Madeleine McCann 'was kidnapped during a botched burglary by a gang of thieves who British police have already quizzed' but are blocked from questioning again
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564019/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapped-botched-burglary-gang-thieves-British-police-quizzed-blocked-questioning-again.html#ixzz479NGvFXJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
so SY are being blocked from re interviewing this group...what an absolute disgrace
Desperate dave.
We've heard that all before.
we havent heard taht SY are being blocked by the portuguese
Yes we have.
They Portuguese have interviewed them.
They want evidence to why they should do so again.
An officer told the paper: 'It has dogged the investigation all the way through and it's happening again.
'If we can't question the three suspects again the trail goes cold and the case will be shelved.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564019/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapped-botched-burglary-gang-thieves-British-police-quizzed-blocked-questioning-again.html#ixzz479VZ5M4E
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
this block by the Portuguese explains the inactivity in the investigation....hopefully we can get some real political pressure to force the Portuguese to cooperate
this block by the portuguese explains the inactivity in the investigation....hopefully we can get some real political pressure to force the portuguese to cooperate
Should we send gun ships?
A leak like this is only harming the relationship SY and PJ have had, as far as we have been told in public anyway, they were cooperating was the word used.
Or perhaps this is SY get out clause... we tried but those PJ stopped us? softening the blow so to speak?
The basic questions which must be asked are:
- where is the evidence of a break-in?
- if it was a botched burglary what was taken?
- is this really a final attempt to pass the buck?
The basic questions which must be asked are:
- where is the evidence of a break-in?
- if it was a botched burglary what was taken?
- is this really a final attempt to pass the buck?
if they panicked...nothing was taken...evidence of break in ....open window...small one goes in via the window then opens the front door for the other two
The basic questions which must be asked are:
- where is the evidence of a break-in?
- if it was a botched burglary what was taken?
- is this really a final attempt to pass the buck?
An officer told the paper: 'It has dogged the investigation all the way through and it's happening again.
'If we can't question the three suspects again the trail goes cold and the case will be shelved.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564019/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapped-botched-burglary-gang-thieves-British-police-quizzed-blocked-questioning-again.html#ixzz479VZ5M4E
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I have never heard of a burglar yet who could enter and leave premises without leaving some forensic trail or empty handed.
Earlier on in the investigation Scotland Yard requested access to bank accounts and for permission to search accommodation associated with these three arguidos.
Their requests were refused by the judiciary.
I fail to see what the problem is.
When Robert Murat was an arguido there was no compunction about checking him out thoroughly and searching his home.
What is so different about these guys?
Earlier on in the investigation Scotland Yard requested access to bank accounts and for permission to search accommodation associated with these three arguidos.
Their requests were refused by the judiciary.
I fail to see what the problem is.
When Robert Murat was an arguido there was no compunction about checking him out thoroughly and searching his home.
What is so different about these guys?
The Mail is simply regurgitating the original Sun story
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7113465/Revealed-Brit-cops-know-who-snatched-Maddieand-think-they-have-questioned-him-already.html
My question is why would anyone believe this story in the paper?
Earlier on in the investigation Scotland Yard requested access to bank accounts and for permission to search accommodation associated with these three arguidos.
Their requests were refused by the judiciary.
I fail to see what the problem is.
When Robert Murat was an arguido there was no compunction about checking him out thoroughly and searching his home.
What is so different about these guys?
My question is why would anyone believe this story in the paper?
£100,000 reward for evidence leading to a convictionSource please Davel?
Because Clarence has put a lot of time and effort into it @)(++(*
because it is what some of us have thought all along that the PJ are blocking SY
Madeleine McCann 'was kidnapped during a botched burglary by a gang of thieves who British police have already quizzed' but are blocked from questioning againMight well be happening. But if you are an arguido and you have the right to refuse to answer, and you admit to crimes, and after nearly 2 years you still haven't been charged ... Please join up the dots for yourself.
Madeleine McCann was kidnapped by a group of thieves because she woke up while they robbed her family's holiday apartment, it has been claimed.
This is believed to be the final line of inquiry mentioned recently by Scotland Yard's boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who said two days ago the probe could formally finish within months.
It is believed to centre on a group of thieves which included a 16-year-old teenager and a man who worked at the Mark Warner resort in Portugal when she disappeared in 2007.
According to The Sun, phone calls raise questions about the group's actions on the night of the three-year-old's disappearance.
It's claimed they have been identified as suspects by British police, but officers are being blocked from accessing them by Portuguese cops who say no new evidence has been brought forward.
An officer told the paper: 'It has dogged the investigation all the way through and it's happening again.
'If we can't question the three suspects again the trail goes cold and the case will be shelved.'
When they were previously interviewed, the men admitted theft from apartments at the complex but denied any involvement in the youngster's disappearance.
Madeleine vanished at the age of three while on holiday with her parents in Portugal in 2007. Despite a high-profile hunt, no trace of her has ever been found.
Speaking on LBC this week, Sir Bernard said: 'There's been a lot of investigation time spent on this terrible case.
'It's a child who went missing, everybody wants to know if she is alive and if she is where is she, and sadly if she's dead then we need to give some comfort to the family.
'It's needed us to carry out an investigation together with the Portuguese and other countries have been involved.
'There is a line of inquiry that remains to be concluded and it's expected that in the coming months that will happen.'
Sir Bernard's comments come just weeks after the Home Office granted £95,000 funding to keep the investigation - which now only has a handful of officers working on it - going for another few months.
Sir Bernard said: 'The size of the team has come down radically, we are now down to two or three people in that team, at one stage there were about 30 officers in it.'
But he added: 'There is a line of inquiry that everybody agrees is worthwhile pursuing.'
When asked when the probe called Operation Grange will end, the Met chief said: 'At the moment it would be at the conclusion of this line of inquiry unless something else comes up.
'If somebody comes forward and gives us good evidence we will follow it. We always say that a missing child inquiry is never closed.'
Operation Grange, which is estimated to have cost £12million so far, was launched in 2011 after the Portuguese police ended their investigation into Madeleine's whereabouts.
British officers searching for Madeleine have taken more than 1,300 statements and spent several days digging up scrubland in the Algarve in the hunt for clues.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564019/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapped-botched-burglary-gang-thieves-British-police-quizzed-blocked-questioning-again.html#ixzz479NGvFXJ
...so SY are being blocked from re interviewing this group...what an absolute disgrace
22
Has no-one noticed the words "According to The Sun"? The Mail got the whole story from the Sun.
Yup.
The 'sun', bastion of truth and integrity in journalism.
NOT.
The UK newspapers are busy repeating old stories and inventing new ones in favour of the McCanns and against Portugal. It is so transparent that they are looking increasingly desperate and irrelevant in my opinion. .
(Sun) "But privately British cops remain frustrated with the Portuguese authorities' refusal to let them follow what they see as a crucial line of inquiry. One said ............."
IMO the "British cop" being cited "privately" is not in OG. He is probably a retired cop who has been summoned by Mr PR to give his his opinion and Mr PR then crafts the article to trick you into thinking it is an OG cop talking.
Source please Davel?its what I would suggest
.....Note the report does not have a date, nor does it attribute to an author.
'Mobile phone experts have linked a series of phone calls between the men before and after Madeleine went missing.
They were made near to the McCanns' apartment on the night she went missing.
Two of the men were later seen rowing intensely on a balcony'
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7113465/Revealed-Brit-cops-know-who-snatched-Maddieand-think-they-have-questioned-him-already.html
Good bit of cardio after a hard nights child snatching.
"Two of the men were later seen rowing intensely on a balcony near to the complex but when asked if they had seen a little girl who had gone missing said 'no'. "
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7113465/Revealed-Brit-cops-know-who-snatched-Maddieand-think-they-have-questioned-him-already.html
Oh dear the Sun seems to have got themselves so very confused. They have taken a discussion which happened in the street (source: Redwood on Crimewatch) and teleported it up to a balcony, and by coincidence the effect of the Sun's misunderstanding is to artificially make these men look more suspicious.
Note the report does not have a date, nor does it attribute to an author.Yes the Sun (or whatever media manipulator fed it to them) have completely fabricated two men "rowing intensely" on da Silva's balcony.
Just as well. It has gone from Crimewatch, Oct 2013, where two men were heard talking very loudly in Rua Primeiro de Maio, and upon being noticed by an observer, quietened down and moved off, TO ...
Two of the men were seen rowing intensely on a balcony.
What utter baloney. As is much of the rest of the article.
Note the report does not have a date, nor does it attribute to an author.
Where is Rua Primeiro de Maio?See the the Crimewatch map in the Sun article
The Sun has named the three men and effectively labelled them child abductors. I would think they have an extremely good case for libel against the Sun assuming of course that they are innocent?The Mail and Sun know these 3 men are too poor to sue them.
Has The Sun gone too far this time?
The Mail and Sun know these 3 men are too poor to sue them.
At least the Mail waters it down with their wording "According to the Sun ... It's claimed ...."
See the Crimewatch map in the Sun article
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7113465/Revealed-Brit-cops-know-who-snatched-Maddieand-think-they-have-questioned-him-already.html
Number 5 is where two men were having a loud discussion in the street at about 11pm.
Rua 1 Maio is the north-south road which number 5 is on.
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02828/maddie1_2828849a.jpg)
Who saw them?Yes G-Unit as soon as that Crimewatch came out I posted that 2 T7 had a loud discussion next to Luztur (commercial centre) and that is the loud discussion which a witness saw and heard and is number 5 on Redwood's map. The Sun have taken this discussion, teleported it up to da Silva's balcony in Luztur, discarded the T7 searchers, and replaced them with da Silva and a friend arguing publically about a supposed burglary-abduction, that is how desperate the current PR is.
Russell and Dave met up near there at one point;
And then, and then found my way out of the, the Shopping Centre and actually came out at the other end from where, well a different entrance, I didn’t come out the same way I don’t think, erm, and, erm, it was actually on the road that comes down in front of the Baptista Supermarket. I don’t know whether I searched a little bit more around there, but not long thereafter I met Dave coming down the road in front of the Supermarket, erm, just looking terrible, just pale, erm, you know, sort of, you know, sort of fear in his eyes, saying, you know, ‘This is’, erm, ‘This is really bad. This is bad’, you know, ‘No-one’s found her. No-one’s found her’. Erm, and I don’t know what happened at this point particularly,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Oh, this is going to be OGs defense then for closing the case without finding her/finding out what actually happened...blame the Portuguese police, how original *&*%£I have more faith in OG.
its what I would suggestVery good suggestion of yours Davel.
do you think the PJ want SY to solve the case where they have not
They probably have watertight alibis.
Note the report does not have a date, nor does it attribute to an author.
Just as well. It has gone from Crimewatch, Oct 2013, where two men were heard talking very loudly in Rua Primeiro de Maio, and upon being noticed by an observer, quietened down and moved off, TO ...
Two of the men were seen rowing intensely on a balcony.
What utter baloney. As is much of the rest of the article.
I don't know if it is the PJ and their pride which is the stumbling block or if it is the magistrates they are accountable to, but I think if the PJ felt inclined to make a case and pushed it the magistrates would accept their representation.
I think there may be an element of the PJ not wishing to lose face, if there is and that is what is blocking SY from investigating further it is criminal.
The small difference is SY did not interview Murat, check him out thouroughly, or search his home because they had no jurisdiction to do so.
This is a Portuguese police force and perhaps they did check these people out, and rule them out. They did re interview them in front of the SY so what more can be done?
If Kate can refuse to be re interviewed,refuse to answer basic questions, and do a no show for a reconstruction then why should any one else who may not have been involved be dragged screaming to account for THEIR whereabouts etc.
I would have thought it self evident that if Scotland Yard require further information to assist in a missing child investigation it is reprehensible if they are deliberately obstructed from doing so.
The Sun has named the three men and effectively labelled them child abductors. I would think they have an extremely good case for libel against the Sun assuming of course that they are innocent?
Has The Sun gone too far this time?
I would have thought it self evident that if Scotland Yard require further information to assist in a missing child investigation it is reprehensible if they are deliberately obstructed from doing so.
...except a child?!
if they panicked...nothing was taken...evidence of break in ....open window...small one goes in via the window then opens the front door for the other two
Maybe they are inviting a libel suit?
...except a child?!
If you were burgling somewhere and a kid wakes up and starts shouting, you get out of there immediately, not decide to take the child with you...
Sorry I really find this theory ridiculous and I don't really believe our police would come out with such garbage either.
Revealed: Brit cops 'know who snatched Maddie' - and think they have questioned him already.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7113465/Revealed-Brit-cops-know-who-snatched-Maddieand-think-they-have-questioned-him-already.html
WTF?
They know who dunnit, but they only think they have questioned him.
...and I thought I was forgetful.
Or did I?
(snip) ... If you were burgling somewhere and a kid wakes up and starts shouting, you get out of there immediately, not decide to take the child with you... Sorry I really find this theory ridiculous ...(snip)As you say so sensibly, it's ridiculous to imagine a burglar would take a child, dead or alive.
You do realise don't you Brietta that this story originated in the same publication who stated categorically, on their front page that Liverpool supporters urinated on the bodies of the dead at Hillsborough ?
...except a child?!
If you were burgling somewhere and a kid wakes up and starts shouting, you get out of there immediately, not decide to take the child with you...
Sorry I really find this theory ridiculous and I don't really believe our police would come out with such garbage either.
From who ? Are you honestly suggesting the three'suspects' would have the finances to sue the Sun ?
The Sun's Hillsborough source has never been a secret - it was the police
Roy Greenslade
Monday 17 October 2011 08.45 BST
**snip
The ITN clip is crucial because it shows just where the families should concentrate their fire. The South Yorkshire force had a motive - to distract attention from its own failings, as highlighted by Taylor - and the opportunity to brief journalists off the record.
All the newspapers, news agencies, TV and radio outlets, relied entirely on the police for the reporting of scandalous and inaccurate allegations.
The Sun's sin was to believe them.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/oct/17/sun-hillsborough-disaster
The South Yorkshire police went on the attack and used the press to cover their own incompetence and mismanagement by getting in first with the most lying and pejorative portrayal of the victims of Hillsborough as possible.
In a similar way the press was used against the McCanns in Portugal from 'A Badly Told Story' to '100% DNA' where it appears the police just simply had not a clue about how to conduct a missing child inquiry and embarked on their own cover up.
Instead of dismissing out of hand the open window and the McCann's belief that Madeleine had been abducted ... why wasn't it investigated.
Whether the interrupted burglars story is a rehash of a previous story or not ... have you ever reflected on why it wasn't thoroughly checked out in 2007.
It must have been known that burglars were active in the immediate area and within Block 5.
We know that the PJ must have been aware of home invasions when children were assaulted as DNA had been recovered.
Did Mr Amaral check it out ... or was he too busy looking for a blue sports bag, a pink blanket and a freezer?
In order to charge an Elite, [backed by Mega respected organisations of a global scale ], there has to be cast iron evidence that will definitely convict him.
I am inclined to think that SY know exactly who this man is, but haven't got this cast iron evidence to convict him ... Yet
With respect, you would have absolutely no idea what a criminal would do. Please get over the notion that burglars are normal people with normal reactions, some have committed terrible crimes including the abduction of children.
I must say I have to agree. It is too ridiculous for words.
it is far more realistic than anything involving the parents...and if the parents are not involved as we have been repeatedly told then something like this hapenned
It is a total load of rollocks.
is this an example of the eloquence you were talking about
The Sun's Hillsborough source has never been a secret - it was the police
Roy Greenslade
Monday 17 October 2011 08.45 BST
**snip
The ITN clip is crucial because it shows just where the families should concentrate their fire. The South Yorkshire force had a motive - to distract attention from its own failings, as highlighted by Taylor - and the opportunity to brief journalists off the record.
All the newspapers, news agencies, TV and radio outlets, relied entirely on the police for the reporting of scandalous and inaccurate allegations.
The Sun's sin was to believe them.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/oct/17/sun-hillsborough-disaster
The South Yorkshire police went on the attack and used the press to cover their own incompetence and mismanagement by getting in first with the most lying and pejorative portrayal of the victims of Hillsborough as possible.
In a similar way the press was used against the McCanns in Portugal from 'A Badly Told Story' to '100% DNA' where it appears the police just simply had not a clue about how to conduct a missing child inquiry and embarked on their own cover up.
Instead of dismissing out of hand the open window and the McCann's belief that Madeleine had been abducted ... why wasn't it investigated.
Whether the interrupted burglars story is a rehash of a previous story or not ... have you ever reflected on why it wasn't thoroughly checked out in 2007.
It must have been known that burglars were active in the immediate area and within Block 5.
We know that the PJ must have been aware of home invasions when children were assaulted as DNA had been recovered.
Did Mr Amaral check it out ... or was he too busy looking for a blue sports bag, a pink blanket and a freezer?
The 3 burglar article is old hat.
It makes no logical sense as other posters on here have already pointed out.
Burglars don't leave a place clean and tidy.
Rather like this theory, your support for it is pure desperation.
Quite sad in fact.
i would rather listen to SY...the involvement of the parents makes no logical sense......they have been ruled out as suspects...which leaves abduction as the most likely scenario
You just carry on listening to SY as they slowly but surely disappear from a case they must have been mad to get involved in. Perhaps they suffer from an over-inflated opinion of their expertise? I just hope they don't try to blame others for their own failings. If they accepted a restrictive remit they made a huge blunder and have only themselves to blame.
You just carry on listening to SY as they slowly but surely disappear from a case they must have been mad to get involved in. Perhaps they suffer from an over-inflated opinion of their expertise? I just hope they don't try to blame others for their own failings. If they accepted a restrictive remit they made a huge blunder and have only themselves to blame.
You just carry on listening to SY as they slowly but surely disappear from a case they must have been mad to get involved in. Perhaps they suffer from an over-inflated opinion of their expertise? I just hope they don't try to blame others for their own failings. If they accepted a restrictive remit they made a huge blunder and have only themselves to blame.
They have been questioned twice by a police force which some would have us believe are vigorous in their questioning techniques and not revealed anything untoward. If SY have new information or questions then I would expect the PJ to happily cooperate, if they just want to have a go, then not.
you do realise your post is purely your opinion...I listen to SY because if you look at the evidence everything tehy say amkes sense...including being blocked by the portuguese...absolute sense
i would rather listen to SY...the involvement of the parents makes no logical sense......they have been ruled out as suspects...which leaves abduction as the most likely scenario
you do realise your post is purely your opinion...I listen to SY because if you look at the evidence everything they say makes sense...including being blocked by the portuguese...absolute sense
it seems SY want to question them further and the PJ have refused...a disgrace AFAIAC....
So SY are fishing...
and we know that the alleged neglect gave the opportunity for maddie to be abducted
With respect, you would have absolutely no idea what a criminal would do. Please get over the notion that burglars are normal people with normal reactions, some have committed terrible crimes including the abduction of children.
I totally agree.
I can't believe people are attempting to 'sanitize' burglars. A quick google search shows the amount of people - (from young girls to OAPs in their nineties) who have been violently attacked - some within an inch of their lives by vicious, cowardly burglars. Criminals who can do that are capable of anything IMO.
Victims of burglars all say the same even if they were not attacked - i.e. that they feel personally violated. Some never get over it and never feel safe in their own homes again.
The idea that burglars are people who wouldn't dream of harming or even taking a child - even if circumstances dictated that it was in their own selfiish interests to do so - is unrealistic IMO.
There is absolutely no proof of a burglary in the apartment.
You and Brietta are merely diverting.
what we know for almost certain is that they are being blocked.Having spent 12 mill it's a disgrace if they are blocked. The question is ..as i have said several times...will they accept being blocked and walk away quietly or will political pressure be applied to force portugal to cooperate
No evidence was found. That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed.
Or are you now changing your opinion that evidence was destroyed/contaminated by the McCanns and others who entered 5A?
So a Portuguese couple doing the same would have been arrested.
So the mccanns got away with a charge of abandonment and clearly had preferential temperate.
So a Portuguese couple doing the same would have been arrested.
