and again ... and there are at least 7 possible reasons
Just to list a few
1) As an escape route in emergency
2) To take the investigators eye off the door as the entrance point. Why? Because this pointed to someone with access to OC keys being involved
3) To give the false impression for the Golden period that Madeleine had climbed out of the window and wandered off.. The first few hours are the Golden ones
4) To pass drugs and give instructions
5) To give moral support to the lifter.
6) For the lifter to watch for anyone coming from the car park direction
Just a thought, Sadie.
Wouldn't the first three reasons have been better served by opening the patio doors?
Where I sat at the outside tapas restaurant I could see virtually all the patio door. The tapas group sat in the next window, a couple of tables along. I didn't go there to look but I think they would have seen a good portion of the patio window too.
I am too tired to sort the photo out that I use to illustrate it but it seems they had a pretty good view
1) is a precaution against someone entering via the patio doors ... an instant escape route
2) The group might have seen the patio curtains fluttering (20mph gusts that night) and light spilling out as they fluttered.
3) I stand entirely by that one.
-
Where I sat at the outside tapas restaurant I could see virtually all the patio door. The tapas group sat in the next window, a couple of tables along. I didn't go there to look but I think they would have seen a good portion of the patio window too.
I am too tired to sort the photo out that I use to illustrate it but it seems they had a pretty good view
1) is a precaution against someone entering via the patio doors ... an instant escape route
2) The group might have seen the patio curtains fluttering (20mph gusts that night) and light spilling out as they fluttered.
3) I stand entirely by that one.
I'm not suggesting that anyone would have dared to use that patio door as an entrance. Only that it could have been opened from the inside of the apartment to create the impression that it had been a point of entry, diverting attention away from the front door/ door key scenario - much as the window could have been used for that purpose. (point 2. in your list of reasons for having an open window).
It would also have provided a viable emergency escape route (point 1.) on the south side of the building in case of entry by the McCanns or anyone else via the front door.
An open patio door could also have been used to create the impression that Madeleine had wandered (point 3.), even though it would have been unlikely for her to have managed to open the heavy doors. (Why would she be climbing out of a window though? Manipulating an unfamiliar shutter system; climbing out and navigating an unknown drop to the ground?).
Why would someone open the window when the patio door would serve these purposes much better?
-
Where I sat at the outside tapas restaurant I could see virtually all the patio door. The tapas group sat in the next window, a couple of tables along. I didn't go there to look but I think they would have seen a good portion of the patio window too.
I am too tired to sort the photo out that I use to illustrate it but it seems they had a pretty good view
1) is a precaution against someone entering via the patio doors ... an instant escape route
2) The group might have seen the patio curtains fluttering (20mph gusts that night) and light spilling out as they fluttered.
3) I stand entirely by that one.
The mccanns were facing the opposite direction.
It was nighttime.
and they could see the patio door........................... 8)-)))
-
What I mean is, they must have acquired the information about burglaries from a reliable source before deciding to mention them on the crimewatch programme (presumably). Presumably they got the info relatively recently from a Portuguese source.
The PJ surely must have had information on those burglaries eventually, in connection with the Madeleine investigation, even though they (the PJ) were not the first port of call for someone reporting them.
Or perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree in assuming the burglaries were ever reported to police. Perhaps the OC kept the details to themselves.
Quote from Amaral's book:-
The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information.
Unquote
-
Quote from Amaral's book:-
The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information.
Unquote
How does the police know this for sure if precisely it's not reported ?
Unreported cases unfortunately lead to rumours.
As all OC flats (a large part of them being rented to the OC) were inspected by the police, any attempt of breaking-in would have been noted.
-
How does the police know this for sure if precisely it's not reported ?
Unreported cases unfortunately lead to rumours.
As all OC flats (a large part of them being rented to the OC) were inspected by the police, any attempt of breaking-in would have been noted.
Don't ask me - ask Amaral - those are his words not mine.
-
it could have been opened from the inside of the apartment to create the impression that it had been a point of entry, diverting attention away from the front door/ door key scenario - much as the window could have been used for that purpose. (point 2. in your list of reasons for having an open window).
Sometimes this case looks like a wild goose chase, it seems no real little girl was taken from her bed by a man only busy to avoid screaming and being caught red-handed, and getting away with a quiet child as fast as possible, complex tasks for just an unequipped man.
-
Don't ask me - ask Amaral - those are his words not mine.
I don't think I suggested those weren't his words.