So the mccanns got away with a charge of abandonment and clearly had preferential temperate.
A Portuguese couple doing the same from their own home may well have been arrested. Just as UK parents who did the same from their own home might be.
The difference is that this practice still is- and for decades has been - an accepted form of childcare which is adopted by parents - but only when on holiday.
Whilst this remains the case, and holiday companies are still offering the listening service, and people are still using it and leaving their children asleep whilst they go out - and whilst people are still leaving their children asleep and using baby alarms as their choice of childcare - there is not a cat in hell's chance that the McCanns can be prosecuted.
It would be a different story if they had left their children asleep and gone out clubbing miles away for the rest of the night and left their children unattended for hours on end. However that isn't the case. Sitting right opposite their apartment block - less than 60 seconds walk away from it - and making regular checks on their children does not infer any intent to abandon them imo - in fact quite the opposite.
The fact that it is accepted custom and practice for people to do this when on holiday and it is not illegal for tour operators to offer this service would rule out any chance of the prosecution of any parents who choose this type of childcare.
Whether people agree or don't agree with this method childcare - is irrelevant IMO.
Personally I think it should be banned.
Where is it accepted to leave children by themselves on holiday in unlocked accomodation ?
They locked it during the daytime.
There is no excuse and no logic to what the mccanns did.
stephen it sounds like portugal police etc condem what the mcanns did!!!
Where is it accepted to leave children by themselves on holiday in unlocked accomodation ?
They locked it during the daytime.
There is no excuse and no logic to what the mccanns did.
The problem for those who seek to defend the McCanns by referring to 'listening services' is; they didn't use one.
Suggesting that people are at liberty to ignore the safety of their children when on holiday but not when at home is ridiculous.
No-one said the McCanns abandoned their children. They placed them in danger is what they did.
Anyone who thinks no other parents on holiday have ever gone out and left their doors or windows unlocked either by accident or design is being totally unrealistic imo.
...and for several hours at a time whilst they drank and ate ?
You need to cite some examples then.
Operation Grange hasn't made any comment about which 'line of inquiry' they are following. Neither have they criticised Portugal in respect of their help with OG's investigation.
The UK media are either using 'leaks' from the Met or they are making things up. If it is leaks then the Met are running the risk of upsetting the Portuguese once again after having to work very hard to repair the relationship at the beginning of their involvement. If the media are making things up then the may Met need to clarify the situation.
The danger here is that the Portuguese attitude is beginning to look reasonable and the Met are beginning to look like the 'bunglers'. The world is watching this farce being played out and the UK isn't coming out of it looking good imo.
Operation Grange hasn't made any comment about which 'line of inquiry' they are following. Neither have they criticised Portugal in respect of their help with OG's investigation.
The UK media are either using 'leaks' from the Met or they are making things up. If it is leaks then the Met are running the risk of upsetting the Portuguese once again after having to work very hard to repair the relationship at the beginning of their involvement. If the media are making things up then the may Met need to clarify the situation.
The danger here is that the Portuguese attitude is beginning to look reasonable and the Met are beginning to look like the 'bunglers'. The world is watching this farce being played out and the UK isn't coming out of it looking good imo.
The mccanns are increasingly disliked, and SY as I have said, are beginning to look a laughing stock.
The problem for those who seek to defend the McCanns by referring to 'listening services' is; they didn't use one.
Suggesting that people are at liberty to ignore the safety of their children when on holiday but not when at home is ridiculous.
No-one said the McCanns abandoned their children. They placed them in danger is what they did.
Petty nitpicking IMO. Whether parents choose the listening service or choose to mirror it - the practice is the same. i.e. parents choose to leave their offspring asleep in their room whilst they go to dinner - knowing that regular checks will be made.
IMO the same people would not dream of doing the same thing at home. However people do have a different mindset when on holiday - they are far more relaxed and don't spend their time thinking about tragedies which might befall them - and they are surrounded by people who are similarly relaxed and enjoying themselves.
The fact that the Listening service is offered by reputable tour operators etc is enough psychologically to reassure their clients that this method of childcare is safe as if would not occur to them that they would be offered a service which would put their children in danger. A couple of the McCanns friends had used this service before with no problems - so even more reassuring to the McCanns that it was OK.
From memory but IIRC MW have ceased offering this service - giving their reason that they do not wish to lull people into a false sense of security. IMO that is exactly what happened to the McCanns.
you are seeing everything through your anti mccann glasses.....my opinion is that all along the portuguese have not cooperated and SY have had to keep quiet for fear of upsetting them...that hasnt worked and its now time to put public pressure on the portuguese to shame them into cooperating...more to come here I am sure
Not at all davel, simply my unbiased spectacles which allow me to take everything I read in the 'newspapers' with a lorry load of salt, given their track record. Printing pure unvarnished truth is not what they do. Anyone who believes what they say needs to hone their reading, understanding and critical skills imo.
Not at all davel, simply my unbiased spectacles which allow me to take everything I read in the 'newspapers' with a lorry load of salt, given their track record. Printing pure unvarnished truth is not what they do. Anyone who believes what they say needs to hone their reading, understanding and critical skills imo.
#Absolutely right benice...babylistening is on the whole unsafe but parents have been lullled into a false sense of security by the fact tat they are offered and because before Maddie there does not seem tom have been one adverse incident
No dave.
Try to keep up with events, it would help.
Rubbish dave.
The mccanns CHOSE to leave their children in unlocked accomodation.
They should have kept to their locked story, it might have made a 'break-in' more believable.
NOT ANY MORE.
It sounds like you are equating the PJ to the cowardly South Yorkshire police who blamed innocent people who died because of the police's mistakes? Not to mention believing a story in the rag which didn't do any research at the time, it simply joined in and libeled the dead and injured fans. I refuse to call it a newspaper. I heard that Hillsborough was the police's fault from an eyewitness on the day it happened.
The McCanns instigated the involvement of the media and used it to exert pressure on the PJ from the very beginning. If the PJ responded they had only themselves to blame.
No evidence was found. That doesn't mean no evidence ever existed.
Or are you now changing your opinion that evidence was destroyed/contaminated by the McCanns and others who entered 5A?
They tidied up the bed, wiping glove marks off the window etc. Closing all doors except the bedroom one and didn't steal a thing. I posted that there was one line of inquiry left as soon as the team was reduced to a small number back in October - SMITHMAN and he's been my number one suspect from the start because it all connects in my theory. Nobody can prove my theory is wrong.
This is from my first posts here in OCT 2013.
Fiona Payne:
1485 “So having got back from your search around the corner, did you go then straight into the McCANN’s?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1485 “What did you see when you walked in, describe it?”
Reply “At that point, Gerry, I don’t think was in the apartment, it was mainly Kate.
if you believe everything you believe in newspapers is false then it is you that is misguided...the critical skill is separating the wheat from the chaffe......it is obvious that the PJ have been blocking SY...the newspapers have just confirmed it
you might not believe them but SY do...and I know which is more important
SY are looking a laughing stock dave.
...and you typing anything to say otherwise won't change that , as you stick to the dogma.
Petty nitpicking IMO. Whether parents choose the listening service or choose to mirror it - the practice is the same. i.e. parents choose to leave their offspring asleep in their room whilst they go to dinner - knowing that regular checks will be made.
IMO the same people would not dream of doing the same thing at home. However people do have a different mindset when on holiday - they are far more relaxed and don't spend their time thinking about tragedies which might befall them - and they are surrounded by people who are similarly relaxed and enjoying themselves.
The fact that the Listening service is offered by reputable tour operators etc is enough psychologically to reassure their clients that this method of childcare is safe as if would not occur to them that they would be offered a service which would put their children in danger. A couple of the McCanns friends had used this service before with no problems - so even more reassuring to the McCanns that it was OK.
From memory but IIRC MW have ceased offering this service - giving their reason that they do not wish to lull people into a false sense of security. IMO that is exactly what happened to the McCanns.
The mccanns are increasingly disliked, and SY as I have said, are beginning to look a laughing stock.
... and where exactly does Madeleine McCann figure in this hierarchy of alleged "dislike"?
Don't be foolish.
She isn't.
She was the victim.
I'm afraid typing the old mantra won't help anymore Brietta.
The PJ wouldn't be in a position to block - it's the Portuguese Judiciary who make these decisions.
I expect Mark Warner had to face the undeniable truth that listening services don't safeguard children from danger. If you think holiday companies offer them because they're safe and not as a good marketing ploy you're very naive. Intelligent caring parents make their own minds up about the care of their children and leaving them in an unlocked apartment in another country isn't something most parents would dream of doing these days. Even stupid parents are capable of working out that children can wake, cry, wander, climb, fight, choke, play with knives, etc. Were the McCanns really so stupid that none of those possibilities occured to them?
More repeats of the unfounded allegations;
"British police have revealed Madeleine may have been snatched during a break-in at the apartment where she was sleeping".
What did they say then?
Scotland Yard said: “It’s not something we would discuss.”
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/ar-BBsoEx0?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignoutmd
Pathetic!
PJ...portugues judiciary
its called emotional blackmail and it doesnt work anymore
So just an example of you ambiguity. PJ is normally taken on here to be an abbreviation for their police service.
OK so let's say MM was taken in a bungled burglary.
As I see it the burglars had three options:
1. Kill her.
2. They are still toting her around.
3. They sold her on.
Faites vos jeux or any other ideas on options ?
perhaps if SY were allowed to do their job we might find out
... and where exactly does Madeleine McCann figure in this hierarchy of alleged "dislike"?
perhaps if SY were allowed to do their job we might find out
i think the one thing the McCanns didn't forsee was an abduction
I expect Mark Warner had to face the undeniable truth that listening services don't safeguard children from danger. If you think holiday companies offer them because they're safe and not as a good marketing ploy you're very naive. Intelligent caring parents make their own minds up about the care of their children and leaving them in an unlocked apartment in another country isn't something most parents would dream of doing these days. Even stupid parents are capable of working out that children can wake, cry, wander, climb, fight, choke, play with knives, etc. Were the McCanns really so stupid that none of those possibilities occured to them?
More repeats of the unfounded allegations;
"British police have revealed Madeleine may have been snatched during a break-in at the apartment where she was sleeping".
What did they say then?
Scotland Yard said: “It’s not something we would discuss.”
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/ar-BBsoEx0?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignoutmd
Pathetic!
No-one could have foreseen such an occurrence for the simple reason it was unprecedented; nor were they aware of an assailant whose MO was to enter residences for the purpose of petty theft and to assault children; nor had there been any publicity given to burglars targeting apartments, occurrences denied as late as 2013 (Paul Luckman and Eamonn Holmes).
Burglaries quite often escalate into something unintended ... it was a relevant line of inquiry ... the files show it was not a priority of the investigation, in fact such intelligence was noted in one instance only as a scribble on a page ... who knows what could have been learned if that scribble had been followed through.
That implies you believe that which is written in The Sun.
*&*%£
If The McCanns had known about the spate of burglaries it might have helped. Changed their attitude even. But they didn't know, which is why they thought it was safe.
Can't some of you see this?
Nope. Leaving children is bad enough but leaving it unlocked doesn't wash. It was unlocked after Gerry's check because Matt entered that way.
"At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked." GM 4 May
If The McCanns had known about the spate of burglaries it might have helped. Changed their attitude even. But they didn't know, which is why they thought it was safe.
Can't some of you see this?
Eleanor makes any excuse for the mcanns
If The McCanns had known about the spate of burglaries it might have helped. Changed their attitude even. But they didn't know, which is why they thought it was safe.
Can't some of you see this?
You have to question why it was unlocked before Matt entered (supposed to be Kate) which should give you a clue to when and how she disappeared. That would make it 13 hours since she disappeared as another statement claimed someone said.
Mark Warner and the Ocean Club were negligent in my view in not warning guests that this was going on. I also think the resort owners should have had visible security around the blocks.
i always wondered why the mcanns allowed matt etc and the others in alone to check their kids why didnt they do all the checking on their kids by themselves??
that doesnt excuse the mcanns lack of duty of care imo
Mark Warner and the Ocean Club were negligent in my view in not warning guests that this was going on. I also think the resort owners should have had visible security around the blocks.
No it doesn't but forewarned is forearmed.
i always wondered why the mcanns allowed matt etc and the others in alone to check their kids why didnt they do all the checking on their kids by themselves??
We don't all have nasty minds.
You can type abduction or burglary to your heart's content.
There is no evidence for either, and you know that.
Yes, they should have done. One wonders what they were thinking of, although I could take a guess.
But as you say, why no visible security? Not that anyone expected a child to be stolen.
There is evidence that someone other than the occupants of the apartment interfered with the shutter and the window.
There is evidence of the absence of Madeleine McCann.
There is evidence that burglars were operating in the apartment block from which the child disappeared.
There is not a scintilla of evidence to support any of the preposterous theories dreamed up by the senior investigator at the time or the even more deluded imaginings he subsequently spouted unashamedly to any who would listen.
There is evidence that someone other than the occupants of the apartment interfered with the shutter and the window.
There is evidence of the absence of Madeleine McCann.
There is evidence that burglars were operating in the apartment block from which the child disappeared.
There is not a scintilla of evidence to support any of the preposterous theories dreamed up by the senior investigator at the time or the even more deluded imaginings he subsequently spouted unashamedly to any who would listen.
What on earth do you mean by that ?
what we know for almost certain is that they are being blocked.Having spent 12 mill it's a disgrace if they are blocked. The question is ..as i have said several times...will they accept being blocked and walk away quietly or will political pressure be applied to force portugal to cooperatePolitical pressure? By whom, on whom?
This is getting ridiculous.
Burglaries happen all over the world.
Besides,. it was never Mark Warner's responsibility to look after the mccanns children.
They had a duty of care to all their guests ... there is no evidence that guests were warned about burglars active in the immediate area.
There was evidence found on the window and tampering of the crime scene.
thats a very strange post imo??? i wasnt inplying anything i just meant most parents look after their own children or should anyway
Thank you, Pathfinder. Ever fair, as usual.
They had a duty of care to all their guests ... there is no evidence that guests were warned about burglars active in the immediate area.
My experience of holiday resorts was that you get briefed at the welcome meeting as to what to beware of etc... No doubt this happened when the McCanns and tgeiur fields attended this initial get together up at the Millennium. They were probably given the usual platitudes relating to security and safety. Staff were probably warned not to say anything about burglars or break-ins for fear of calarming guests.
By the mccanns Eleanor.
Pathfinder is ever fair. And never abusive. Some of you should try it.
There was evidence found on the window and tampering of the crime scene.
You were a policeman John.
Now would you say, where ever you go in the world there is a danger of being burgled ?
There was evidence that one legitimate occupant of the apartment had left fingerprints on the glass ... there was evidence that another with a legitimate reason for being there had left a print on a glass door ... there was also evidence that another person there legitimately had cut himself on a tile.
What was the cunning plan associated with tampering with the crime scene by lowering and closing the shutter after going to all the trouble ofjemmyingsorry ~ 'staging' the scene by raising it?
I would say that depends on the location. For example, I have spent a lot of time in The Gambia, West Africa and Kenya in East Africa as well as in Spain and several Mediterranean resorts. I would expect to be burgled in Africa but not to the same extent in Portugal or Spain.
I have never been burgled here. And I frequently don't lock my doors, day or night. And never when I go out.
I have never been burgled here. And I frequently don't lock my doors, day or night. And never when I go out.
If The McCanns had known about the spate of burglaries it might have helped. Changed their attitude even. But they didn't know, which is why they thought it was safe.May I ask why anyone would think the Algarve is a burglary-free zone? Does such a zone exist at any holiday destination?
Can't some of you see this?
Well you have been lucky.
Many people are not so fortunate.
Burglars in Med resorts tend to target tourists on the basis that most crimes are never followed up. The police issue victims with a Crime Number for insurance purposes and that is an end of it. Tourists are basically a soft target.
I will add this however. Foreign residents of the town in Spain where I live have had to form Neighbourhood Watch schemes recently because of a spate of brazen burglaries. It seems that the dire financial situation in Spain has seen a huge increase in this sort of crime.
Well you have been lucky.
Many people are not so fortunate.
Examine it from the child's perspective. What did she see? What did she hear? What did she decide to do?
Mark Warner and the Ocean Club were negligent in my view in not warning guests that this was going on. I also think the resort owners should have had visible security around the blocks. Even the nannies complained that strangers had too much access to the gardens and pool area. As it was any old Tom, Dick or Harry could wander in day or night.You need to think about what the Ocean Club was and is.
May I ask why anyone would think the Algarve is a burglary-free zone? Does such a zone exist at any holiday destination?
I just can't see why leaving your home unlocked makes sense, whether in Luz, the Algarve or the UK.
Fortunate? So it's just good luck if you don't get burgled? I see it rather differently.
What on earth ?
Sorry, Love. I have become accustomed to living among honest people.
Yes, they should have done. One wonders what they were thinking of, although I could take a guess.The size and dispersal of the OC meant that MW did not offer a listening service. Same applies to security, except a security system would work much more extended hours, and I've no idea how they could cover a meal break.
But as you say, why no visible security? Not that anyone expected a child to be stolen.
Well count your blessings.
I hope you never have the misfortune to be burgled.
i remember reading an article in the early days where Gerry said he felt like Luz was similar to a seaside town in the 509's ...quiet and safe...he was wrong.
Despite what everyone says the McCanns thought what they did was safe...they were wrong....what's the point in going over it again and again 9 years later
Could it be that they and the other guests were misled?
Could it be that they and the other guests were misled?
You need to think about what the Ocean Club was and is.
Mark Warner bought the OC around late 2006 for €1.85 million. The figure would not buy you block 5, let alone what most people think is the OC.
MW bought the communal facilities - 24hr reception, crèche above, Millennium area, Tapas area, indoor pool, adults only pool.
The apartments are owned by individuals, not the OC. Examples are Mrs McCann in 5A and Mrs Fenn above. Some owners rented out their property, via a contract with the OC. Some did not.
It is not private land in any way so the OC is not in a position to control access. Example - Mrs Murat nipping out on 3 May 2007 to get bread from Baptista before it closed. Her journey took her between blocks 5 and 6, but as the OC owned neither, it could not regulate such access.
I'm not sure if tourists booking the facilities would have been aware of that exact situation. Being surrounded by similar blocks would give the impression that they were all Mark Warner properties to those who booked via MW. Those who booked directly from owners might have had a better idea.It is my understanding that CCTV monitoring in public areas by private organisations is illegal, though I have never checked this to make certain. The blocks are all public. The roads are public. There isn't any legal way to monitor this by CCTV.
However the inability of MW to secure the entire area for the reasons you have posted is entirely reasonable.
It would probably have precluded them monitoring 'their' bocks using CCTV since they didn't own 'their' properties.
If they had broadly reminded or indicated a general burglary risk that might have gone some way to remind visitors ... if they had given a specific warning I don't think it would have been disregarded.
John has posted about tourists being soft targets for burglars in some areas. I believe that quite often the optimum time for burglars to strike is at the end of a holiday when holidaymakers are preparing for the journey home and have little time to spare.
There are those employed by the holiday firm who would know exactly which properties were due to be vacated.
Are people seriously suggesting that 2 very intelligent highly-qualified tourists, who you would trust to diagnose you, who had travelled abroad many times before, were not aware of the basic concept of locking windows and doors when they go out for a meal?
(snip) They did not check the windows were locked as they assumed the shutters were their security. (snip)Absolutely correct, verified by the statements, and a most important observation Brietta.
It is my understanding that CCTV monitoring in public areas by private organisations is illegal, though I have never checked this to make certain. The blocks are all public. The roads are public. There isn't any legal way to monitor this by CCTV.
They could monitor inside the Tapas area, as that is walled off, but that would not have helped.
Estrela has CCTV because it is inside a fenced off area and access is restricted. The OC has neither of these in place.
Are people seriously suggesting that 2 very intelligent highly-qualified tourists, who you would trust to diagnose you, who had travelled abroad many times before, were not aware of the basic concept of locking windows and doors when they go out for a meal?
(snip)If their window had been locked, I think any burglary attempt would have been in another apartment (snip)Yes, I agree completely Brietta, if the window had been locked, we wouldn't be here discussing it.
so what is your explanation...mine is they felt it was safe...as it was in the UK 50 yrs agoUK burglary rates rocketed in the early 1960's and were very high in 1966.
UK burglary rates rocketed in the early 1960's and were very high in 1966.
Perhaps you lived in an unusually safe area Davel.
Could you answer the question
Gerry was referring to the 50s if I
remember properly
He was. I wonder how he knew what it was like at the seaside in the 1950s ?
The supermarket had CCTV situated outside which I believe encroached onto the public roadway.With all due respect to Mr Amaral, he is talking nonsense here. There are 9 gates into/out of Estrela, and a total of 10 CCTV cameras, all taking images inside the fence. That includes the one nearest Primary School street. It is way too far off to catch anything on Primary School street, and in any event, it points the other way, away from that corner.
The Estrella CCTV also encroached as in Mr Amaral's statement that it would have picked up street images
(a) picking up the man seen by the Smiths.
(b) giving an exact time of the family's return to Estrela if the man had not been picked up but giving an appx. sighting time.
In the event all the blocks had been owned by the holiday company what would have prevented them being monitored using CCTV angled solely on the company property?
Could you answer the question (snip)You asked my explanation - When the bedroom shutter is down it (deceptively) looks secure, therefore this couple saw no need to lock the window. A burglar outside opened the unlocked window and shutter and immediately saw inside an awakened child running away into another room, so he abandoned the burglary and left empty handed.
With all due respect to Mr Amaral, he is talking nonsense here. There are 9 gates into/out of Estrela, and a total of 10 CCTV cameras, all taking images inside the fence. That includes the one nearest Primary School street. It is way too far off to catch anything on Primary School street, and in any event, it points the other way, away from that corner.
Mr Amaral knew next to nothing about Luz. I doubt he knew Estrela existed or had CCTV. That CCTV only became important after the Smith statements of 26 May 2007, when it could be used to tighten up the timing.
The unnamed officer did not fail to pick up one camera. No one was tasked to search for CCTV cameras across Luz and secure copies from near the incident time.
This is the first I've heard of CCTV outside Baptista. I'll check at some point, but do you have any more information on this?
As I explained earlier, the OC does not own any of the apartments so has no right to monitor them.
With all due respect to Mr Amaral, he is talking nonsense here.
what...the great mr amaral talking nonsense
what...the great mr amaral talking nonsenseOne needs to understand an essential point about Luz.
One needs to understand an essential point about Luz.
1 SY, the dig apart, has no idea of Luz.
2 The PJ, with the exception of the MBM case, rarely spends any time in Luz, therefore they are largely ignorant of Luz.
3 The GNR visit Luz rarely. It is mainly about checking vehicle papers and whether a pub is playing music too loudly. (Plus nowadays for the triathlon, and I expect to see a few for the 9th anniversary.)
So on the part of the police authorities there is largely an ignorance of Luz, the crime scene.
In Mr Amaral's book, he claims he criss-crossed Luz on the evening of 4 May, that it was basically closed, and he was informed it was the same the night before.
I haven't checked on 4 May, but a place packed with journalists on a Friday night makes 'closed' seem unlikely.
I HAVE checked on 3 May, and Luz was definitely NOT closed.
It is but one of the reasons I personally would encourage the McCanns to allow publication of TOTL in English in the UK. It is just such a soft target.
One needs to understand an essential point about Luz.
1 SY, the dig apart, has no idea of Luz.
2 The PJ, with the exception of the MBM case, rarely spends any time in Luz, therefore they are largely ignorant of Luz.
3 The GNR visit Luz rarely. It is mainly about checking vehicle papers and whether a pub is playing music too loudly. (Plus nowadays for the triathlon, and I expect to see a few for the 9th anniversary.)
So on the part of the police authorities there is largely an ignorance of Luz, the crime scene.
In Mr Amaral's book, he claims he criss-crossed Luz on the evening of 4 May, that it was basically closed, and he was informed it was the same the night before.
I haven't checked on 4 May, but a place packed with journalists on a Friday night makes 'closed' seem unlikely.
I HAVE checked on 3 May, and Luz was definitely NOT closed.
It is but one of the reasons I personally would encourage the McCanns to allow publication of TOTL in English in the UK. It is just such a soft target.
All of Mr PR's desperate spinning in UK papers is proven to be absolute rubbish.
Fact is, the PJ have not received any request from OG to re-interview the 3 men.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-maddie-ha-uma-pista-em-aberto-mas-nenhum-pedido-para-suspeitos-serem-ouvidos-1730542
All of Mr PR's desperate spinning in UK papers is proven to be absolute rubbish.
Fact is, the PJ have not received any request from OG to re-interview the 3 men.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-maddie-ha-uma-pista-em-aberto-mas-nenhum-pedido-para-suspeitos-serem-ouvidos-1730542
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/portuguese-police-did-not-receive-any.html?m=1
Should we be surprised?Not at all. The tougher it gets, the faster he spins.
Not at all. The tougher it gets, the faster he spins.
Mr PR has made a huge effort to trick the GBP into thinking that OG's final line of investigation is 3 portugese burglar-abductors. It's not.
so it seems your source to contradict a newspaper source...is another newspaperIt's a newspaper which is uninfluenced by pink pressure Davel, and it is quoting a PJ source, add those two up and it makes credibility.
It's a newspaper which is uninfluenced by pink pressure Davel, and it is quoting a PJ source, add those two up and it makes credibility.
As for the Sun article, it quotes an "officer" without saying what sort of officer. IMO it is not an OG police officer, it is probably some retired officer with no inside knowledge of OG at all.
It's a newspaper which is uninfluenced by pink pressure Davel, and it is quoting a PJ source, add those two up and it makes credibility.
As for the Sun article, it quotes an "officer" without saying what sort of officer. IMO it is not an OG police officer, it is probably some retired officer with no inside knowledge of OG at all.
so what is SYs final line of investigationSir BHH didn't state what the final line of investigation is. Therefore it is reasonable to assume it is something which he does not wish the public to know what it is.
Sir BHH didn't state what the final line of investigation is. Therefore it is reasonable to assume it is something which he does not wish the public to know what it is.
I totally agree.OK..I shall reword what I wrote.
I can't believe people are attempting to 'sanitize' burglars. A quick google search shows the amount of people - (from young girls to OAPs in their nineties) who have been violently attacked - some within an inch of their lives by vicious, cowardly burglars. Criminals who can do that are capable of anything IMO.
Victims of burglars all say the same even if they were not attacked - i.e. that they feel personally violated. Some never get over it and never feel safe in their own homes again.
The idea that burglars are people who wouldn't dream of harming or even taking a child - even if circumstances dictated that it was in their own selfiish interests to do so - is unrealistic IMO.
all in your opinion of courseAn opinion with the ability to spot that the Sun doesn't state what sort of "officer" is their supposed source.
An opinion with the ability to spot that the Sun doesn't state what sort of "officer" is their supposed source.
(snip) The burglars who steal kids and not cash or jewelry though..I can't get my head around at all.IMO OG should be looking for a burglar who only opened the window and shutter, then immediately fled without taking the child.
is that all......There is excellent cooperation between the PJ and OG investigations.
my opinion realised from day one that the PJ would not cooperate with SY...if SY solve the case portugal is a laughing stock...agreed... the PJ aint going to let that happen...
IMO OG should be looking for a burglar who only opened the window and shutter, then immediately fled without taking the child.perhaps you should email SY
There is excellent cooperation between the current PJ and OG investigations.
perhaps you should email SYI don't think they are interested in armchair theorising Davel.
(snip) does a runner pronto (snip)Absolutely correct. Problem is most people take that and reject the whole burglary idea. Actually there is clear evidence that the very first part of a burglary did happen.
Absolutely correct. Problem is most people take that and reject the whole burglary idea. Actually there is clear evidence that the very first part of a burglary did happen.
It appears the Portuguese police have denied receiving a request from Scotland Yard to reinterview three burglar suspects.
https://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-maddie-ha-uma-pista-em-aberto-mas-nenhum-pedido-para-suspeitos-serem-ouvidos-1730542
In what way Pegasus because the PJ found no evidence to support it? Normally when a burglar enters a property without making a forced entry he still leaves behind various indications of his presence. Are you suggesting that the intruder lifted the shutter and slid open the window but never went in?Yes the evidence indicates that a burglar opened the shutter and window but never went in.
Yes the evidence indicates that a burglar opened the shutter and window but never went in.
Thank you John for posting the link. So I ask again, who's interests do these stories serve ?
Isn't it obvious?
Apologies if someone already posted this but It appears the Portuguese police have denied receiving a request from Scotland Yard to reinterview three burglar suspects.
The Portuguese Judicial Police has not received from the British authorities investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann any request that three men linked to thefts in 2007 at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, were again surveyed. Madeleine McCann disappeared on May 3, 2007 the G5A the Ocean Club apartment. I was three. According to the edition of Friday's Telegraph, the British authorities would want to question three men have been in the past detained and interrogated (and released).
One of them worked at the Ocean Club, carrying tourists, and would be linked to thefts in the village. Phone calls between the three put us in the child's disappearance from the site on the night of May 3, according to the newspaper. PJ source assured, however, Publico that there is no request for these men to be questioned again.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publico.pt%2Fsociedade%2Fnoticia%2Fcaso-maddie-ha-uma-pista-em-aberto-mas-nenhum-pedido-para-suspeitos-serem-ouvidos-1730542
What evidence ?The first evidence is that KM discovered the window and shutter open.
Absolutely ! What isn't obvious is why ? Why would the McCanns jeopardise their relationship with SY...........unless of course they have nothing to lose by doing so ?
The first evidence is that KM discovered the window and shutter open.
About our police supposedly complaining about lack of co-operation from PJ. Do WE (as taxpayers in the UK) finance the Portuguese investigation too? Just it would take man hours and such to question a bunch of (likely) irrelevant people in regards to this case. Maybe the PJ gave just got sick of the amount of suspects SY are coming up with and are sick of wasting time &%+((£
About our police supposedly complaining about lack of co-operation from PJ. Do WE (as taxpayers in the UK) finance the Portuguese investigation too? Just it would take man hours and such to question a bunch of (likely) irrelevant people in regards to this case. Maybe the PJ gave just got sick of the amount of suspects SY are coming up with and are sick of wasting time &%+((£OG have not submitted any request to re-interview those 3 men (source: Publico, link above)
The first evidence is that KM discovered the window and shutter open.
A draft closed the door on her and she didn't check that the window in that room was open. She then left that door and went to another room before coming back again and then opening the magic moving door again to check on the children (about time!) and then WHOOOOOOSH all was revealed!!!
I have never been burgled here. And I frequently don't lock my doors, day or night. And never when I go out.I'm guilty of this 8()-000(
Its like paul daniels
"Open Sesame" and the bedroom door opens by itself 8(0(*
With all due respect to Mr Amaral, he is talking nonsense here. There are 9 gates into/out of Estrela, and a total of 10 CCTV cameras, all taking images inside the fence. That includes the one nearest Primary School street. It is way too far off to catch anything on Primary School street, and in any event, it points the other way, away from that corner.
Mr Amaral knew next to nothing about Luz. I doubt he knew Estrela existed or had CCTV. That CCTV only became important after the Smith statements of 26 May 2007, when it could be used to tighten up the timing.
The unnamed officer did not fail to pick up one camera. No one was tasked to search for CCTV cameras across Luz and secure copies from near the incident time.
This is the first I've heard of CCTV outside Baptista. I'll check at some point, but do you have any more information on this?
As I explained earlier, the OC does not own any of the apartments so has no right to monitor them.
The Baptista cameras are for inside surveillance only and do not record.Thank you Brietta.
**snip
The Resident spoke to an employee at Supermercado Baptista who told us that the PJ were in the premises to check the supermarket’s surveillance cameras in case they had registered images of Madeleine. However, the employee told us that the two cameras are unable to record images and are only used by staff to check the aisles for any suspicious customer behaviour. - See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/04-may-2007/#sthash.XFMDBABs.dpuf
IMO OG should be looking for a burglar who only opened the window and shutter, then immediately fled without taking the child.
This is actually a theory I have thought of before. Madeleine disturbed in her sleep (by someone lifting the shutters...which I imagine makes a bit of a racket?)..wakes up and mammy and daddy are gone again. She is terrified. Leaves apartment to find her parents. And either some accident befalls her (though unlikely as I would think a body would have been found) or she is actually abducted by some opportunistic person seeing a kid walking the streets at night...
Mind I have a lot of theories and have never really formed a solid view on this case.
This is actually a theory I have thought of before. Madeleine disturbed in her sleep (by someone lifting the shutters...which I imagine makes a bit of a racket?)..wakes up and mammy and daddy are gone again. She is terrified. Leaves apartment to find her parents. And either some accident befalls her (though unlikely as I would think a body would have been found) or she is actually abducted by some opportunistic person seeing a kid walking the streets at night...
Mind I have a lot of theories and have never really formed a solid view on this case.
It makes little difference to the outcome whether Madeleine was abducted by burglars from within the apartment ~ or having been disturbed by burglars was abducted from the street. In either scenario she was abducted and someone was responsible for doing that.I quite agree.
What are the stats on opportunstic paedos? Findng a kid n the street..pretty much zero in a situation like thisNo idea. probably around the same odds as burglars leaving valuables and taking a child instead %£&)**#
In other cases a typical response is to hide in the residence.
No idea. probably around the same odds as burglars leaving valuables and taking a child instead %£&)**#
As far as some criminals are concerned ... a child is a very 'valuable' commodity indeed. You are underestimating the evil of which some 'burglars' are capable.
???In other cases where a child is home unsupervised and there is a burglary, a typical response by the child is to hide within the residence.
Oh my , did i read your post correctly or read into it
?
In other cases where a child is home unsupervised and there is a burglary, a typical response by the child is to hide within the residence.
Ok i read your post wrong, what with talk of mccanns not going to lorraine, thought u was sayng theyre hiding in their house roflWhen someone opened that shutter, the likely response by the child would be to hide in another room.
Bye for now
When someone opened that shutter, the likely response by the child would be to hide in another room.
IFIF a child is home unsupervised and IF a burglar starts to enter, then the child will typically hide in another room.
As far as some criminals are concerned ... a child is a very 'valuable' commodity indeed. You are underestimating the evil of which some 'burglars' are capable.
IF a child is home unsupervised and IF a burglar starts to enter, then the child will typically hide in another room.
It's not just opinion Merc, it's based on what happened in real cases.
IF a child is home unsupervised and IF a burglar starts to enter, then the child will typically hide in another room.
It's not just opinion Merc, it's based on what happened in real cases.
As far as some criminals are concerned ... a child is a very 'valuable' commodity indeed. You are underestimating the evil of which some 'burglars' are capable.
Luis Rosa and Caterina Marques Rodrigues comment, in the Observador, newspaper of Portugal, about José Carlos da Silva, Ricardo Rodrigues and Paulo Ribeiro, who in July 2014 were declared arguidos (suspects) in the Madeleine case, according to journal Correio da Manhã of July 2, 2014.
According to the Observador, "the Polícia Judiciária considers that there is no evidence to incriminate the three suspects." On the other hand Portuguese journal Público reports that the Polícia Judiciária received no request from the British authorities to question again Jose Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo.
Officially rule out suspects who are known to the public is a good practice. Remember when Scotland Yard, officially through Andy Redwood, discarded the parents of Madeleine and their group of friends as suspects.
If José Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo are discarded in the investigation, authorities should make an official statement, as was done with the parents of Madeleine. It would be good for the three mentioned men, for their families, for their friends, and for all the people who know them.
And even if that were the case, that none of the three was involved in the abduction of Madeleine, I still think that the crime was a "burglary that went wrong".
Luis Rosa and Caterina Marques Rodrigues comment, in the Observador, newspaper of Portugal, about José Carlos da Silva, Ricardo Rodrigues and Paulo Ribeiro, who in July 2014 were declared arguidos (suspects) in the Madeleine case, according to journal Correio da Manhã of July 2, 2014.
According to the Observador, "the Polícia Judiciária considers that there is no evidence to incriminate the three suspects." On the other hand Portuguese journal Público reports that the Polícia Judiciária received no request from the British authorities to question again Jose Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo.
Officially rule out suspects who are known to the public is a good practice. Remember when Scotland Yard, officially through Andy Redwood, discarded the parents of Madeleine and their group of friends as suspects.
If José Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo are discarded in the investigation, authorities should make an official statement, as was done with the parents of Madeleine. It would be good for the three mentioned men, for their families, for their friends, and for all the people who know them.
And even if that were the case, that none of the three was involved in the abduction of Madeleine, I still think that the crime was a "burglary that went wrong".
Luis Rosa and Caterina Marques Rodrigues comment, in the Observador, newspaper of Portugal, about José Carlos da Silva, Ricardo Rodrigues and Paulo Ribeiro, who in July 2014 were declared arguidos (suspects) in the Madeleine case, according to journal Correio da Manhã of July 2, 2014.
According to the Observador, "the Polícia Judiciária considers that there is no evidence to incriminate the three suspects." On the other hand Portuguese journal Público reports that the Polícia Judiciária received no request from the British authorities to question again Jose Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo.
Officially rule out suspects who are known to the public is a good practice. Remember when Scotland Yard, officially through Andy Redwood, discarded the parents of Madeleine and their group of friends as suspects.
If José Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo are discarded in the investigation, authorities should make an official statement, as was done with the parents of Madeleine. It would be good for the three mentioned men, for their families, for their friends, and for all the people who know them.
And even if that were the case, that none of the three was involved in the abduction of Madeleine, I still think that the crime was a "burglary that went wrong".
(snip) even if that were the case, that none of the three was involved in the abduction of Madeleine, I still think that the crime was a "burglary that went wrong".IMO it is probable that the shutter and window were opened by a burglar or pair of burglars unconnected to SY's 3 men.
IMO it is quite possible that the shutter and window were opened by a burglar, or pair of burglars, completely unconnected to SY's 3 men.
So forget SY's 3 men, forget people standing in the street, and forget collectors real or fake at other buildings.
Look only at people who on May 3rd were seen in a garden of an apartment of Block 5.
*** Two blond men on balcony of an apartment most probably 5C.
*** One blond man in garden of an apartment most probably 5B (or less likely 5C).
But Pegs these are not swarthy types if they are blond. Are you suggesting they tried to break in and stole Maddie or deliberately planned to steal her, or did they pick her up when she got startled and ran out of the apartment, would she not scream or anything? who were the witnesses who saw these two, and were they found and questioned?None of the above Missy,
None of the above Missy,
IMO a person opened the window but did not take the child.
The witnesses of men in gardens are Jensen and Tranmer.
OK thanks Pegs,None of those Missy. The possibility is that the 2 men seen by [Name removed] on that other apartment's balcony were there to find if that apartment was being occupied or was vacant that week.
So, what is it you are suggesting? were they loitering,drug dealing/using? cutting some other dodgy deal, that is what this meeting suggests to me.
Someone is feeding stories to the British press. There was no ILOR rejected by the Portuguese police. SY are not looking at burglars as their 'remaining lead'. So who's interests does these articles serve. I think this might just be the beginning of the end game so fasten your seat belts because I think it's going to be a bumpy ride !!
As far as some criminals are concerned ... a child is a very 'valuable' commodity indeed. You are underestimating the evil of which some 'burglars' are capable.
SY are not looking at burglars as their 'remaining lead'.
So how do YOU know that Faith?
I think that I know who is their remaining lead, because I think (don't definitely know), that I lead them to their remaining lead.
But how do YOU know? Do you know the man?
I don't agree Brietta. Burglars just don't abduct children as if they were a commodity.
They may have been sub-contracted John.
Lace has indicated that could have been what happened and Pegasus has reminded us of the blond men seen in the gardens.
They may have been sub-contracted John.
Lace has indicated that could have been what happened and Pegasus has reminded us of the blond men seen in the gardens.