The proportion of unreported (certainly minor ones) among burglaries is necessarily an evaluation. Insurance is the main reason why people report a burglary, they know that only 10/15% of burglars are identified.
-
Quote from Amaral's book:-
The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information.
Unquote
Thanks for that, Benice.
It was mentioned by Eammon Holmes in his discussion with Paul Luckman about Smithman that burglaries were a frequent occurrence in the Algarve. I don't know what EH was basing his information on (he said he knew the Algarve well as a frequent visitor) but it seems that Amaral agrees with him. EH went on to say that the police did not take these burglaries seriously and rarely followed them up. What basis he has for saying that I don't know. Perhaps, as Dr A says, few are reported in the first place.
Resorts would want to keep burglaries under their hats and it is possible that the burglaries at the OC were amongst those unreported. One would think the owners of these properties would want police help, but who knows.
IF these particular burglaries were not reported at the time, could that suggest some possible inside involvement in crime at the OC? Hence the interest in where SY are getting their information.
-
Thanks for that, Benice.
It was mentioned by Eammon Holmes in his discussion with Paul Luckman about Smithman that burglaries were a frequent occurrence in the Algarve. I don't know what EH was basing his information on (he said he knew the Algarve well as a frequent visitor) but it seems that Amaral agrees with him. EH went on to say that the police did not take these burglaries seriously and rarely followed them up. What basis he has for saying that I don't know. Perhaps, as Dr A says, few are reported in the first place.
Resorts would want to keep burglaries under their hats and it is possible that the burglaries at the OC were amongst those unreported. One would think the owners of these properties would want police help, but who knows.
IF these particular burglaries were not reported at the time, could that suggest some possible inside involvement in crime at the OC? Hence the interest in where SY are getting their information.
Unfortunately, when the victims are people who will only be in the country for one or two weeks, it's quite easy for both the resort and the police to simply ignore the problem. Which is what I believe EH was driving at. He sounded frankly disgusted with the local authorities in the Algarve. Having visited the region a few times myself, I know where he's coming from.
-
Thanks for that, Benice.
It was mentioned by Eammon Holmes in his discussion with Paul Luckman about Smithman that burglaries were a frequent occurrence in the Algarve. I don't know what EH was basing his information on (he said he knew the Algarve well as a frequent visitor) but it seems that Amaral agrees with him. EH went on to say that the police did not take these burglaries seriously and rarely followed them up. What basis he has for saying that I don't know. Perhaps, as Dr A says, few are reported in the first place.
Resorts would want to keep burglaries under their hats and it is possible that the burglaries at the OC were amongst those unreported. One would think the owners of these properties would want police help, but who knows.
IF these particular burglaries were not reported at the time, could that suggest some possible inside involvement in crime at the OC? Hence the interest in where SY are getting their information.
Properties, by Portuguese law and as elsewhere, must be insured against fire and water damages. No Insurance Cie however sells contracts limited to both risks, they sell multicontracts including burglary.
Therefore if a burglary occurs in a flat rented by the OC, the OC contacts the owner who will contact the Insurance Cie.
Of course they will hardly compensate the losses if one door was left open.
Of course the Insurance Cie will not react if the burglary wasn't reported to the police (PSP).
-
Unfortunately, when the victims are people who will only be in the country for one or two weeks, it's quite easy for both the resort and the police to simply ignore the problem. Which is what I believe EH was driving at. He sounded frankly disgusted with the local authorities in the Algarve. Having visited the region a few times myself, I know where he's coming from.
But how do we know police receive notifications in the first place, Victoria? If the resort want to keep things quiet, how do police know?
-
Properties, by Portuguese law and as elsewhere, must be insured against fire and water damages. No Insurance Cie however sells contracts limited to both risks, they sell multicontracts including burglary.
Therefore if a burglary occurs in a flat rented by the OC, the OC contacts the owner who will contact the Insurance Cie.
Of course they will hardly compensate the losses if one door was left open.
Of course the Insurance Cie will not react if the burglary wasn't reported to the police (PSP).
Thanks once again for all the local info, Anne.
I just want to clarify something. If the property owner wants compensation from the insurance company following a burglary, that burglary has to have been reported to the police (same everywhere).
But in the case of a property leased to a resort, is it more complicated? On the one hand the owner would surely want to seek police help and insurance money. On the other hand, repeated official reports of burglary devalue the property and the commercial value of the resort to whom the property is being leased.
Is it a dilemma for the property owners?