They could even have been hired to abduct her, what better people to employ than burglars who know how to get into the properties and their way around the OC.
To revert to a McEnroism 'You cannot be serious!'.
They may have been sub-contracted John.
Lace has indicated that could have been what happened and Pegasus has reminded us of the blond men seen in the gardens.
I suppose we'll have to put up with this unsubstantiated burglar bollocks for a while longer.
What else do the mccanns have left.
I wonder what will be in the papers on Tuesday ? &%+((£
What else do the mccanns have left.
I wonder what will be in the papers on Tuesday ? &%+((£
Fish and Chips?
Trafficking is well known in Portugal.
I suppose we'll have to put up with this unsubstantiated burglar bollocks for a while longer.
It is quite entertaining really.
You beat me to it G-Unit ?{)(**
It is quite entertaining really.
We can't have aspersions being cast on just one country in this great big world, can we. There are too many one-sided accusations in this case already.
There was Portugal, offering it's nice weather and pretty beaches to tourists. It's people served them until all hours for very low wages, but were grateful to have a job.
A child disappears and suddenly Portugal is a hell-hole. It's full of pedophile gangs, burglars, lone pedophiles, smelly men targeting little British girls, incompetent policemen and a disgraceful Judiciary. Now it's being suggested that it's burglars will morph into human trafickers or worse without batting an eyelid.
I think it's quite disgraceful.
dave, who brought 'zog' on this forum the other day ?
YOU.
On Tuesday a little girl will have been missing from her family for nine years. No-one knows where she is, what happened to her or whether she is alive or dead probably not even the person/s who kidnapped her.
It is worth bearing that in mind when posting comment about the situation.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the crime is unknown.
it is also worth bearing in mind that SY have said the parents are not suspects
How many members of SY have said that exactly ?
and what have they found ?
an official statement..
Meaningless.
So how many members of SY did that originate from ?
Now we know of course, that members of SY and other police forces donated to Amaral's fund.
On Tuesday a little girl will have been missing from her family for nine years. No-one knows where she is, what happened to her or whether she is alive or dead probably not even the person/s who kidnapped her.
It is worth bearing that in mind when posting comment about the situation.
On Tuesday a little girl will have been missing from her family for nine years. No-one knows where she is, what happened to her or whether she is alive or dead probably not even the person/s who kidnapped her.
It is worth bearing that in mind when posting comment about the situation.
I wonder if SY have considered scenarios combining the interrupted burglary hypothesis with the VRD intelligence inside the apartment?
Trafficking is well known in Portugal.
have a look at ...http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2014/226649.htm
portugal is tier 2 for trafficking...UK tier 1...so criticism is not unjustified
portugal is not complying with minimum standards...that's MINIMUM standards
We know all that and how you draw it like Excalibur when you take the moral high ground.
The child is most probably dead. Best not think about any other option.
But the antics of supporters with respect to a botched burglary shows a remarkable lack of thought and is entertaining.
an official statement..
You said ... "It is quite entertaining really."
If you think I am taking the moral high ground with reference to that ... well, yes.
The working hypothesis concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann according to the tabloids mentions ~ botched ~ burglary ~ kidnapping.
I don't recognise the entertainment value of a family tragedy outlined in those terms.
You said ... "It is quite entertaining really."
If you think I am taking the moral high ground with reference to that ... well, yes.
The working hypothesis concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann according to the tabloids mentions ~ botched ~ burglary ~ kidnapping.
I don't recognise the entertainment value of a family tragedy outlined in those terms.
Are you saying SY are leaking Brierra ? Where's your disgust ? Or is it only disgusting when the PJ are allegedly leaking against the McCanns ?
Where in my post have I mentioned Scotland Yard?
Please have the courtesy to discuss only what I post not your invention.
Madeleine's disappearance is in no way entertaining. However the excuses, "facts" and theories promulgated by the supporters since the verdict have been both entertaining and amusing.Ditto and yes
You said ... "It is quite entertaining really."
If you think I am taking the moral high ground with reference to that ... well, yes.
The working hypothesis concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann according to the tabloids mentions ~ botched ~ burglary ~ kidnapping.
I don't recognise the entertainment value of a family tragedy outlined in those terms.
On Tuesday a little girl will have been missing from her family for nine years. No-one knows where she is, what happened to her or whether she is alive or dead probably not even the person/s who kidnapped her.
It is worth bearing that in mind when posting comment about the situation.
What do you mean by that sentence and specifically by probably
And Mrs Fenns apartment directly above The Mccanns was daytime burgledWhat is your source for the interrupted burglary of Fenn apartment being in daytime Sadie?
No one burgled at night in that resort...(snip)5L was burgled while the residents were out having dinner at a restaurant.
Also in today's Sunday Express - as well as news of a new book - is a call by Mr Amaral for the T9 to return to PDL to do a reconstruction.
What is your source for the interrupted burglary of Fenn apartment being in daytime Sadie?
I'm not sure that the actual time of this attempted burglary was ever stated. IIRC it happened while Mrs Fenn was watching TV - so it could have been at any time during the day or evening.IMO the entry attempts at 5G 5L and at a nearby ground floor apartment were probably all in darkness.
If, as seems likely, the 5L entry after dark was through the window on the stairwell which is over a drop, this means it was probably a pair of burglars, one leaning out over the drop to perform the heri opening of shutter and window, the other holding them so they couldn't fall.
You discount the idea of them being disguised as window cleaners and carrying a ladder, then ?Yes. With two people, no ladder or window-cleaner disguise is needed. If you look at that 5L window in the stairwell area (and remember the bars were fitted only later) IMO it is possible to lean over from the railing on the left and use the heri method then climb in. This would be much easier and safer with an accomplice holding the person leaning over. So if entry was via that window, it was probably a pair of burglars, not a lone burglar.
Does no-one lock their windows in that town? There appear to be some reckless burglars too. Leaning over a drop to manipulate shutters? Would his mate have left him hanging if anyone came up the stairs? Did they close the window and exit by the door?
Does no-one lock their windows in that town? (snip)It's well documented in the T9 statements that some of the T9 thought that when a shutter is down there is no need to lock the window. The closed shutter psychologically creates the illusion that the opening is completely secure. In fact it is not. GM and KM both clearly state they did not lock windows before going out. Also DW states some windows were left unlocked in 5G. See also RO rog.
(snip) ... Leaning over a drop to manipulate shutters? Would his mate have left him hanging if anyone came up the stairs? Did they close the window and exit by the door?Look at the window in stairwell area (before bars fitted) and imagine you are two burglars and work it out step by step. IMO it would be risky to do alone but easy and safe for a pair, assuming they already know the opening technique. Yes before leaving IMO they probably closed that window and shutter and exit through non-deadlocked wooden door.
Luis Rosa and Caterina Marques Rodrigues comment, in the Observador, newspaper of Portugal, about José Carlos da Silva, Ricardo Rodrigues and Paulo Ribeiro, who in July 2014 were declared arguidos (suspects) in the Madeleine case, according to journal Correio da Manhã of July 2, 2014.
According to the Observador, "the Polícia Judiciária considers that there is no evidence to incriminate the three suspects." On the other hand Portuguese journal Público reports that the Polícia Judiciária received no request from the British authorities to question again Jose Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo.
Officially rule out suspects who are known to the public is a good practice. Remember when Scotland Yard, officially through Andy Redwood, discarded the parents of Madeleine and their group of friends as suspects.
If José Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo are discarded in the investigation, authorities should make an official statement, as was done with the parents of Madeleine. It would be good for the three mentioned men, for their families, for their friends, and for all the people who know them.
And even if that were the case, that none of the three was involved in the abduction of Madeleine, I still think that the crime was a "burglary that went wrong".
It is right and proper that these men be officially ruled out if there is no evidence against them.
They and their families are known in their communities so it can't be easy for them to get on with their lives with this hanging over them.
If there has been no request from Scotland Yard to question them further ... why on earth are they still arguidos?
Are they still arguidos ?
Have you information which suggests they are not?
Were they declared arguidos by the judiciary or were they arguidos at their own request ?
Absolutely no idea ... but I would suggest the latter if they had any sense. However, I believe the only one we know of who has had arguido status lifted is Sergey Malinka.
It was a great pleasure to meet ShiningInLuz today in PdL and exchange info, ideas & feelings about Madeleine case for more than three hours. Next days we will continue talking ...
Thats nice
Agreed, Mercury.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall to listen in to their discussion. It will be very interesting to hear what Heri and Shining come up with from the visit ... very often two heads are better than one.
Agreed, Mercury.Not quite fly on wall, but my latest blog entry covers a fair bit of what went on, and what is (hopefully) coming up next.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall to listen in to their discussion. It will be very interesting to hear what Heri and Shining come up with from the visit ... very often two heads are better than one.
Im sure Heri and SIL will do a precis, no? Fly on the wall is for secret cinversations to never be heard of by non flies? Of course their own private not t be repeated in public things dont count. But seeing as Heri posted about it, perhaps we will be enlightened with smething interesting?
I'm sure we will, Mercury.
See Shining's post (just off to catch up now) ... maybe later Heri will post on his blog too.
It was a great pleasure to meet ShiningInLuz today in PdL and exchange info, ideas & feelings about Madeleine case for more than three hours. Next days we will continue talking ...
Agreed, Mercury.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall to listen in to their discussion. It will be very interesting to hear what Heri and Shining come up with from the visit ... very often two heads are better than one.
Me too. Great that they have met and are swopping info and thoughts. I feel quite envious.We have now discussed vast tracts of information and fresh insights have been developed.
We have now discussed vast tracts of information and fresh insights have been developed.
Purely by chance, while we having a refreshment break from today's endeavours, Heri dropped something into the conversation which has altered my opinion of the case in a quite major way.
This fresh information happens to be supportive of the McCanns. I had, in the past, worked out how the McCanns could have 'dunnit', though I rated that option as unlikely.
Heri's information has made it much less likely than I had thought.
A bit of a revelation moment, as Andy Redwood might say.
We have now discussed vast tracts of information and fresh insights have been developed.
Purely by chance, while we having a refreshment break from today's endeavours, Heri dropped something into the conversation which has altered my opinion of the case in a quite major way.
This fresh information happens to be supportive of the McCanns. I had, in the past, worked out how the McCanns could have 'dunnit', though I rated that option as unlikely.
Heri's information has made it much less likely than I had thought.
A bit of a revelation moment, as Andy Redwood might say.
The mccanns done what exactly ?
Was Heri there in PDL at the time ?
The lack of consistency with accounts of events.
As regards Heriberto, he has nailed his perch to abduction from the start.
So I would treat his approach with caution.
P.S. I have read several of his blogs on the case.
The mccanns done what exactly ?For various reasons, I do not support Heriberto's theorem. We discussed differences of opinion in a very extended and very cordial manner.
Was Heri there in PDL at the time ?
The lack of consistency with accounts of events.
As regards Heriberto, he has nailed his perch to abduction from the start.
So I would treat his approach with caution.
P.S. I have read several of his blogs on the case.
For various reasons, I do not support Heriberto's theorem. We discussed differences of opinion in a very extended and very cordial manner.
And we also discussed some of the various stages his theory evolved through. Whether you trust me or not, he did NOT start out with abduction in mind.
We discussed one of my options, which is at total variance with Heri's theory. He was very enthusiastic about this, as he was unaware of the 'evidence' supporting this possibility. In fact, he urged me to get in touch with OG about it, and has stated more than once he will check this out when he returns to Madrid. He has perfected ways of digging up information that I have not, so this might provide further details.
He also said, on numerous occasions, that for him it is not about proving his theory is right. It is about finding out what happened to Madeleine.
The piece of information was a throw-away comment in a conversation about something else entirely. It was not some sort of directed comment. In fact, when I realised its importance, I had to drag Heri back to the comment several times, to elicit the underlying information.
For various reasons, I do not support Heriberto's theorem. We discussed differences of opinion in a very extended and very cordial manner.
And we also discussed some of the various stages his theory evolved through. Whether you trust me or not, he did NOT start out with abduction in mind.
We discussed one of my options, which is at total variance with Heri's theory. He was very enthusiastic about this, as he was unaware of the 'evidence' supporting this possibility. In fact, he urged me to get in touch with OG about it, and has stated more than once he will check this out when he returns to Madrid. He has perfected ways of digging up information that I have not, so this might provide further details.
He also said, on numerous occasions, that for him it is not about proving his theory is right. It is about finding out what happened to Madeleine.
The piece of information was a throw-away comment in a conversation about something else entirely. It was not some sort of directed comment. In fact, when I realised its importance, I had to drag Heri back to the comment several times, to elicit the underlying information.
Exciting that Heri thinks the information you have should be shared with Operation Grange. Apart from anything else it proves it is possible to find fresh information which may help to find out what happened to Madeleine.I need to replicate Heri's experiment. If it works out as he said, I may well have another crack at OG.
Gaun yersel, Shining!!!
Translation ... Jolly good show.
We have now discussed vast tracts of information and fresh insights have been developed.
Purely by chance, while we having a refreshment break from today's endeavours, Heri dropped something into the conversation which has altered my opinion of the case in a quite major way.
This fresh information happens to be supportive of the McCanns. I had, in the past, worked out how the McCanns could have 'dunnit', though I rated that option as unlikely.
Heri's information has made it much less likely than I had thought.
A bit of a revelation moment, as Andy Redwood might say.
Article written by the CdMTV journalist i was talking with on May 3, 2016, in front of 5A:
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/procura_por_maddie_ainda_sem_conclusoes.html (http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/procura_por_maddie_ainda_sem_conclusoes.html)
do you have a translation or what is the gist of the article
English version
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmjornal.xl.pt%2Fnacional%2Fportugal%2Fdetalhe%2Fprocura_por_maddie_ainda_sem_conclusoes.html
Search for Maddie still no conclusions English child disappeared nine years ago.
By Rui Pando Gomes
4 May 2003
I was on May 4, from 21:00 to 22:00, in Tapas Bar and block 5 zone. I took pictures from the same position at 21:15 and 21:50, to be analyzed in Madrid.Had the bushes been newly cut back as on May 3rd 2007 Heri? Cos that is important. Greenery grows extraordinarily fast in PT
I am more convinced now that the abduction took place between 21:40 and 2200, with Russell inside 5D, Jane walking from Tapas Bar to 5D, and the other 7 adults at the table.
It was a great pleasure to have long conversations with ShiningInLuz. SIL is doing a great job on the case.
I was on May 4, from 21:00 to 22:00, in Tapas Bar and block 5 zone. I took pictures from the same position at 21:15 and 21:50, to be analyzed in Madrid. (snip)Excellent Heri because at 21:15-21:50, on both 4 May 2016 and 3 May 2007, the moon was well below the horizon, contributing no light, so your photos will be accurate representation of the natural light level.
(snip) I am more convinced now that the abduction took place between 21:40 and 2200, with Russell inside 5D, Jane walking from Tapas Bar to 5D, and the other 7 adults at the table. (snip)Very good, so the number of T9 walking through the carpark, after the window and shutter were opened, is reduced to 2. (JT going from tapas to 5D, then ROB going from 5D to tapas)
Excellent Heri because at 21:15-21:50, on both 4 May 2016 and 3 May 2007, the moon was well below the horizon, contributing no light, so your photos will be accurate representation of the natural light level.Unfortunaterly Pegasus, that is not quite true.
Unfortunaterly Pegasus, that is not quite true.I said that the natural light level (no sun, no moon) was the same 2115-2200 4th May 2016 as 2115-2200 3rd May 2007 Sadie. Yes the streetlighting and plants have changed (but the children's bedroom is still completely invisible from tapas).
New street lights have been fitted since Madeleine was taken. Also the lighting from adjoining apartments might not be the same, cos people might be in the adjoining apartments whilst on May 3rd. 2007, most of the apartments were in near darkness cos the occupiers were mainly eating in the Tapas restaurant.
At the front, the trees were covering the street lamps and blanking most of the light out. Now these trees have been cut right down, so far geater illumination. Also a damned great lamp has been fitted to the wall, high up but almost directly above Madeleines window. So the lighting situation is very different.
Is Anjos confused? He appears to be merging Euclides Monteiro with José Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo.
Is Anjos confused? He appears to be merging Euclides Monteiro with José Carlos, Ricardo and Paulo.
There is nothing to be confused about.
The SY investigation is coming to a close with no evidence of abduction.
Just as it was in the original Portuguese investigation.
The burglary attempt via that window would inevitably and instantly become an interrupted burglary, before entry.
The thing is, Pegasus, it does not have to have been an interrupted or botched burglary ... it could have been a successful burglary, everything going as planned with the burglars making off with one of the most valuable items in the apartment.I think you're making it far too complicated Brietta.
I think the entry was via the wooden door and I think a key was used.
I think the essential thing to realise is that to a petty burglar it looked like everyone was out.
How does a petty burglar decide everyone is out?On a dark evening when there's only a small table lamp on and there's no response to a knock on the door, that means to a burglar there is no-one in.
We are told that the mccanns didn't expect to know about burglaries in the area of the resort.A very simple question Steve.
So why did they lock the apartment during the daytime ?
Simple question, isn't it.
A very simple question Steve.
The only possible reason why they would secure the apartment during the daytime is to stop burglars getting in.
Another simple question - why did the guests at 5D 5G and 5H secure their apartments when they went out for evening meals?
Another simple question - why did the guests at 5D 5G and 5H secure their apartments when they went out for evening meals?
Indeed.Yes 5D 5B and 5H were locked at tapas time to prevent burglars getting in.
Could it be they feared they could be burgled. £5%4%
Yes 5D 5B and 5H were locked to prevent burglars getting in.
Also a second reason - to stop kids getting out.
good point ...that supports the notion that the McCanns thought PDL was an incredibly safe place
The other tapas members locking their apartments to make them safe from burglars and windering kids= support for the idea the Mccanns thought PDL was safe? Care to run that one by again?
On a dark evening when there's only a small table lamp on and there's no response to a knock on the door, that means to a burglar there is no-one in.
On a dark evening when there's only a small table lamp on and there's no response to a knock on the door, that means to a burglar there is no-one in.
Sorry was going to reply but couldn't work out his logic.
I think you're making it far too complicated Brietta.
All the previous illicit window openings in blocks 5 and 4 were by petty burglars.
They were stealing things like foreign currency, a video camera, mobile phones, and a TV.
The only reason they didn't steal anything at 5A is that they were unexpectedly interrupted.
There is more chance of an apartment in a family resort being occupied after 9pm than unoccupied - & rather difficult to determine with all those closed shutters.
How many other apartments were targeted that night or on subsequent nights? Drug-addicted petty burglars have needs.
It is by far the least complicated explanation and the simplest unless someone can come up with a better suggestion as to how Madeleine vanished as if in a puff of smoke.
They apparently had expertise in entering properties the only trace being the missing 'petty' goods thieved. Perhaps they were sub-contracted. Every petty thief probably dreams of the big job ... and this may have been theirs.
Has it been established that any PdL burglars were drug addicts?
(snip) rather difficult to determine with all those closed shutters (snip)Both shutters of lounge door were up.Kitchen shutter was up.
Both shutters of lounge door were up.Kitchen shutter was up.
Other shutters were down but with some slats that let light through open.
It was easy for someone in street to see the dim light level inside
Oh, so he/she/they knocked on the door. How do you know?Because I researched it GUnit - it is very common for burglars to knock/ring at the door first.
Because I researched it GUnit - it is very common for burglars to knock/ring at the door first.
Here is just one example written by a professional burglar
"I’ll knock on your door to see if anyone is home"
For hundreds of sources confirming this google: burglar knock on door
Am I right in thinking there is actually no evidence for an attempted burglary on 5a night of 3 May 07? that led to a chld abduction, as in fingerprints, dna, witnesses...all of which seem quite flakey circumstantially even ?...ie its just a theory among many?
That's just the issue, though. 5a was illuminated. What about all the other apartments in the various blocks with shutters closed & no sign of illumination? Why would a burglar target the one with a light on?The low level of light inside indicated that everyone was out.