-
Unfortunately, when the victims are people who will only be in the country for one or two weeks, it's quite easy for both the resort and the police to simply ignore the problem. Which is what I believe EH was driving at. He sounded frankly disgusted with the local authorities in the Algarve. Having visited the region a few times myself, I know where he's coming from.
This is very true Victoria. Imagine the nightmare if all these victims had to return on several occasions to testify in court merely because a few quids worth of stuff got nicked. That's why the police simply take a report and give you a copy for your insurance. The crimes are seldom investigated and the petty thief's know it and carry on but in a different hotel next time.
-
Thanks once again for all the local info, Anne.
I just want to clarify something. If the property owner wants compensation from the insurance company following a burglary, that burglary has to have been reported to the police (same everywhere).
But in the case of a property leased to a resort, is it more complicated? On the one hand the owner would surely want to seek police help and insurance money. On the other hand, repeated official reports of burglary devalue the property and the commercial value of the resort to whom the property is being leased.
Is it a dilemma for the property owners?
Insurance Cies don't discriminate whether what was stolen belonged to the owner or to the tenant. They compensate on the basis of a certain maximum amount /m2. Therefore if you have precious things, you better insure them separately.
They obviously need a proof of breaking-in and trust the police (normally).
I suppose they'd recommend some alarm system if you are regularly burgled. An alarm must be declared to the police and it's not free of charge.
-
Imagine the nightmare if all these victims had to return on several occasions to testify in court merely because a few quids worth of stuff got nicked.
My car (an old Mini Cooper) was (easily) stolen 4 times. Last time I got it back after 3 months, just because the burglar was arrested in my car, he was a dealer. To get my car back I had to hear all this guy's story. He had been freed by the judge after a day or two... but all the same I had to say whether I wanted to sue him or not. Who would say "yes" ?
-
Insurance Cies don't discriminate whether what was stolen belonged to the owner or to the tenant. They compensate on the basis of a certain maximum amount /m2. Therefore if you have precious things, you better insure them separately.
They obviously need a proof of breaking-in and trust the police (normally).
I suppose they'd recommend some alarm system if you are regularly burgled. An alarm must be declared to the police and it's not free of charge.
The fact remains however that whether or not these burglaries were reported to police, either by owner or paying guest, the Ocean Club must have known about them and would only want to release information about them if pressed.
-
the Ocean Club must have known about them and would only want to release information about them if pressed.
I doubt it. Out of civic spirit you have to report. There's a modality (main courante in French), just a notification of a relevant fact that eventually and indirectly could be used later but has no judicial consequences by itself.
-
The mccanns were facing the opposite direction.
It was nighttime.
and they could see the patio door........................... 8)-)))
The tapas group could see and they were all looking out for each other.
There was the street light illuminating the patio area for flat 5A. You know that Stephen.
-
I doubt it. Out of civic spirit you have to report. There's a modality (main courante in French), just a notification of a relevant fact that eventually and indirectly could be used later but has no judicial consequences by itself.
Thanks again for the clarification, Anne. Nothing trumps local knowledge.
-
The tapas group could see and they were all looking out for each other.
There was the street light illuminating the patio area for flat 5A. You know that Stephen.
Looking out for each other ???
What piffle.
So if there was street lighting, why didn't they see anything ?
Mmm.
-
Looking out for each other ???
What piffle.
So if there was street lighting, why didn't they see anything ?
Mmm.
Of course they would be looking out for each other. They were friends ... and that's what friends do.
They wouldn't expect anything but being intelligent people would likely notice strangers around the apartments. Amaral said that nobody would go in by the patio door because it was too close at 50 metres .... and overlooked by the tapas group.
Are you saying that Amaral was wrong?
There was street lighting immediately across the road from the patio. The light from this was streaming through the arched window at the side of the patio area. The tapas group saw nothing because no-one tried to enter ot leave via the patio.
All the action was at the front of the building, where the trees substantially reduced the street lights effectiveness, maybe blocking any light at all. The deeply recessed front door was in virtually pitch blackness.
Only my opinion Stephen but all the facts point to the front door being used, both in and out. That would require a key and points to an OC associated persons involvement
-
Of course they would be looking out for each other. They were friends ... and that's what friends do.
They wouldn't expect anything but being intelligent people would likely notice strangers around the apartments. Amaral said that nobody would go in by the patio door because it was too close at 50 metres .... and overlooked by the tapas group.
Are you saying that Amaral was wrong?
There was street lighting immediately across the road from the patio. The light from this was streaming through the arched window at the side of the patio area. The tapas group saw nothing because no-one tried to enter ot leave via the patio.
All the action was at the front of the building, where the trees substantially reduced the street lights effectiveness, maybe blocking any light at all. The deeply recessed front door was in virtually pitch blackness.
Only my opinion Stephen but all the facts point to the front door being used, both in and out. That would require a key and points to an OC associated persons involvement
The bottom line is precisely that.
It's your opinion that there was an abductor, as it is my opinion there wasn't.
You do not know another party or parties entered the apartment. A belief is not a fact.
-
The bottom line is precisely that.
It's your opinion that there was an abductor, as it is my opinion there wasn't.
You do not know another party or parties entered the apartment. A belief is not a fact.
Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up. All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.
Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit. You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.
The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise.
Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.
-
Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up. All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.
Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit. You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.
The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise.
Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.
Sp proof of abduction, where is that precisely ?
-
Looking out for each other ???
What piffle.
So if there was street lighting, why didn't they see anything ?
Mmm.
Thats why i dont get why an abductor would walk through streets lit up like a christmas tree.
The best way to go surely would be away from PDL with a child, not straight into it with all the cafes, etc....
-
Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up. All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.
Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit. You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.
The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise.
Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.
I believe I know who was behind the abduction.
Do please tell us sadie. It could be vital information. Have you thought about sharing your knowledge with SY.
-
Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up. All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.
Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit. You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.
The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise.
Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.
But there is always going to be suspicion until someone else has been proved to be guilty
-
Thats why i dont get why an abductor would walk through streets lit up like a christmas tree.
The best way to go surely would be away from PDL with a child, not straight into it with all the cafes, etc....
It's mystifying, columbostogey, isn't it?
Much more likely she was whisked away in a car. Could have been half way towards the Spanish border before anyone had even called the police.
-
It's mystifying, columbostogey, isn't it?
Much more likely she was whisked away in a car. Could have been half way towards the Spanish border before anyone had even called the police.
The Escola Primaria was lit like Christmas trees before led lights time, with candles.
-
It's mystifying, columbostogey, isn't it?
Much more likely she was whisked away in a car. Could have been half way towards the Spanish border before anyone had even called the police.
I can only conclude that desperate times required desperate measures.
-
Don't be ridiculous! Surely reasonable people would supress that vital information for 3 years or so first? That's usually how reasonable unsuspicious people behave, isn't it?
Certain stones left unturned.....oops
-
I can only conclude that desperate times required desperate measures.
That would explain Smithman's actions perfectly. But he was smart moving Madeleine away whilst everyone elsewhere were in a blind panic and busy searching. He moved her whilst the others were blind to what was actually going on. The tapas bar was the alibi - it couldn't be one of us as we were all eating at the tapas bar.
-
That would explain Smithman's actions perfectly. But he was smart moving Madeleine away whilst everyone elsewhere were in a blind panic and busy searching. He moved her whilst the others were blind to what was actually going on. The tapas bar was the alibi - it couldn't be one of us as we were all eating at the tapas bar.
No doubt that Smithman was clever. But was that smart to do ?
-
No doubt that Smithman was clever. But was that smart to do ?
He was also very lucky of course and possibly not if more genuine eye witnesses have come forward but Madeleine has never been found so he was both smart and lucky IMO.
-
No doubt that Smithman was clever. But was that smart to do ?
Might have seemed the only apparent option at the time. Clearly he got lucky as Madeleine has not been found.
-
Might have seemed the only apparent option at the time. Clearly he got lucky as Madeleine has not been found.
He didn't have much time to reflect.
He met the Smiths.. but he was lucky that they didn't report it earlier, before the focus was on Robert M.
I don't think that "Madeleine hasn't been found" was a luck part, it was a must and there was only way to achieve it.
-
He didn't have much time to reflect.
He met the Smiths.. but he was lucky that they didn't report it earlier, before the focus was on Robert M.
I don't think that "Madeleine hasn't been found" was a luck part, it was a must and there was only way to achieve it.
Still lucky to have got away with it for all these years.
-
Still lucky to have got away with it for all these years.
Luck ? A couple of hours after crossing the Smith family, Smithman knew that he was safe for good.
Then started the circus, a kind of challenge.
-
Justice may yet prevail.
-
Luck ? A couple of hours after crossing the Smith family, Smithman knew that he was safe for good.
Then started the circus, a kind of challenge.