Some people just dont answer it, they peek through the curtains, or not, think I dont know them, or dont want to onow who it is as Im not expecting anyone, its late, think I will ignore..so any burglar assuming no one is in is taking a risk of being seen/identified/accosted
Ask the same questions about the burglaries we know took place ... were there witnesses, apart from Mrs Fenn? Were there any forensic traces? Were any of the burglars apprehended and taken into custody?
Yet we know that there were burglars operating in Praia da Luz.
The low level of light inside indicated that everyone was out.
Knowing burglaries happened elsewhere even without forensics or witnesses is no evidence one happened in 5a, so it remains a theory at best, how can it be anything else, notwithstanding how a petty burglary turned into the chld abduction of the century
Some people just dont answer it, they peek through the curtains, or not, think I dont know them, or dont want to onow who it is as Im not expecting anyone, its late, think I will ignore..so any burglar assuming no one is in is taking a risk of being seen/identified/accostedThousands of burglars every year doublecheck everyone is out by knocking/ringing at the door.
Quote
Assertions by the police that the crime had been a case of opportunistic abduction from the home by a stranger were initially met with scepticism, given the seemingly unbelievable nature of the crime.
End quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willington_Quay_child_abduction_case
Thousands of burglars every year doublecheck everyone is out by knocking/ringing at the door.
I've seen police advice that a child left home alone should be instructed to not answer the door but, and this is important, to make noise making it very clear that not everyone is out. (Before anyone accuses the police of criminal negligence please note they were talking about much older children. not toddlers).
But wheres the evidence? Pegasus?The evidence of a burglary attempt is the open window and shutter.
The evidence of a burglary attempt is the open window and shutter.
The evidence that the burglary was at its beginning interrupted by a person is the fact that there were people inside the room.
Your evidence is from a prior arguido so problematic to start withThe witness states clearly that the window and shutter were open.
Your second assertion remains as evidence in a theory and not evidence as such
In fact i have seen no "real "evidence from you for this theory
The only real evidence is three undentied fingerprnts on the shutters which may have been from a stranger but may have been from three of the tapas nine who said they touched the outside shutters
The witness states clearly that the window and shutter were open.
People assumed she was lying because there was no damage to the window or shutter.
But now we know that they can be opened from outside without damage.
Therefore she is telling the truth.
Assumptions and bad logic Im afraid, not a good mix, off >>>>Heri has demonstrated how the window and shutter can be opened from outside without damage.
Because I researched it GUnit - it is very common for burglars to knock/ring at the door first.
Here is just one example written by a professional burglar
"I’ll knock on your door to see if anyone is home"
For hundreds of sources confirming this google: burglar knock on door
The witness states clearly that the window and shutter were open.
People assumed she was lying because there was no damage to the window or shutter.
But now we know that they can be opened from outside without damage.
Therefore she is telling the truth.
there is no proof the mccanns told lies about the apartment being locked or unlocked....no verbatim statements...
Heri has demonstrated how the window and shutter can be opened from outside without damage.
So why do you doubt the witness's veracity Merc?
The witness states clearly that the window and shutter were open.
People assumed she was lying because there was no damage to the window or shutter.
But now we know that they can be opened from outside without damage.
Therefore she is telling the truth.
I can read without my eyes being bombarded by large bold text, if you dont mind
As i said because something has happened before is no evidence it did in this case, so, remains, a theory
And Diane Webster's claim that she could not raise the shutter without it buckling or the film crew who tried to open the window and damaged it. What of that evidence ?
Please provide a cite for the film crew damaging a shutter.
Not that it really matters as we have seen Heri and another person doing so without damage. So we know it can be done.
"- Back at 5A of the Ocean Club, on 26 September someone forced up the external blinds of the front bedroom to an oblique angle. There appeared to be no attempt to force open the window. The security guard stated between 21:00 and 21:05 he had done the 'rounds' of the block, then walked down to the supermarket and back again whereupon he found the damage which he called in immediately.
- He and a colleague from the same security detail had conversed shortly before 21:00 noting that neither had seen any strangers other than two Canadian television journalists, a man and a woman, who had been seen at a nearby bar.
- Given the limited damage and that there had been many people at that location [presumably during the previous days and all authorised] there was no attempt to retrieve fingerprints, but inquiries were made of TV crews and journalists in and around Luz and Lagos, without result."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
Do you have video evidence of Heri lifting the shutters of 5a from the outside ?
Thank you for your cite as requested.
Interesting to note how quickly and how quietly the 'journalists' managed to raise the shutter and were able to do so without being seen in a locus patrolled by security guards.
You may know that Heri did not raise the shutters of 5A from outside as he was refused permission to do so.
Thank you for your cite as requested.
Interesting to note how quickly and how quietly the 'journalists' managed to raise the shutter and were able to do so without being seen in a locus patrolled by security guards.
You may know that Heri did not raise the shutters of 5A from outside as he was refused permission to do so.
More interesting, I'm sure you'll agree, is that neither Diane Webster nor the 'journalists' managed to raise the shutters without damaging them and the fact the Heri wasn't allowed,, as you said, to raise the shutters of 5a and the ex policeman that did did so many months after the disappreance when we can have no idea what state of repair the shutters where already in is proof of nothing very much.
The shutters did not appear to be an impediment to those burglars operating in Luz who gained entry via windows.
Neither Dianne Webster, Gerald McCann, Peter Mac or the film crew?/journalists had the slightest notion of the technique required to raise the shutter and keep them there. Neither would we if Heri hadn't worked out how to do it and demonstrated the same.
It is worth remembering that it has been a shibboleth that it was impossible to raise the shutter from outside ... quite patently ... it is not.
Amazing that people can be so entirely wrong in relation to something so fundamental ...
The only fingerprints were found on the inside of the window not outside and NO GLOVE MARKS!!!
Kate said the shutters were fully raised. You can't fully raise the shutters from the outside as demonstrated here. Heri and Pegasus are presuming a window was unlocked and they have no evidence. The only evidence on the window was found on the inside pointing to being opened from there. The McCanns should be asked point blank. Why didn't you check that the kids window was locked and secure before putting them in that room for the week?
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
The shutter can be raised using the technique demonstrated by Heri ... quite simple really once someone has looked at the problem logically and worked it out.
The shutters did not appear to be an impediment to those burglars operating in Luz who gained entry via windows.
Neither Dianne Webster, Gerald McCann, Peter Mac or the film crew?/journalists had the slightest notion of the technique required to raise the shutter and keep them there. Neither would we if Heri hadn't worked out how to do it and demonstrated the same.
It is worth remembering that it has been a shibboleth that it was impossible to raise the shutter from outside ... quite patently ... it is not.
Amazing that people can be so entirely wrong in relation to something so fundamental ...
Firstly we have no idea if the shutters were down when the burglars gained entry to the apartments.
Secondly the issue at hand is not whether the shutters could be raised and held open but whether they could be raised without being damaged and it would seem that the twice it was tried relatively close to the disappearance the shutter buckled.
Heri did not damage the shutters ... therefore as I am concerned ... case proved categorically. It is possible to raise the shutters from outside as described by the first witness on the scene on 3 May 2007.
(snip) The only evidence on the window was found on the inside pointing to being opened from there (snip)Please post a photo the supposed fingerprint in a position that indicates KM opened the window Pathfinder.
Heri did not damage the shutters ... therefore as I am concerned ... case proved categorically. It is possible to raise the shutters from outside as described by the first witness on the scene on 3 May 2007.
Heri did not damage the shutters ... therefore as I am concerned ... case proved categorically. It is possible to raise the shutters from outside as described by the first witness on the scene on 3 May 2007.
You have proved nothing of any consequence.
There is no evidence WHATSOEVER of a break-in to apartment 5A.
Please post a photo the supposed fingerprint in a position that indicates KM opened the window Pathfinder.
You can't, because it does not exist.
All you'll find are these 5 prints which were all on the glass
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_885_small.jpg
Indeed. The fact that something could have happened does not mean that it did happenOn the other hand, if it did happen, it would explain why the child left that bedroom and went to another room.
Which doesn't mean it happened here, it means it has happened elsewhere. You are suggesting that someone walked past the Oldfield's dark quiet and shuttered apartment to knock on the McCann's door. Why not try the Oldfield's?
1) The McCann front door was in near absolute blacknessSadie that is a very good analysis.
... and furthermore deeply recessed. Out of sight.
It was at the end of a curved walled footpath that finished there. No passers-by.
If they happened to glance right as they joined the walled pathway, this curve blocked visibility to both Madeleines window and very much so to the front door of 5A ... for anyone leaving the hallway to the other flats
It was beyond the peripheral vision of anyone passing across the car park to the place in the middle of the building where the walled footpath started. Everyone going to and from their apartments had to use this walled footpath ... so they all took the same route across the car park.
Both Madeleines window and the front door were beyond their peripheral vision and both were dark, most especially the front door
2) On the other hand, the front door to the Oldfield apartment was in a very brightly lit entrance hallway. This hallway was not enclosed as it would have been in the UK, but fully open from the outside, so visible to the world. This hallway serviced the stairways to upstairs, with all the flats at different levels and also the entrances to a number of ground floor flats.
People coming and going via this hallway + its visibility to the world outside made the Oldfield flat very less attractive to a potential person set on breaking in.
1) The McCann front door was in near absolute blackness
... and furthermore deeply recessed. Out of sight.
It was at the end of a curved walled footpath that finished there. No passers-by.
If they happened to glance right as they joined the walled pathway, this curve blocked visibility to both Madeleines window and very much so to the front door of 5A ... for anyone leaving the hallway to the other flats
It was beyond the peripheral vision of anyone passing across the car park to the place in the middle of the building where the walled footpath started. Everyone going to and from their apartments had to use this walled footpath ... so they all took the same route across the car park.
Both Madeleines window and the front door were beyond their peripheral vision and both were dark, most especially the front door
2) On the other hand, the front door to the Oldfield apartment was in a very brightly lit entrance hallway. This hallway was not enclosed as it would have been in the UK, but fully open from the outside, so visible to the world. This hallway serviced the stairways to upstairs, with all the flats at different levels and also the entrances to a number of ground floor flats.
People coming and going via this hallway + its visibility to the world outside made the Oldfield flat very less attractive to a potential person set on breaking in/ letting themselves in with a key via the front door to 5A.
On the other hand, if it did happen, it would explain why the child left that bedroom and went to another room.
...and absolutely no evidence there was a third party in the apartment.Yes, the burglar was disturbed by a someone before he climbed in Steve, that's why he did not enter the apartment IMO.
Yes, the burglar was disturbed by a someone before he climbed in Steve, that's why he did not enter the apartment IMO.
I do not believe there was a burglar.So why do you think the child got out of bed and left the room Steve?
Absolutely no proof of one at all.
Heri didn't raise the shutters of 5a so I'm not entirely sure why you are arguing this point and while tha the case may be proved for you for those of a more objective bent I'm sure it will take rather more than Heri not raising the shutters of 5a to convince them.
You have proved nothing of any consequence.
There is no evidence WHATSOEVER of a break-in to apartment 5A.
By studying the photos in the files and the excellent footage in Mr Amaral's film of the actual mechanics of the window and shutter at 5A, it is elementary to prove that Heri's method would work fine to open them.
"I did not get permission by the Ocean Club to make the test in the 5A so I used a similar window."
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
Indeed. The fact that something could have happened does not mean that it did happen
Just as there was no evidence that a child was abducted from her bath ... but she had been.
So why do you think the child got out of bed and left the room Steve?
IMO it was because someone outside was opening the shutter and window.
If you don't accept that, perhaps you can give a different reason why the child was no longer in that bedroom at 10pm?
It was a shibboleth that the shutters could not be raised from outside; would you or anyone now repeat that, hand on heart, having seen demonstrations of them being raised from outside?
It was a shibboleth that the shutters could not be raised from outside; would you or anyone now repeat that, hand on heart, having seen demonstrations of them being raised from outside?Yes I agree Brietta, it was a shibboleth which resulted in the truthful witness being falsely accused of lying about the window and shutter.
Yes I agree Brietta, it was a shibboleth which resulted in the truthful witness being falsely accused of lying about the window and shutter.
Oh I can, but after all, I don't want to get the post removed, do I.Steve so do you think the child left that bedroom carried or on own feet?
Off topic.
We are talking about the Mccann case.
...and yet not a scintilla of evidence to show it was, and without any evidence....
(snip) There is absolutely no evidence of a break-in. That is a fact and agreed with by Clarence Mitchell.There was certainly no "break-in". The window or shutter were not broken or damaged. The evidence is that the window and shutter were opened from outside without damage.
Steve so do you think the child left that bedroom carried or on own feet?
Sadie that is a very good analysis.
The north access to 5A was much darker than the north access to 5B, 5D, and 5H.
There was certainly no "break-in". The window or shutter were not broken or damaged. The evidence is that the window and shutter were opened from outside without damage.
We are talking about children who vanished in unique circumstances one of whom was proved to have been taken by an abductor because her abductor released her and one of whom it is denied was abducted because unfortunately her abductor did not do the same.
Therefore I too am talking about the McCann case and showing that there is a lot of nonsense spoken that it was impossible for burglars to gain entry to premises and steal a child.
Thank you Pegasus5B has two accessible windows on the walkway next to the carpark.
But your response is so much more succinct 8((()*/
(snip) can you explain why a burglar left the apartment tidy ? (snip)Yes, IMO the burglary was interrupted before the burglar entered.
I am referring to the thread title. You are taking it off topic in the first paragraph.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE a third party entered apartment 5A.
There is no evidence that Madeleine died in 5A
There is no evidence that Madeleine ran off in panic
There is no evidence that Madeleine has died at all.
There is no evidence that the Mccanns are invoklved in any way. SY appear to agree with that.
And the way that the Mccanns have behaved indicates their innocence of anything other than having been 50 metres away from apartment 5A with their group able to see any comings or goings across the patio, thanks to the bushes having been just cut back and the light shining across the patio area from adjacent street lamp immediately across the road
Sorry have to go.
Yes, IMO the burglary was interrupted before the burglar entered.
Did OG ever test Heri's method on the actual shutter and window at 5A?Other than the digs, there is no evidence that OG has visited Luz or block 5, and no rumour thereof. This, of course, does not prove the OG has had a crack at 5A, but if they did it has been kept under wraps at both ends.
(snip) why would a burglar(s) be afraid of a 3 year old child ?Any burglar, on seeing a 3 year old child moving inside, would instantly assume that there was also an adult inside, who would very probably appear from the other room within a few seconds and potentially overpower or injure the burglar, or at a minimum would phone the police.
Any burglar, on seeing a 3 year old child moving inside, would instantly assume that there was also an adult inside, who would very probably appear from the other room within a few seconds and potentially overpower or injure the burglar, or at a minimum would phone the police.
Haven't time to check, but I think it is just one for 5B. Plaese forgive me if I have that wrong, but I think I am right.The 5B bedroom has two windows.
The 5B bedroom has two windows.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/carpark5A.jpg.w180h135.jpg
Sadie that is a very good analysis.
The north access to 5A was much darker than the north access to 5B, 5D, and 5H.
It could also be seen as a trap, being at the end. Wasn't it open and light where the alleged burglary of 5L took place?
no trap for a fit guy. Two methods of exit apart from thru' the apartment using a key:
1) Over the pathway wall and scarper across the car park, into the road.
Because of the curve in the pathway, and 5A building masking the view, over that wall could be achieved without being spotted from the open hallway .... or from the other end of the Walled pathway.
2) Over the wall onto the footpath (the footpath that Jane walked up).
Quite a drop, but it wouldn't have worried me when I was young and then off probably across the road and into the alleyways.
3) And then, of course, with a key, straight into the apartment, thru to the back and down the steps out and away .... or even across the little garden, over the wall into the alleyway and away
Easy peasy for a fit younger guy
Other than the digs, there is no evidence that OG has visited Luz or block 5, and no rumour thereof. This, of course, does not prove the OG has had a crack at 5A, but if they did it has been kept under wraps at both ends.
Hi all,
Some new videos in my blog:
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-ricardo.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-ricardo.html)
no trap for a fit guy. Two methods of exit apart from thru' the apartment using a key:
1) Over the pathway wall and scarper across the car park, into the road.
Because of the curve in the pathway, and 5A building masking the view, over that wall could be achieved without being spotted from the open hallway .... or from the other end of the Walled pathway.
2) Over the wall onto the footpath (the footpath that Jane walked up).
Quite a drop, but it wouldn't have worried me when I was young and then off probably across the road and into the alleyways.
3) And then, of course, with a key, straight into the apartment, thru to the back and down the steps out and away .... or even across the little garden, over the wall into the alleyway and away
Easy peasy for a fit younger guy
Also easy peasy for a fit pursuer to give chase shouting 'Stop thief!'.Yep, easy peasy if the person coming actually saw the intruder. First of all the door recess and area was very very dark and secondly it was beyond the priferal vision of anyone crossing the parking lot. No-one would see any intruder there unless the intruder came out into the light and jumped around shouting.
The curve in the wall works both ways as it would hide anyone approaching in quiet shoes like trainers.
A burglar with a key? I thought he chose 5A because he was interfering with shutters and it was nice and dark at the end of the block?
The Gordon family stayed in 5A for a week and opened the shutters every morning and closed the shutters every evening. Therefore they opened shutters 49 times (7 shutters times 7 days) and that includes opening the north bedroom shutter 7 times. S.Gordon states:
"The bedroom shutters made a lot of noise and I find it difficult to understand that opening them would go un-noticed."
The Gordon family stayed in 5A for a week and opened the shutters every morning and closed the shutters every evening. Therefore they opened shutters 49 times (7 shutters times 7 days) and that includes opening the north bedroom shutter 7 times. S.Gordon states:
"The bedroom shutters made a lot of noise and I find it difficult to understand that opening them would go un-noticed."
Maybe someone had jemmied and damaged them.
The shutters had not been jemmied ... nor had they been damaged. But there is a witness statement that they had been opened, I am sure you will agree.
When did the Gordon family stay?
Maybe someone had jemmied and damaged them.S.Gordon also states: "The ... shutters of the apartment were all in good condition"
When did the Gordon family stay?21 Apr to 28 Apr. Opening the bedroom shutter made a lot of noise that week (S.Gordon statement), therefore opening the bedroom shutter made a lot of noise the next week, on the night of May 3rd.
21 Apr to 28 Apr. Opening the bedroom shutter made a lot of noise that week (S.Gordon statement), therefore opening the bedroom shutter made a lot of noise the next week, on the night of May 3rd.
If as you think the noise of the shutters caused Madeleine to flee ... what do you think happened to her thereafter?In some other cases where a child is at home and the parents are out and a burglary attempt begins the child hides.
In some other cases where a child is at home and the parents are out and a burglary attempt begins the child hides.
Yes ... and then?IMO step-by-step investigation is best Brietta.
IMO step-by-step investigation is best Brietta.
Not jumping ahead (there are plenty of theories which do that and they got nowhere).
If the first tiny step can be deduced, then the second, then the third, ... it will lead eventually to the solution.
Thats great for a theory but you need hard evidence along the way, of which there is little and the little there is is being "interpreted" to suit theoriesNo theory here Merc - it's a case of working out each tiny step, without having any theory where it may lead .
No theory here Merc - it's a case of working out each tiny step, without having any theory where it may lead .
IMO step-by-step investigation is best Brietta.
Not jumping ahead (there are plenty of theories which do that and they got nowhere).
If the first tiny step can be deduced, then the second, then the third, ... it will lead eventually to the solution.
In the meantime Madeleine is missing and there were burglars operational in Luz at the time who may know something about that.MAY is a word used too often IMO
If as you think the noise of the shutters caused Madeleine to flee ... what do you think happened to her thereafter?There was a case in Arizona recently where a child was home and the parents were out and a burglary attempt began.
And in a recent case in Tennesee two teenage girls were home alone when a burglary attempt began.
S.Gordon also states: "The ... shutters of the apartment were all in good condition"
All of that doesn'the add up to anything as they is no evidence of any third party in the apartment.
You appear to have forgotten the unidentified partial fingerprints and unidentified hairs that were recovered from the scene.
While they remain unidentified then it cannot be claimed as a 'fact' that there was no evidence of any third party in 5A. The 'fact' is - we don't know.
I have forgotten nothing.
Partial fingerprints/hairs do not mean there was a thirds party in the apartment that night, and it is disingenuous of you to imply it does.
Again, you are clutching at straws.
Are you claiming that the unidentified partial fingerprints and unidentified hairs recovered from the crime scene prove that no third party was ever in 5A? Surely not.
Are you claiming that the unidentified partial fingerprints and unidentified hairs recovered from the crime scene prove that no third party was ever in 5A? Surely not.
It was a holiday apartment Benice. I think it would be more unusual if there wasn't any unidentified fingerprints and hair.
This is true Faith - but the apartments underwent a thorough clean-up between visitors - so I wouldn't expect there to be too many fingerprints or hairs around which belonged to previous tenants.
It is a fact that unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs form part of the evidence collected by the PJ forensic team. While they remain unidentified then IMO it's incorrect to claim that no evidence exists that a third party was in 5A - because we just don't know.
For info:
A request has been made for a 'LIKE' button to be added to posts so I am happy to oblige. 'LIKE' statistics can be viewed from the header bar atop each page.
Should this function cause difficulties or be abused I will remove it.
John
Wasn't some DNA of a previous child occupant found on some bedding in 5a ? That being the case it is ridiculous to claim that there wouldn't be fingerprints and hairs which had similarly been missed even during a thorough clean-up. And if it's true that SY are following the botched burglary lead with the three already named arguidos as prime suspects surely those 'unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs' would have ruled them either in or out. Or are we now talking a botched burglary carried out by a vast team of burglars ?
Do we recommend posters use it instead of the "I agree" posts?
This has already been mentioned but the thing which amazes me in respect of the claim that three burglars were responsible for Madeleine's abduction is, how the heck could they have gone unnoticed given the number of people who were out and about that evening who walked past 5a?
Wasn't some DNA of a previous child occupant found on some bedding in 5a?Answer to the bit I have put in bold. Yes. It started out as a potential semen stain on the cover of the bed by the window, then it got matched to a very young previous male occupant, and it was reclassified as saliva.
That being the case it is ridiculous to claim that there wouldn't be fingerprints and hairs which had similarly been missed even during a thorough clean-up. And if it's true that SY are following the botched burglary lead with the three already named arguidos as prime suspects surely those 'unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs' would have ruled them either in or out. Or are we now talking a botched burglary carried out by a vast team of burglars ?
Answer to the bit I have put in bold. Yes. It started out as a potential semen stain on the cover of the bed by the window, then it got matched to a very young previous male occupant, and it was reclassified as saliva.
The idea that the cleaners, when one renter left and another moved in, did such a brill job that all trace of those who had been in 5A before were now gone, does not stack up. IMO.
One issue with the forensics in 5A is simply working out who was permitted to be inside 5A. The driver who took the McCanns from the OC reception to block 5? Did he help with the luggage? The repairmen, re shutter and washing machine. The cleaner, and the friend who helped her clean.
It's like a dog's dinner before you start.
I BELIEVE, as arguidos, the 3 were entitled not to give DNA, unless specifically ordered to do so by a judge. However, my understanding of the laws of Portugal is such that, unless I had 'done it', I would offer my DNA. Basically, Portugal does not allow DNA in one case to be used in a second case, until a guilty verdict has been handed down in the first case.
So I could burgle to my heart's content, leaving my DNA everywhere. And I could give my DNA in the Madeleine case. And as long as I am not found guilty in the Madeleine case, the fact that my DNA matches the burglaries cannot be used.
And again I believe, there is a 'right to forget' both about crimes committed and DNA. It is not like the UK where once your DNA goes into the system, it stays there for eternity.
I wish I was clearer on the laws of Portugal. The entry in the PJ Files with the hand written notes on crimes committed seems very odd to me.
Not quite sure what you mean, SIL.
Loads of people voluntarily gave their DNA.
So?Other cases are valuable because they indicate where in a residence a child is likely to hide.
No one is saying it doesnt happen (snip)
Thats fine,but you have a theory to begin with ie the interrupted burglary, no hard evidence at least that stands up, for the starting point imoI start with the assumption that KM is telling the truth about the window and shutter Merc.
Names?
I start with the assumption that KM is telling the truth about the window and shutter Merc.
Because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate she is telling anything but the truth.
The only identified fingerprints are hers. (snip)All 5 of her prints were on the glass Steve.
All 5 of her prints were on the glass Steve.
Consistent with leaning on an already open window. Not consistent with opening it.
This witness is truthful, and the prints confirm it..
The 6th print, which was claimed to hers and on the aluminium of the window in a position proving she opened it, simply does not exist. I challenge anyone to post the page number or photo from the files of that supposed print.
I start with the assumption that KM is telling the truth about the window and shutter Merc.
Because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate she is telling anything but the truth.
All 5 prints.
Consistent with pushing a window already open ?
Why would she lean on an open window ?
Are there scuff marks on the wall inside, or outside and corresponding footprints outside ?
Well that is a matter of opinion but as an assumption in exploring a theory is perfectly fine
Problem is, some don't realise it's like those logic puzzles in puzzle books, you have to make assumptions and see if they work, then change the assumptions if it doesn't work.
Exactly. However, the answer and true clues are all in the info given in the logic puzzles, so thry are solvable, unlike in this case
Maybe the clues & answers are already there but you choose to ignore them.
If they were the case would still not be cold but solved!
Neither clues nor answers necessarily provide tangible evidence required for a criminal conviction.
Problem is, some don't realise it's like those logic puzzles in puzzle books, you have to make assumptions and see if they work, then change the assumptions if it doesn't work.
I start with the assumption that KM is telling the truth about the window and shutter Merc.
Because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate she is telling anything but the truth.
Doesn't the fact that :
A. Kate changed her statement in almost every particular from her May 4th statement to the 10th of May timeline,
B. Gerry also changed his statement to avoid having to go past an open window,
C. Not one of their friends, 3 in total, saw the open window which would have been lit, through the open bedroom door, by a small lamp in the living room,
Give you any cause for doubt ?
MO saw closed green-tinged curtains in the children's bedroom but the real colour of the curtains was blue/white. There was an amber streetlight outside.
MO correctly identified the colour of the bedding.
He also said the kids room had two windows and that there was a bookcase in the living room and he spent time leafing through the books there
&%+((£
What to think
MO saw closed green-tinged curtains in the children's bedroom but the real colour of the curtains was blue/white. There was an amber streetlight outside.
MO correctly identified the colour of the bedding.
There were books on top of the sideboard.
Not sure how your comment connects to mine misty. Oldfield, O'Brien and Tanner all walked close to the McCann children's bedroom window. There was a small table lamp on in the living room which due to the open bedroom door and darkness of the surrounding area would have illuminated the bedroom window making it almost impossible for the three's attention not to be drawn to it.
Thanks, so we know MO is not particularly articulate,what of the two windows?
And what of his wife stating he went into the parents bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? while he didnt bother sticking his neck round the kids bedroom door?
Are all these kind of questions clues or answers?
MO didn't see 2 windows, he just thought there were 2 as in his front bedroom.
Was MO told which room the children were sleeping in?
Well he must have been if he listened at their shutters beforehand?
The table lamp was at the other end of the apartment to the bedroom window, It was at a low level. The bedroom door was in a recess & the door was not fully open. There were curtains across the window. Exactly how illuminated do you think that window would have appeared from the outside behind a five foot drop?
Thanks, so we know MO is not particularly articulate,what of the two windows?
And what of his wife stating he went into the parents bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there? while he didnt bother sticking his neck round the kids bedroom door?
Are all these kind of questions clues or answers?
According to Kate in her first statement when she entered the apartment both the door of the bedroom and curtains were wide open. Not sure what you mean about the light being at a low level.
Fair point, unless he was just listening for general noise coming from the apartment. AFAIK that was the first check he had undertaken that week on 5a.
You'd worry about a doctor who did not know the difference between a bookcase and a sideboard @)(++(*
If the big curtains were wide open then they would not have "whooshed" as the air would not have been trapped.
Here is a picture of the low level table lamp at the far end of the living area. There is no other table lamp in that room.
Back on topic.....SY must believe the window/shutters were open to even be considering the botched burglary scenario.
MO saw the curtains as having a green tinge therefore the shutters were up by 9.35pm.
Are they considering the botched burglary scenario or is it just another fable fed to a willing journalist by interested parties ?
Doesn't the fact that :KM stated that she discovered the shutter and window open at 10pm.
A. Kate changed her statement in almost every particular from her May 4th statement to the 10th of May timeline,
B. Gerry also changed his statement to avoid having to go past an open window,
C. Not one of their friends, 3 in total, saw the open window which would have been lit, through the open bedroom door, by a small lamp in the living room,
Give you any cause for doubt ?
KM stated that she discovered the shutter and window open at 10pm.
She did not state what time they had been opened.
They could have been opened just 2 minutes before she arrived at the apartment.
In that case they would have been shut during all the previous checks.
Only two of the group said they went into the 5A before Madeleine disappeared - ROB on a check and .... ...... on that visit when he saw Kate in her invisible towel. All the others claim they first went inside their apartment after Madeleine disappeared. ROB claimed he could see inside the kids bedroom on his check and didn't mention opening the door. Most enlightening if true as It blows the ajar story to pieces! The door moves are key to this case.Well, three people have said that they like this.
Misty argues they were open when Mo did his check
Misty though forgets that matthew said no curtains were moving, he didnt feel the window was open etc
Well, three people have said that they like this.
They cant have read it tho' because it says that ROB did the check before Madeleine disappeared.
further it says that ROB claimed he could see inside the kids bedroom on his check
ROB never checked the McCann children; it was Matt that did that
Partisan voting, the post wasn't even read by the voters ! What a nonsense !
You are confused sadie it seems about peoples statements and also wrong in attacking the forum
Only two of the group said they went into the 5A before Madeleine disappeared - ROB on a check and .... ...... on that visit when he saw Kate in her invisible towel. All the others claim they first went inside their apartment after Madeleine disappeared. ROB claimed he could see inside the kids bedroom on his check and didn't mention opening the door. Most enlightening if true as It blows the ajar story to pieces! The door moves are key to this case.
I mentioned a case in Tennesee, and another in Arizona, when kids were at home but parents were out, burglary started, and the kids concealed themselves somewhere.
Misty is right. Matt did think that the light in there was greater than it should have been and that it came in from outside.
OK, no curtains were moving on that gusty evening .... and that is the nature of gusts, sometimes
they blow and sometimes they don't; it is calm.
Were those children under 4 & unable to use a mobile phone in a foreign country?Are you suggesting that a child under 4 would chose a different hiding place than a child over 4?
Are you suggesting that a child under 4 would chose a different hiding place than a child over 4?
(snip) a very limited number of hiding places in 5a after ruling out her own bedroom (snip)Yes a limited number of places to hide if scared Misty
Yes a limited number of places to hide if scared Misty
Kitchen cupboards. Bathroom. Behind sofa in lounge. Wardrobe in parents' bedroom.
What reason would Madeleine have had for not revealing herself upon hearing her mother's voice at 10pm?No idea Misty, haven't got that far yet, one small step at a time.
No idea Misty, haven't got that far yet, one small step at a time.
BTW did you read about bright blue painted toenails?
LOL, no....where do the toenails fit into anything?
Knocked on front door-broke in via rear. A possible scenario for 5a? Was the garden of 5B or even just the dark rear alley used as a watching point?
LOL, no....where do the toenails fit into anything? (snip)It's a case where when a burglary started a 15yr old home-alone girl hid in a closet, Misty.
It's a case where when a burglary started a 15yr old home-alone girl hid in a closet, Misty.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297028/Brave-girl-15-helped-police-bust-serial-burglars-broke-home-hiding-walk-closet-calling-911.html
The closet was bigger than the entire size of the parents' bedroom in 5a.Did Sherlock paint his toenails blue?
I thought I was so smart finding Holmes & the blue toenails, too. :(
Lets say pegasus you are right, MM was disturbed by a burglar and he too was disturbed and scarpered, she ran out and hid, and police didnt search enough in the apartment, whats the next bit?No idea Merc. If someone opened the shutter and window from outside, this is just estimating what behaviour might result during the following seconds.
Will check back in morning, nite all
Doesn't the fact that :
A. Kate changed her statement in almost every particular from her May 4th statement to the 10th of May timeline,
B. Gerry also changed his statement to avoid having to go past an open window,
C. Not one of their friends, 3 in total, saw the open window which would have been lit, through the open bedroom door, by a small lamp in the living room,
Give you any cause for doubt ?
If the open window/shutters was a major part of a cunning plan by the McCanns and was intended to be their (only) evidence that someone had entered 5A - don't you think they would have made sure the window/shutters WERE still open when the police arrived? - or at least pre- arranged with one or more of their friends to say they had definitely seen them open immediately after Madeleine disappeared (if you believe their friends colluded with them)?
Why would Gerry destroy his own plan to convince the police that a stranger had broken into Madeleine's bedroom?
That makes no sense to me.
The best laid plans of mice and men etc?
IMO the fact that the window/shutters were closed when the police arrived and none of the group claimed to have seen them open is clear evidence that there was NO plan by the McCanns and/or their friends to lie about how they found the windows in order to convince the PJ that an intruder had broken in.
Either that or the McCanns and their friends(if they were in on it) were all as thick as two planks and didn't realise that by closing the window/shutters before the police arrived - they were actually destroying their own plan.
IMO the fact that the window/shutters were closed when the police arrived and none of the group claimed to have seen them open is clear evidence that there was NO plan by the McCanns and/or their friends to lie about how they found the windows in order to convince the PJ that an intruder had broken in.
Either that or the McCanns and their friends(if they were in on it) were all as thick as two planks and didn't realise that by closing the window/shutters before the police arrived - they were actually destroying their own plan.
DW didn't see any window open when Kate was alone with the twins. Kate repeatedly told her she found them open so DW went outside and tried to raise the shutters but she couldn't. They twisted and got stuck as seen in crime scene photos. Let's stick to the facts.
Look at Payne's mess of an answer about the window/shutter (when he first entered with the McCanns after the alarm was raised). It was pointed out to him the window open but not the blind/shutter. He finds it so difficult to answer a simple question (down it's open WTF). Better keep an eye on that one 8(0(*
1485 "What do you mean the change in the blinds in the window''
Reply "Well you know it was pointed out, the window was open, the blind's not, you know, err down it's open, you know so those things you know I was made aware of but err as I say I couldn't tell you exactly how far down the blind was or how much the window was open.'
KM stated that she discovered the shutter and window open at 10pm.
She did not state what time they had been opened.
They could have been opened just 2 minutes before she arrived at the apartment.
In that case they would have been shut during all the previous checks.
Remember too that they were all drinking earlier.
We have been told two pertinent points abut that night.
1. They were in a state of panic.
2. They were able to sit down and write timelines on scraps of paper.
Now that sounds like a pair of mutually exclusive events.
If the open window/shutters was a major part of a cunning plan by the McCanns and was intended to be their (only) evidence that someone had entered 5A - don't you think they would have made sure the window/shutters WERE still open when the police arrived? - or at least pre- arranged with one or more of their friends to say they had definitely seen them open immediately after Madeleine disappeared (if you believe their friends colluded with them)?
Why would Gerry destroy his own plan to convince the police that a stranger had broken into Madeleine's bedroom?
That makes no sense to me.
Did Sherlock paint his toenails blue?
Since you don't like huge closets Misty here is a much smaller one for you
Do you think there is room in there to hide from a burglar?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/02/15/2A2BF6A100000578-0-image-m-15_1435848230025.jpg
My fifth trip to Praia da Luz ...
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-my-fifth.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-my-fifth.html)
Your theory makes no sense. How can Jane see the abductor with long hair and the Smiths see the same abductor with short hair (and both seen going in opposite directions). How can he open a window and run to Madeleine. Did he ignore and run through the twins in their cots? But I would love to see a reconstruction.
I too would love to see a reconstruction primarily because it would mean that a perpetrator had been apprehended and spilled the beans.
There is nothing further that can be gleaned from the innocent victims and witnesses to this crime. Only those who committed it know what their timeline was ... what motivated them ... and what they did with Madeleine once they had removed her from the apartment.
Heri has noted that the burglar may have had an accomplice ... so the same child could easily have been seen being carried by two different men in two different locations by different witnesses.
There is also the possibility that a prearranged handover took place. Think outside the box of the 'parents dunnit' ... there are so many more probabilities worth considering than that.
Why the big panic to sit down and account for their movements? You could be forgiven for thinking they were worried about their lack of childcare arrangements.
I too would love to see a reconstruction primarily because it would mean that a perpetrator had been apprehended and spilled the beans.
There is nothing further that can be gleaned from the innocent victims and witnesses to this crime. Only those who committed it know what their timeline was ... what motivated them ... and what they did with Madeleine once they had removed her from the apartment.
Heri has noted that the burglar may have had an accomplice ... so the same child could easily have been seen being carried by two different men in two different locations by different witnesses.
There is also the possibility that a prearranged handover took place. Think outside the box of the 'parents dunnit' ... there are so many more probabilities worth considering than that.
I think you mean possibilities Brietta.
I wrote probabilities and that is exactly what I meant. Please do not be presumptive about my meaning which is usually as perfectly clear as is yours.
Statistically speaking the most probable scenario is the involvement of her parents in Madeleine's disappearance. There are of course other possibilities.
That is probably why the Amaral investigation spent an inordinate amount of time on them ... to the exclusion of those who were probably more worthy of investigation ... for example (getting back to the thread) the Sun report about a botched burglary the probability of which was ignored by Mr Amaral in preference to the statistical probability.
Which I believed he may have mentioned in his book and while guesting on various chat show sofas. Statistics don't catch miscreants though ... efficient policing obviously has much more of a chance.
An efficient police officer finding no evidence against parents should then probably ~ but in this case not a chance ~ have broadened his horizons and looked at the next possible probability statistically speaking that people whose line of work was to carry out home invasions might have been worth more than a passing glance.
In future please don't try to bog me or the threads down in semantics or in argument ... address the topic of the thread instead.
That is probably why the Amaral investigation spent an inordinate amount of time on them ... to the exclusion of those who were probably more worthy of investigation ... for example (getting back to the thread) the Sun report about a botched burglary the probability of which was ignored by Mr Amaral in preference to the statistical probability.
Which I believed he may have mentioned in his book and while guesting on various chat show sofas. Statistics don't catch miscreants though ... efficient policing obviously has much more of a chance.
An efficient police officer finding no evidence against parents should then probably ~ but in this case not a chance ~ have broadened his horizons and looked at the next possible probability statistically speaking that people whose line of work was to carry out home invasions might have been worth more than a passing glance.
In future please don't try to bog me or the threads down in semantics or in argument ... address the topic of the thread instead.
You talk about efficient police operations.
So why haven't SY visibly pursued this option ?
As to burglary, there is no evidence 5A was burgled.
As to the 'sun' newspaper, they have a vested interest in the story having already paid the mccanns for serialisation rights for Kate mccanns book, and the sun's record for ethical journalism leaves a great deal to be desired.
Likewise, the PJ found no evidence of abduction.
I'm not sure why anyone with even a scintilla of sense would believe anything printed in a tabloid without seeking further qualification.
You talk about efficient police operations.
So why haven't SY visibly pursued this option ?
As to burglary, there is no evidence 5A was burgled.
As to the 'sun' newspaper, they have a vested interest in the story having already paid the mccanns for serialisation rights for Kate mccanns book, and the sun's record for ethical journalism leaves a great deal to be desired.
Likewise, the PJ found no evidence of abduction.
Don't all media outlets ~ not exclusively the Sun ~ have an eye to the main chance of earning money from their copy?
I thought that was what they were in business to do ... oh well ...
Of course they are making money.