What would he have had to have done to be so sure of his eternal safety?
Is there such a crime in the world - one that can never be discovered?
-
What would he have had to have done to be so sure of his eternal safety?
Is there such a crime in the world - one that can never be discovered?
Just make sure Madeleine would never be found.
We'd have to hear what Smithman has to say before speaking of crime.
-
Justice may yet prevail.
It has to. Establishing the truth belongs to Justice.
The people require it, as in Greek tragedy the chorus did.
-
Just make sure Madeleine would never be found.
We'd have to hear what Smithman has to say before speaking of crime.
What has occurred if not a crime?
-
I believe I know who was behind the abduction.
Do please tell us sadie. It could be vital information. Have you thought about sharing your knowledge with SY.
It is all shared and has been for many months. The last time I visited SY was in about February / March, but I have been several times and talked with a Sargent the last twice.
They do not share information and I would not expect that. However, I know that we are considering the same person. They may be considering others instead of, or, as well. That I do not know.
There are many pointers which made clumps of information. Like a jigsaw sometimes comes together when clumps of pieces fit together, these clumps of information quite suddenly linked together and formed a jigsaw. Some pieces missing, but the main structure there.
And more recently a strange source has confirmed my thoughts and findings.
I cannot tell you more, sorry.
-
What has occurred if not a crime?
"crime" is generic. I'm not sure how it is semantically in English, but in Portuguese, they use "blood crime" vs "crime". In French, "crime" means currently murder.
Would you include in "crime" unintentional homicide ?
Would you include in "crime " concealment of cadaver ?
-
"crime" is generic. I'm not sure how it is semantically in English, but in Portuguese, they use "blood crime" vs "crime". In French, "crime" means currently murder.
Would you include in "crime" unintentional homicide ?
Would you include in "crime " concealment of cadaver ?
Crime is more of an umbrella term in English. Almost anything involving any infringement of the law may be termed a crime, including relatively trivial matters. Distinction between greater and smaller crimes are distinguished by terms such as 'serious crime'; 'petty (as in 'petit') crime', and so on. Then obviously there are all the technical terms for the different categories of crimes as well.
Concealment of a cadaver, to return to your example, would certainly be termed a serious crime. Unintentional homicide (termed manslaughter in common law, usually) would also be termed a serious crime.
-
Crime is more of an umbrella term in English. Almost anything involving any infringement of the law may be termed a crime, including relatively trivial matters. Distinction between greater and smaller crimes are distinguished by terms such as 'serious crime'; 'petty (as in 'petit') crime', and so on. Then obviously there are all the technical terms for the different categories of crimes as well.
Concealment of a cadaver, to return to your example, would certainly be termed a serious crime. Unintentional homicide (termed manslaughter in common law, usually) would also be termed a serious crime.
Concealment of cadaver is no "Portuguese" nor "French" crime -- same orthography in the three languages ! But different semantic fields. It is a "délit", a misdemeanour (what's the difference with offence ?). "Homicide" is a crime, even if not intentional, because it implies the death of someone.
What I was trying to say is that "crime" or "wrong doing" are assertions, they don't say much.
-
Concealment of cadaver is no "Portuguese" nor "French" crime -- same orthography in the three languages ! But different semantic fields. It is a "délit", a misdemeanour (what's the difference with offence ?). "Homicide" is a crime, even if not intentional, because it implies the death of someone.
What I was trying to say is that "crime" or "wrong doing" are assertions, they don't say much.
But what's the material significance in the context of Smithman? Obviously if he was carrying Madeleine, that was a 'wrong doing', of whatever description.
-
But what's the material significance in the context of Smithman? Obviously if he was carrying Madeleine, that was a 'wrong doing', of whatever description.
I don't think so. It depends on who Smithman was, what he was doing and what for.
-
It's mystifying, columbostogey, isn't it?
Much more likely she was whisked away in a car. Could have been half way towards the Spanish border before anyone had even called the police.
Yes I believe strongly if she was taken, it was through the front door on foot with someone she knew and taken by car very quickly and away. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.
IF she was taken out asleep then sadly I have to assume she was heavily sedated IMHO, as knowing grandchildren that age, there is no way they would stay asleep if taken out of a warm bed. Now going INTO a warm bed when they have just fell asleep is slightly different. BUT in my experience a child would not be taken out into the VERY VERY cold air and not wake up.
So either way its not good for someone.