Money from a missing child.
Do you approve of them doing that ?
Likewise you cannot deny the whole hearted support given to the mccanns by the tabloid press.
It's simply lazy journalism Stephen. CM hands the journalists something to print. The story costs the editor nothing but brings in money. It's a win, win situation for the newspaper and the McCanns. The only loser, as always, is Madeleine.
Of course they are making money.
Money from a missing child.
Do you approve of them doing that ?
Likewise you cannot deny the whole hearted support given to the mccanns by the tabloid press.
It is wrong for the Sun to make money from a missing child ... but it is perfectly OK for Mr Amaral to become a rich man doing exactly what you condemn the tabloids for.
That's perhaps a bit of a conundrum for you I would have thought.
What is this hang-up that people have about others making money?
Ask Stephen ... or PM him @)(++(* maybe ... he is the one who raised it in relation to the tabloids and seems to have quite a bee in his bonnet about it all.
It is wrong for the Sun to make money from a missing child ... but it is perfectly OK for Mr Amaral to become a rich man doing exactly what you condemn the tabloids for.
That's perhaps a bit of a conundrum for you I would have thought.
Most definitely there is enough room in that cupboard for a young child to hide - but the cupboards were all checked (snip)2015 in Tennessee, two teenage girls were home alone, parents were out, a burglary started, here is where they hid.
One must not forget to point out home truths when one is making claims.
1. Sr Armaral was an innocent person who had NO VESTED INTEREST IN making Money from MADDIE.
He wrote a book about an investigation where he was involved with the SEARCH for little Maddie.Many police officer's do this and he explained his reasons for doing so.
2. The parents were responsible for the missing child, and grabbed an opportunity to make money, by setting up a company. selling goods and writing a book, they also paid for advertising by being kept in the newspapers, they latched on to all UK anniversaries to bleat about missing their daughter - the one they didn't search for themselves, being too busy promoting themselves.
They also promoted themselves as 'do gooders' latching onto 'good causes' to try and dispel any negative press, they even spent some from the company money to kill off any negative press even if just a theory, by persecuting a police co ordinate who's only thoughts were to try and make sense of the 'outrageous stories' by the Tapas 9. The parents also became millionaires,which they wouldn't have achieved if their daughter had not disappeared.
3. The press, played no part in searching for the truth of what happened to little Maddie, they didn't send independent journalist to investigate all theories which were put forward, they merely played the game of Maddie makes money for us who gives a .... what happened. They continue to print pictures of little Maddie as when she was 3 years old. cute pix sell papers= money! They continue to ply readers with mis information and still play lipservice to the Parents who are at the heart of this whole sorry money making scheme.
I do not condone anyone making money from little Maddie's fate , what ever that is, but If I am asked which two I find most abhorrant it would be numbers 2 & 3.
2015 in Tennessee, two teenage girls were home alone, parents were out, a burglary started, here is where they hid.
1. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/02/15/2A2BF6A100000578-0-image-m-15_1435848230025.jpg
2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/02/15/2A2BE74500000578-0-image-a-21_1435848372948.jpg
(snip) jemmied shutters... (snip)It is proven that the shutter of 5A child bedroom window had absolutely no lock and no bolt and could be raised from outside without jemmying and without leaving any trace of damage.
I would say that middle paragraph is libelous but with the bias taht exists on this forum will be allowed to stay
It is proven that the shutter of 5A child bedroom window had absolutely no lock and no bolt and could be raised from outside without jemmying and without leaving any trace of damage.
Hi pegasus, teenagers have very different behaviour than toddlers.Hiding is learned and extensively practiced long before the age of 47 months.
(snip) ... how fast ...? Sorry Pegs I just can't buy this scenario.(snip)10 seconds?
It is proven that the shutter of 5A child bedroom window had absolutely no lock and no bolt and could be raised from outside without jemmying and without leaving any trace of damage.
Hi pegasus, teenagers have very different behaviour than toddlers.
10 seconds?
Hiding is learned and extensively practiced long before the age of 47 months.
Your theory underestimates her intelligence Heri IMO.
lol Peg... in the dark >woke up from a sleep> within 10 seconds she wakes realises it burglars and runs to another room hides in a cupboard... lol oh stop it already.It might be longer but 10 seconds is possible Missy
It might be longer but 10 seconds is possible Missy
Hi Heri, I have followed your argumnets and think you are on the right track. Does this mean on the present evidence you do not suspect the parents?
I began considering all theories in parallel. Soon I discarded "Wandering off" and "McCanns did it". So, "Abduction by stranger" remains. But "Planned abduction" or "Burgalry that went wrong"? I consider the second the most plausible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEIRvxK3aE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEIRvxK3aE)Try the same 4 experiments, but have the man approach the child by opening their bedroom window and shutter from outside, in the dark, while the parents are absent, two hours or more after the child went to bed, and absolutely definitely the child would run away into another room completely terrified Heri.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVkKBYMu3c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVkKBYMu3c)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQ9T2Lpq48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQ9T2Lpq48)
Try the same 4 experiments, but have the man approach the child by opening their bedroom window and shutter from outside, in the dark, while the parents are absent, two hours or more after the child went to bed, and absolutely definitely the child would run away into another room completely terrified Heri.
BTW I'm now fairly confident which room the child would initially run into.
Try the same 4 experiments, but have the man approach the child by opening their bedroom window and shutter from outside, in the dark, while the parents are absent, two hours or more after the child went to bed, and absolutely definitely the child would run away into another room completely terrified Heri.
BTW I'm now fairly confident which room the child would initially run into.
I began considering all theories in parallel. Soon I discarded "Wandering off" and "McCanns did it". So, "Abduction by stranger" remains. But "Planned abduction" or "Burglary that went wrong"? I consider the second the most plausible.Heri your hypothesis is - the child walks towards the window.
Going by the twins Maddie would not even have woken
I began considering all theories in parallel. Soon I discarded "Wandering off" and "McCanns did it". So, "Abduction by stranger" remains. But "Planned abduction" or "Burglary that went wrong"? I consider the second the most plausible.
Heri your hypothesis is - the child walks towards the window.
My hypothesis is - the child runs away from the window.
I think we agree the bedroom door was in the almost closed position at about 9.10pm.
What position was the bedroom door in at about 9.30pm?
In the the links Heri posted the videos were chilling ... the children were so trusting it was heart breaking to watch.
The children allowed a stranger entry to their homes. The puppies were irresistible and the children walked away quite happily with a stranger.
I agree that Madeleine may have initially found it odd for a stranger to appear at her window, but if that person enticed her towards the window by saying her mummy wanted to see her ... groggy with sleep it is possible she approached to be lifted through.
In the the links Heri posted the videos were chilling ... the children were so trusting it was heart breaking to watch.
The children allowed a stranger entry to their homes. The puppies were irresistible and the children walked away quite happily with a stranger.
I agree that Madeleine may have initially found it odd for a stranger to appear at her window, but if that person enticed her towards the window by saying her mummy wanted to see her ... groggy with sleep it is possible she approached to be lifted through.
The bit nobody can answer though is how did she become unconscious or appear to be asleep. I wasn't aware that burglars routinely carried chloroform with them just in case they decided on a career change.
The bit nobody can answer though is how did she become unconscious or appear to be asleep. I wasn't aware that burglars routinely carried chloroform with them just in case they decided on a career change.
The bit nobody can answer though is how did she become unconscious or appear to be asleep. I wasn't aware that burglars routinely carried chloroform with them just in case they decided on a career change.Good point John. I assume you are referring to the Smith sighting (the girl they saw was asleep with eyes closed). It would be a strange burglar who carries, just in case of an unanticipated career change, not only chloroform, but also a long-sleeved child's top.
Good point John. I assume you are referring to the Smith sighting (the girl they saw was asleep with eyes closed). It would be a strange burglar who carries, just in case of an unanticipated career change, not only chloroform, but also a long-sleeved child's top.
Does anyone know how many phone calls the 3 suspects exchanged with each other after 2151hrs?
Also if he had accidentally killed her to take the body with him.
Is there somewhere we can see details of calls made by the latest suspected?
Does anyone know how many phone calls the 3 suspects exchanged with each other after 2151hrs?Don't know. But here is the 21:51 call in context
How does one kill a child over a window ledge and leave zero forensics?
The quick answer to that is you don't but as you well know Merc you have always to preempt the most ridiculous of scenarios from supporters.
Don't know. But here is the 21:51 call in context
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3334.msg126858#msg126858
Thank you, Pegasus. Am I correct in believing that the two suspects were not in touch by mobile during the 25 mins after 2151?In the period 21:45 to 22:15,, the only communication between those two mobiles was the 58s call at 21:51.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEIRvxK3aE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEIRvxK3aE)8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVkKBYMu3c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVkKBYMu3c)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQ9T2Lpq48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQ9T2Lpq48)
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Well done Heri for posting these.
They should be shown at every infants / junior school ... preferably with the parents present to reinforce the message
In the period 21:45 to 22:15,, the only communication between those two mobiles was the 58s call at 21:51.
@Brietta The open bedroom door seen by MO indicates the child had opened it to go through it to another room.
If Heri's hypothesis were correct, MO would have discovered the bedroom door still in the almost closed position.
*Did Sherlock paint his toenails blue?* snip
I think the window was opened from the inside and Madeleine passed through by an intruder who used a key to enter via the wooden door, Pegasus.But Brietta, even raising the shutter from inside using the strap makes a lot of noise.
He or she left the door in the position in which it was seen.
But Brietta, even raising the shutter from inside using the strap makes a lot of noise.
https://archiveofourown.org/works/3825385A girl is home alone, parents out, a burglar opens a window, she hides in a walk-in closet, under some clothes, one of the burglars actually walks into the closet and starts taking things from it, the girl is worried that the burglar will spot her bright blue varnished toenails. I didn't make this up. It's a true story. I already posted the live audio of it happening.
You couldn't make it up - but someone did!
A girl is home alone, parents out, a burglar opens a window, she hides in a walk-in closet, under some clothes, one of the burglars actually walks into the closet and starts taking things from it, the girl is worried that the burglar will spot her bright blue varnished toenails. I didn't make this up. It's a true story. I already posted the live audio of it happening.
I did read that case. I just initially thought you were on a Holmes theme.As soon as the burglars saw the child they ran away Misty.
What happened to the 12 year old boy in Arizona who was discovered by the burglars?
@Brietta The open bedroom door seen by MO indicates the child had opened it to go through it to another room.
If Heri's hypothesis were correct, MO would have discovered the bedroom door still in the almost closed position.
None of the suspects physically match the efits of either man seen carrying a sleeping child.
How does one kill a child over a window ledge and leave zero forensics?
Theories should be simple.
... We can make a theory like "A gang had a plan to abduct a child to order, but were interrupted by a burglar who opened the window before, the child fly away, wandering off and had a mortal accident, finally her parents hid the corpse and faked an abduction" ... Very complex without need.
Wandering off is simple, but discarded by facts.
McCann did it is simple. but discarded by facts.
Burgalry went wrong is simple, and there is evidence in this direction.
- Too many psychological assumptions, trying to infer, from a very limited number of teen cases, the absolute general behaviour of toddlers. We are interested here in Madeleine reaction.
- The videos posted do not try to demonstrate nothing except that other reactions are possible besides hiding or flying away.
- Wandering off was discarded by me because there is a window opened from the outside, and the man who Jane Tanner saw.
- If Madeleine began to shout, a burglar may well put his hand on her mouth, carrying her out away for nobody to hear her shouting, or because he accidentally killed her or put her uncounscious, by asphyxia.
- The vast majority of burglars are uneducated people who have not a plan other than "go out and see what you can get", see Gottfredson and Hirshi for statistics. And they like taking risks or are not aware of risks. A burglary is a high risk, a burglar may lose his life for a mobile phone ...
- If you are a couple of meters from a person you do not use the phone to communicate with him (no communicatiosn between 21:52:30 and 22:15)
Sorry if I cannot participate next days, I am beginning a complex week today.
covering a child's mouth to stop screaming sounds very probable and if excessive could easily result in death
I think the window was opened from the inside and Madeleine passed through by an intruder who used a key to enter via the wooden door, Pegasus.
He or she left the door in the position in which it was seen.
I've already posted evidence, from a witness who had heard that shutter being raised 7 times in the previous week, that raising it made a lot of noise.
covering a childs mouth to stop screaming sounds very probable and if excessive could easily result in death
Theories should be simple.
... We can make a theory like "A gang had a plan to abduct a child to order, but were interrupted by a burglar who opened the window before, the child fly away, wandering off and had a mortal accident, finally her parents hid the corpse and faked an abduction" ... Very complex without need.
Wandering off is simple, but discarded by facts.
McCann did it is simple. but discarded by facts.
Burgalry went wrong is simple, and there is evidence in this direction.
Really and she never said a word?
Only if done quickly. It can be raised slowly and silently.
I began considering all theories in parallel. Soon I discarded "Wandering off" and "McCanns did it". So, "Abduction by stranger" remains. But "Planned abduction" or "Burglary that went wrong"? I consider the second the most plausible.
- Too many psychological assumptions, trying to infer, from a very limited number of teen cases, the absolute general behaviour of toddlers. We are interested here in Madeleine reaction.
- The videos posted do not try to demonstrate nothing except that other reactions are possible besides hiding or flying away.
- Wandering off was discarded by me because there is a window opened from the outside, and the man who Jane Tanner saw.
- If Madeleine began to shout, a burglar may well put his hand on her mouth, carrying her out away for nobody to hear her shouting, or because he accidentally killed her or put her uncounscious, by asphyxia.
- The vast majority of burglars are uneducated people who have not a plan other than "go out and see what you can get", see Gottfredson and Hirshi for statistics. And they like taking risks or are not aware of risks. A burglary is a high risk, a burglar may lose his life for a mobile phone ...
- If you are a couple of meters from a person you do not use the phone to communicate with him (no communicatiosn between 21:52:30 and 22:15)
Sorry if I cannot participate next days, I am beginning a complex week today.
Hypothetically, of course.
Is this the man who overcomes his victims with his body odour? A sort of Pepé Le Pew ?
Is this the man who overcomes his victims with his body odour? A sort of Pepé Le Pew ?
How nasty. Several UK children were sexually assaulted in their own beds whilst on holiday in PT. How anyone can ridicule that is beyond me.
The children aren't been ridiculed Benice.
It's the idea of someone being in the apartment, for which no evidence exists.
Supposition and wishful thinking not withstanding.
the victims made statements
The children aren't been ridiculed Benice.
It's the idea of someone being in the apartment, for which no evidence exists.
Supposition and wishful thinking not withstanding.
We cannot know exactly what went on in and around the apartment or what Madeleine's reaction to it may or may not have been ... only a person who was there at the time is in a position to know that.
She could have slept through it as did the twins or she could have been frozen by fear ... we just have no idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEIRvxK3aE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEIRvxK3aE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVkKBYMu3c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVkKBYMu3c)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQ9T2Lpq48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQ9T2Lpq48)
Yet not one iota of evidence there was a burglar in Apartment 5A.
The mccanns being intelligent, as we have been told, should have handed her clothes to the police.
Also, how would you know that those clothes would contain any evidence of a third person.
Were these clothes on the bed ?
Bottom line, no evidence of a burglary or any third party in the apartment.
no evidence found.....if you don't look properly...you don't find...Maddies bed clothes were sent to the laundry rather than the forensic lab
Why are you making it sound as if no forensics were done on the bed?
Tests and searches for hair, blood, biological fluids, chloroform were donei, all negative
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
You need to provide a reliable site that mentions the bedclothes were sent to the laundry without forensics being done, you will I imagne struggle extremely hard
(snip)... or she could have been frozen by fear ... (snip)Look at the "monster" game which is documented in the files.
Look at the "monster" game which is documented in the files.
It wouldn't work if children "froze with fear".
The game would be over in a few seconds.
And it wouldn't work if children walked calmly towards danger.
Again the game would be over in a few seconds.
The instinctive reaction of a child to a sudden terrifying danger is to run away from it.
A child might walk calmly towards danger because the danger is not recognised as such. Every single one of the children who were allowed by their parents to take part in the video experiments linked to by Heri ... entered a 'stranger danger' situation voluntarily because they didn't recognise the perils of their situation.When you were a tiny 3 year old Brietta, if you had been awoken in the dark in the middle of the night by someone opening your bedroom window from outside, I think you would have shot out of your bedroom faster than lightning.
There is a huge difference in a terrifying game played with people who personify every confidence and security of the child ... and real terror.
When you were a tiny 3 year old Brietta, if you had been awoken in the dark in the middle of the night by someone opening your bedroom window from outside, I think you would have shot out of your bedroom faster than lightning.
You say "theres a start" only its a non starter, as you have misunderstood what amaral was talking about
He was talking about the twins bedding being taken to the Paynes apartment on the famlys request...not stripped off by police and bunged in the washer
Your other newspaper quotes are also good examples of misleading and distorting the truth...it is NOT true that no forensics were done on the bed
Perhaps if it was a clear cut murder and dead body case on the night dna sweep would have been more thorough
Do police in the UK dna sweep a house immediately when a chld is reported missing?
Yet the forensic lab said they wish the bedding had been kept for them to examine, I will try and find the quote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494203/Madeleine-How-police-ruined-forensic-evidence-bedroom.html
Quote from the files.
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative
unquote
I understand that to mean that all they did was to physically smell the pillow. Hardly as efficient as tests which a forensic lab would carry out IMO.
You say "theres a start" only its a non starter, as you have misunderstood what amaral was talking about
He was talking about the twins bedding being taken to the Paynes apartment on the famlys request...not stripped off by police and bunged in the washer
Your other newspaper quotes are also good examples of misleading and distorting the truth...it is NOT true that no forensics were done on the bed
Perhaps if it was a clear cut murder and dead body case on the night dna sweep would have been more thorough
Do police in the UK dna sweep a house immediately when a chld is reported missing?
(snip) I would have stood my ground and perhaps shouted for my parents(snip)What would you have done next Brietta?
On the two assumptions, that the shutter was opened from outside, and that the child was awoken by the noise, it can be deduced which room the child would go to, initially at least.
The child would go to the parents' bedroom (snip)Yes. BTW from a small child's perspective, waking up hours after going to bed, in the dark, there is no knowledge of whether it is 9.15pm or midnight or 3am - the exact time from the child's perspective is simply "the middle of the night".
(snip) ....What would she do next?I'd like to go backwards a number of steps and not miss anything out.
I'd like to go backwards a number of steps and not miss anything out.
To leave the child bedroom requires pulling it's door open. The way this door is fitted, as soon as it is opened, the lounge area can be seen, lit by a small lamp. Therefore at the moment a child pulls the child bedroom door open, the child would observe, that there is no-one in the lounge area. So this knowledge would already have been acquired, before entering the south bedroom.
Would you agree that by this time, the burglar is aware that the apartment is occupied and is no longer interested in gaining entrance?Absolutely, yes, that is the whole point.
Absolutely, yes, that is the whole point.
OK, so burglars ( assuming that they were there) have no subsequent knowledge of the fate of Madeleine.That's correct IMO.
If the child left the room as soon as she she heard the shutter opening begin (the intelligent thing to do IMO), she would be already out of the room before the burglar finished opening the shutter and looked in. The burglar would then see 2 children in the room and abandon the burglary before climbing in.
That is why in my opinion, it wasn't a botched burglary gone wrong, it was an organised abduction of Madeleine, if those men had been contacting each other with every movement the McCann's made eg. crèche etc. then they would certainly know the children were in the apartment. I don't believe anyone of them went in through the window, I believe one of them had a key, and then opened the window either as an escape route, to hand Madeleine through it or to take any suspicion that someone had a key away. If one of them was working for the OC then Madeleine might recognise him, he then could say he was taking her to mummy and daddy, hand her over and disappear into the OC without anyone suspecting him as he worked there.
Yet not a jot of evidence to show it happened.
Likewise, Madeleine's younger sister was from the same genetic line, so why not her instead?
I was thinking that, myself. High on imagination, low on substance.