I am still not against abduction but it would be by someone who knew her, and had access to front door...they would never have gone in through the sliding door it was too open and the path went right by the steps so could be seen.....
As I have said before IF the sighting by the Smiths is real it was a red herring........a Mr Kipper.
-
Red herrings are mostly an ingredient of fiction.
A accomplice would carry some sleeping child to be spotted by passer-bys, while the abductor would take Madeleine away in his car ? All this for the police to believe the abductor was walking ?
-
Yes I believe strongly if she was taken, it was through the front door on foot with someone she knew and taken by car very quickly and away. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.
IF she was taken out asleep then sadly I have to assume she was heavily sedated IMHO, as knowing grandchildren that age, there is no way they would stay asleep if taken out of a warm bed. Now going INTO a warm bed when they have just fell asleep is slightly different. BUT in my experience a child would not be taken out into the VERY VERY cold air and not wake up.
So either way its not good for someone.
I am still not against abduction but it would be by someone who knew her, and had access to front door...they would never have gone in through the sliding door it was too open and the path went right by the steps so could be seen.....
As I have said before IF the sighting by the Smiths is real it was a red herring........a Mr Kipper.
Dont think you are right Colom. A red Herring of that type would be too risky, imo
I believe a car was going to be used too, but I believe it was thwarted by seeing Jane Tanner witnessing the abduction and by Gerry being fairly close at only 30 metres. I believe that the getaway car was hidden with a driver / watcher on the little car park opposite the Tapas Reception. I believe that the driver bottled out of the pick up. leaving bundleman with Madeleine, on his tod.
-
I don't think the patio doors would have been the way the abductor got in, too risky with people up and down checking the children.
It was via the front door with someone who had a key, the window opened as a means of a quick exit or to hand Madeleine through it.
I still think there was two of them, one who had the means to get into the apartment, the other to take Madeleine to someone waiting maybe with a car or a boat.
-
I don't think the patio doors would have been the way the abductor got in, too risky with people up and down checking the children.
It was via the front door with someone who had a key, the window opened as a means of a quick exit or to hand Madeleine through it.
I still think there was two of them, one who had the means to get into the apartment, the other to take Madeleine to someone waiting maybe with a car or a boat.
Kate seemed to think rather early on that she could possibly have been found inside a large dumpster bin.
She considered that was such a high likelyhood that she pleaded with God for her not to be.
-
I don't think so. It depends on who Smithman was, what he was doing and what for.
So there could have been an innocent reason for him carrying Madeleine?
Or do you mean he had nothing to do with the investigation?
-
So there could have been an innocent reason for him carrying Madeleine?
Or do you mean he had nothing to do with the investigation?
I'm pretty sure he was carrying Madeleine, so he has to do with the investigation.
I observe that the Smiths found nothing weird about him, he didn't seem to carry the child against her will.
-
I'm pretty sure he was carrying Madeleine, so he has to do with the investigation.
I observe that the Smiths found nothing weird about him, he didn't seem to carry the child against her will.
Can read you like a book Anne. Intimating what you want to intimate, but keeping out of trouble
?>)()<
-
Kate seemed to think rather early on that she could possibly have been found inside a large dumpster bin.
She considered that was such a high likelyhood that she pleaded with God for her not to be.
Kate pleaded with god for Madeleine not to be found dead Wonderfulspam, wherever she may have been found in the early days.
-
Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.
-
Your point being?
Less than 24hrs & with Jane having seen the abductor apparently Kate believed her daughter could be found inside a big dumpster type bin.
-
Less than 24hrs & with Jane having seen the abductor apparently Kate believed her daughter could be found inside a big dumpster type bin.
The police were searching the bins, the public were searching the bins. If an abductor had taken Madeleine he could have disposed of her in a bin.
-
Less than 24hrs & with Jane having seen the abductor apparently Kate believed her daughter could be found inside a big dumpster type bin.
8 hours later actually.
I don't think she lifted the lid to make sure Madeleine wasn't in. If so she would have looked into all dumpsters around.
Some bins were searched the following day and by the police 3 days after.
-
8 hours later actually.
I don't think she lifted the lid to make sure Madeleine wasn't in. If so she would have looked into all dumpsters around.
Some bins were searched the following day and by the police 3 days after.
Why do you say that Anne? You dont know and neither do I
But why say it, as tho you might know. That is the sort of thing that starts myths.
-
If she (as she said) lifted the lid, it was certainly to see if there was something in the bin. She doesn't comment, but we know that there was nothing in it.