Yet not a jot of evidence to show it happened.
Likewise, Madeleine's younger sister was from the same genetic line, so why not her instead?
The April Jones, Jamie Bulger, Cannock Chase Murders and The Moors Murders were all random snatches.
We are being asked to believe that MM was targeted.
How about the "Targeted Snatch" proposers write a list a list of essential activities required from 28th April 2007 to 3rd May 2007 to effect the job?
Let's start with how the child was targeted.
This will of course necessitate a client and his ability to assemble all the "labour plant and equipment" as it were in the right place at the right time to finish the job off. Also bear in mind if it's being done for cash the bloke who has the shekels know enough to kick the job off he did not get where he is by being daft.
There are other child abductions that have been planned, Jaycee Dugard for one, why Madeleine was targeted is anyone's guess.
There are other child abductions that have been planned, Jaycee Dugard for one, why Madeleine was targeted is anyone's guess.
The April Jones, Jamie Bulger, Cannock Chase Murders and The Moors Murders were all random snatches.Your time frame is wrong.
We are being asked to believe that MM was targeted.
How about the "Targeted Snatch" proposers write a list a list of essential activities required from 28th April 2007 to 3rd May 2007 to effect the job?
Let's start with how the child was targeted.
This will of course necessitate a client and his ability to assemble all the "labour plant and equipment" as it were in the right place at the right time to finish the job off. Also bear in mind if it's being done for cash the bloke who has the shekels know enough to kick the job off he did not get where he is by being daft.
So your theory, in the absence of any evidence as to what happened, is "well she must have been targeted cos at least one kid has been" without giving any thought to how it might have been accomplished?
Your time frame is wrong.
David Payne's rogatory makes it clear that whilst discussing the booking with MW he noted that MW was offering a discount. From memory, the earliest capture of the site showing a discount is 8 Apr 2007, with no decent interim captures to fill in the details.
Up to the end of Feb, MW was offering early booking discounts.
So the booking was made vaguely around mid-March 2007. I can't tie it tighter than that.
There was around 6 weeks to plan this.
Have a look at the MW booking sheet. It itemises 8 children in the party, all under 4, 7 of them girls. If the target was simply a white girl aged under 4, a perpetrator was spoiled for choice.
This was the first time in OC history that such advance knowledge of a choice of girls was available.
Therefore ALL with legitimate access to that information should have been questioned as a matter of course.From the list of people interviewed/arguidoed by OG this has not happened.
Your time frame is wrong.
David Payne's rogatory makes it clear that whilst discussing the booking with MW he noted that MW was offering a discount. From memory, the earliest capture of the site showing a discount is 8 Apr 2007, with no decent interim captures to fill in the details.
Up to the end of Feb, MW was offering early booking discounts.
So the booking was made vaguely around mid-March 2007. I can't tie it tighter than that.
There was around 6 weeks to plan this.
Have a look at the MW booking sheet. It itemises 8 children in the party, all under 4, 7 of them girls. If the target was simply a white girl aged under 4, a perpetrator was spoiled for choice.
This was the first time in OC history that such advance knowledge of a choice of girls was available.
Have you posted what you believe happened to Madeleine? or do you just ridicule others?
Ah! so you think someone was planning the job for up to six weeks ahead which kind of presupposes it will not be a random snatch which you then seem to suggest later.
Do tell more of the perceived logistics in general terms that really would interest me. Preferably starting with how the victim was specified and identified.
The spoilt for choice bit don't really wash. Have you ever watched a hobby take a swallow from a flock?. By jingo is that hobby spoilt for choice but if it doesn't target it will go hungry.
So we have a random snatch six weeks in the planning (why?) or we have The Payne Party being targeted which is more sinister.
Officers are also seeking to track down the people behind a series of burglaries around the Ocean Club complex, mainly in the early months of 2007. There was also an incident almost exactly a year before the abduction when children in a ground-floor apartment saw an intruder break in through a patio door and stare into a travel cot, stealing nothing. Redwood said: "We're particularly interested in that event as to whether it has any resonance to the disappearance of Madeleine."
Ah! so you think someone was planning the job for up to six weeks ahead which kind of presupposes it will not be a random snatch which you then seem to suggest later.
Do tell more of the perceived logistics in general terms that really would interest me. Preferably starting with how the victim was specified and identified.
The spoilt for choice bit don't really wash. Have you ever watched a hobby take a swallow from a flock?. By jingo is that hobby spoilt for choice but if it doesn't target it will go hungry.
So we have a random snatch six weeks in the planning (why?) or we have The Payne Party being targeted which is more sinister.
Oh that's easy, I believe that Madeleine suffered some 'accident' that necessitated her disappearance.
Oh, so no ideas of your own then.
Not that I care to share on here 8)--))
Specification. Female, white, 3 years or under.
Ah! so you think someone was planning the job for up to six weeks ahead which kind of presupposes it will not be a random snatch which you then seem to suggest later.
Do tell more of the perceived logistics in general terms that really would interest me. Preferably starting with how the victim was specified and identified.
The spoilt for choice bit don't really wash. Have you ever watched a hobby take a swallow from a flock?. By jingo is that hobby spoilt for choice but if it doesn't target it will go hungry.
So we have a random snatch six weeks in the planning (why?) or we have The Payne Party being targeted which is more sinister.
Specification. Female, white, 3 years or under.
Not a swallow in a flock.
A controlled situation. Read the leads I have posted, and you will see how it could be controlled, and by whom.
Specification. Female, white, 3 years or under.
Not a swallow in a flock.
A controlled situation. Read the leads I have posted, and you will see how it could be controlled, and by whom.
Then why not take a younger female sibling ?
For the reasons I have outlined on several occasions.
Perhaps the role the target was to play was not that of a 2 year old.
What if the children had been properly guarded; taken to the night creche or a baby-sitter paid?
Everybody would be living happily ever after and nobody would ever have heard of the McCanns.
Why do you think it is not possible? Please tell me why you think this may not have happened, just saying it wouldn't isn't good enough. I didn't say it was a random snatch, they were looking for a child like Madeleine they found her and abducted her.
What if the children had been properly guarded; taken to the night creche or a baby-sitter paid?Properly guarded - follow the evidence. The answer is in the files.
I did not say it was not possible.
I am pointing out that a planned targeted snatch requires a lot of planning and is not as easy as some would have us believe; more to the point not many would know how to go about it. That is why I keep rabbiting on about "even give me the first steps". I have been asking for this on this forum for over a year and have yet to hear a likely tale, belay that not even hear a tale but reasons not to give one. Mostly it is ducked or greeted with sneers. C'est la vie.
I don't usually do "there I wuz" stories but perhaps this helps explain my taking it with a pinch of salt: part of what I do involves sending groups of disparate sometimes socially dysfunctional people all over the world to perform specific tasks in specific places.
The array of people trotted out as being potentially in the frame for this job are sure dysfunctional but looking at the detail they are drawing too much attention to themselves and are too slapdash. So are they a blind while the real team gets in ? How do you link in smelly bin man or is he a diversion ? How did dead tractor man and pig farmer man fit into the picture? what about fag butt men and chuggers? to name but a few. Christ you could start a war with fewer people.
But the big question is, if this were a planned snatch by an outfit which had money (it had to have if the original analysis was correct) then why pick Luz as the site ?
The child would go to the parents' bedroom (snip)Yes, initially at least. It's such an elementary deduction.
Assuming an abduction happened, which I cannot come close to proving, then we are left with 2 motivations.
Then why not take a younger female sibling ?
For the reasons I have outlined on several occasions.
I was actually wondering if SIL thinks it would have happened anyway, perhaps in the night.Basically, I think the security was such that the entire group of children were soft targets. If what I have said re advance information and key access is correct, then perpetrators could afford to wait until subsequent visitors.
I did not say it was not possible.Look at the files.
I am pointing out that a planned targeted snatch requires a lot of planning and is not as easy as some would have us believe; more to the point not many would know how to go about it. That is why I keep rabbiting on about "even give me the first steps". I have been asking for this on this forum for over a year and have yet to hear a likely tale, belay that not even hear a tale but reasons not to give one. Mostly it is ducked or greeted with sneers. C'est la vie.
I don't usually do "there I wuz" stories but perhaps this helps explain my taking it with a pinch of salt: part of what I do involves sending groups of disparate sometimes socially dysfunctional people all over the world to perform specific tasks in specific places.
The array of people trotted out as being potentially in the frame for this job are sure dysfunctional but looking at the detail they are drawing too much attention to themselves and are too slapdash. So are they a blind while the real team gets in ? How do you link in smelly bin man or is he a diversion ? How did dead tractor man and pig farmer man fit into the picture? what about fag butt men and chuggers? to name but a few. Christ you could start a war with fewer people.
But the big question is, if this were a planned snatch by an outfit which had money (it had to have if the original analysis was correct) then why pick Luz as the site ?
Assuming an abduction happened, which I cannot come close to proving, then we are left with 2 motivations.
Paedophiles or replacement for a lost child.
In a report around about 2000, the Portuguese intelligence service summarised that there were 4 centres of paedophilia in Portugal, and 3 international paedophile rings in action. The 4 centres were Lisbon, Oporto, Madeira and the Azores. The 3 rings were not identified, but the word that got my attention was 'international'.
Replacement? Look at the MW arrivals sheet and it is clear. Madeleine was 3. She was not days off being 4, she was 3 and appears to have been petite for her age. It is true that someone subjecting her passport to scrutiny on her arrival could have twigged she was pushing 4, but it would have required a deal of scrutiny.
Alice has mentioned Schengen, which may be pertinent.
Take a child over the border to Spain, no passport required, no check, and the PJ are stymied. Take a child to Madeira or the Azores, no passport, no check, then away by boat, and equally the PJ are beaten. If it was pre-planned, it was easy to leave the PJ trailing.
Specification. Female, white, 3 years or under.
Not a swallow in a flock.
A controlled situation. Read the leads I have posted, and you will see how it could be controlled, and by whom.
Assuming an abduction happened, which I cannot come close to proving, then we are left with 2 motivations.
Paedophiles or replacement for a lost child.
In a report around about 2000, the Portuguese intelligence service summarised that there were 4 centres of paedophilia in Portugal, and 3 international paedophile rings in action. The 4 centres were Lisbon, Oporto, Madeira and the Azores. The 3 rings were not identified, but the word that got my attention was 'international'.
Replacement? Look at the MW arrivals sheet and it is clear. Madeleine was 3. She was not days off being 4, she was 3 and appears to have been petite for her age. It is true that someone subjecting her passport to scrutiny on her arrival could have twigged she was pushing 4, but it would have required a deal of scrutiny.
Alice has mentioned Schengen, which may be pertinent.
Take a child over the border to Spain, no passport required, no check, and the PJ are stymied. Take a child to Madeira or the Azores, no passport, no check, then away by boat, and equally the PJ are beaten. If it was pre-planned, it was easy to leave the PJ trailing.
Paedophile ring(s) operating in Portugal? how many similar cases before MM and after?. Two separate figures required.Before MBM? I can think of a number. After MBM? Not relevant. Doing a similar operation afterwards defines stupid.
I can think of places in Europe where it would be a bloody sight easier to lift a child that would not be missed quite so readily if at all.
If it was a replacement child lots of money and know how on the part of the client would have been required. He ain't gonna find his squad leader in Checkatrade or Yellow Pages. So we come back to my earlier question why Luz as the site of choice if it were a "spec job" and also why seemingly the choice of grunt labour ?
Are you suggesting that all the signposts are in the files and the PJ were too dim to spot it? and Metodo3? and Oakley International? and AIG? oh scrub that AIG think she is still in the lawless hinterland and SY?.
It smells to me like having and end result in mind and working backwards to make it fit.
Before MBM? I can think of a number. After MBM? Not relevant. Doing a similar operation afterwards defines stupid.
Kindly name your places in Europe where it is easier to lift a child without the incident being noticed. I would be glad of your insight on this.
I can tell from your comments you have not looked at the files wrt this. Kindly do so.
The PJ were not 'too dim'. They were working with the best methods and tools they had, ala Portugal 2007 style.
As for Metodo 3, you are joking? Ditto Oakley International? Ditto AIG? Do you honestly think they could tell their [forum rules prohibit me from putting this in plain an simple English]?
By the way, it smells to me of finding what the Portuguese intelligence service reported around 2000 and wondering if it is relevant.
Before MBM? I can think of a number. Do tell After MBM? Not relevant. Doing a similar operation afterwards defines stupid. Why? according to stats only 1% of child disappearances in Europe are abduction by stranger
Kindly name your places in Europe where it is easier to lift a child without the incident being noticed. I said less readily noticed not without being noticed. Try Trieste; Bratislava;Istanbul for kickers, but in general terms any large border town a town with large railway terminus or significant dock.You will find kids sleeping rough in all of them ( not to mention drug smugglers people smugglers etc etc) I would be glad of your insight on this.
I can tell from your comments you have not looked at the files wrt this. Kindly do so. I have looked at some of the PJ /McCann files but life's too short to read all of it. I prefer to work from first principles "How would I go about it" see my earlier "there I wuz story"
The PJ were not 'too dim'. They were working with the best methods and tools they had, ala Portugal 2007 style.
As for Metodo 3, you are joking? Ditto Oakley International? Ditto AIG? Do you honestly think they could tell their [forum rules prohibit me from putting this in plain an simple English]?
By the way, it smells to me of finding what the Portuguese intelligence service reported around 2000 and wondering if it is relevant.
Don't keep it all a secret. I am always fascinated by how professionals of varying degrees of competence never work it out but the "gifted" amateur always does . Take a bow Miss Marple.
I have no reason whatsoever to support the idea that Madeleine was chosen, as opposed to being just the child that drew the short straw.How did she come to draw the short straw? Out of dozens of girls over the months long holiday period? In a preplanned abduction
It could have been one of the other six, for all I know.
It could have been a child of a later visitor, for all I know.
I have no reason to believe that Madeleine was the special one rather than the unlucky one.
... What next? Hide? Go out to balcony?
Maybe she never made it to the parents' bedroom because the burglar's accomplice had gained access through the patio door & was stood in her bedroom doorway.But if one burglar had already entered via balcony door, what would be the point of second burglar opening the window from outside Misty?
But if one burglar had already entered via balcony door, what would be the point of second burglar opening the window from outside Misty?
But if one burglar had already entered via balcony door, what would be the point of second burglar opening the window from outside Misty?
Have you found any evidence on the outside window or did it whoosh open by itself?A burglar from outside can give the window a tiny nudge and it will glide open effortlessly, see video demonstration by Alexandre Simas.
A burglar from outside can give the window a tiny nudge and it will glide open effortlessly, see video demonstration by Alexandre Simas.
(snip) ..the status of the window lock is supposition.Before they went out, neither GM nor KM locked that window.
it looks like you are wrong...and also wrong to say I never supply cites...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494203/Madeleine-How-police-ruined-forensic-evidence-bedroom.html
Before they went out, neither GM nor KM locked the windows.
Same in 5H, before they went out those tourists didn't lock the windows either - and some of them were definitely not locked.
(snip) because KM said it wasYes, she said the window was open, and because that is completely possible, I believe her statement - the window was open.
Before they went out, neither GM nor KM locked that window.
Same in 5H, before they went out those tourists didn't lock their windows either - and some of them were definitely not locked.
Yes, she said the window was open, and because that is completely possible, I believe her statement - the window was open.
Is it therefore assumed that the cleaner failed to lock any of the windows after she had last cleaned them or on changeover day?Psychologically, as proven by statements in the files, many people incorrectly assume that if the shutter is down, it can't be raised from outside, and there is no need to lock the window.
The parents apparently didn't open any of the windows during the week so they would not have been aware of the insecurity. (snip)
Psychologically, as proven by statements in the files, many people incorrectly assume that if the shutter is down, it can't be raised from outside, and there is no need to lock the window.
Doctors and other professionals made this assumption, therefore cleaners would also.
completely possible from the inside not the outside as per my just now previous post,bye nowIf you're right Merc, maybe you should write to the owner of 5A, and tell them to remove the strong metal security bars that since May 2007 have been bolted over the exterior of this window and shutter.
Who, if not the cleaners, is responsible for ensuring the apartments are left secure after they carry out their duties?http://youtu.be/46axwTbsKCo?t=4m47s
If you're right Merc, maybe you should write to the owner of 5A, and tell them to remove the strong metal security bars that since May 2007 have been bolted over the exterior of this window and shutter.
Yet the forensic lab said they wish the bedding had been kept for them to examine, I will try and find the quote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494203/Madeleine-How-police-ruined-forensic-evidence-bedroom.html
Psychologically, as proven by statements in the files, many people incorrectly assume that if the shutter is down, it can't be raised from outside, and there is no need to lock the window.
Doctors and other professionals made this assumption, therefore cleaners would also.
Before they went out, neither GM nor KM locked that window.
Same in 5H, before they went out those tourists didn't lock their windows either - and some of them were definitely not locked.
I did not say it was not possible.
I am pointing out that a planned targeted snatch requires a lot of planning and is not as easy as some would have us believe; more to the point not many would know how to go about it. That is why I keep rabbiting on about "even give me the first steps". I have been asking for this on this forum for over a year and have yet to hear a likely tale, belay that not even hear a tale but reasons not to give one. Mostly it is ducked or greeted with sneers. C'est la vie.
I don't usually do "there I wuz" stories but perhaps this helps explain my taking it with a pinch of salt: part of what I do involves sending groups of disparate sometimes socially dysfunctional people all over the world to perform specific tasks in specific places.
The array of people trotted out as being potentially in the frame for this job are sure dysfunctional but looking at the detail they are drawing too much attention to themselves and are too slapdash. So are they a blind while the real team gets in ? How do you link in smelly bin man or is he a diversion ? How did dead tractor man and pig farmer man fit into the picture? what about fag butt men and chuggers? to name but a few. Christ you could start a war with fewer people.
But the big question is, if this were a planned snatch by an outfit which had money (it had to have if the original analysis was correct) then why pick Luz as the site ?
For those who say there was no evidence of an abducor remember how poor the forensic examination was
Luz was a quiet area frequented with British children, if they wanted a British child then what better place? Madeleine fitted the requirements, also she was in an apartment alone with her siblings. Not that I think she wouldn't have been taken if the parents had been asleep in their beds, if they had a key then they could have entered whether the parents were there or not. Madeleine alone just made it easier for them. Two in my opinion would have been needed for the abduction, the others were either just look outs or had been searching for a child that matched the requirements.
Luz was a quiet area frequented with British children, if they wanted a British child then what better place? Madeleine fitted the requirements, also she was in an apartment alone with her siblings. Not that I think she wouldn't have been taken if the parents had been asleep in their beds, if they had a key then they could have entered whether the parents were there or not. Madeleine alone just made it easier for them. Two in my opinion would have been needed for the abduction, the others were either just look outs or had been searching for a child that matched the requirements.
http://youtu.be/46axwTbsKCo?t=4m47s
The cleaner of 5A looks completely honest IMO.
Luz was a quiet area frequented with British children, if they wanted a British child then what better place? Madeleine fitted the requirements, also she was in an apartment alone with her siblings. Not that I think she wouldn't have been taken if the parents had been asleep in their beds, if they had a key then they could have entered whether the parents were there or not. Madeleine alone just made it easier for them. Two in my opinion would have been needed for the abduction, the others were either just look outs or had been searching for a child that matched the requirements.
Of interest is that it seems the McCanns used the patio door to exit the apartment during the day, so they obviously felt relaxed and secure enough to do so.
The psychological effect of Madeleine's disappearance is also documented. The cleaner, who did not know her, has been extremely traumatised and affected by what happened.
How much more so must that be for those who knew and loved Madeleine ... but who have had burden upon burden heaped unnecessarily on them by people who initially had no idea of the dark underbelly beneath the tranquil holiday village dependent on tourism for survival.
It is only very recently that the fact of burglaries happening in Luz has been accepted and recognised.
They left by the front door, which he locked with the key, (Saturday)
the deponent having entered the apartment by the main door, which was locked, (Sunday)
Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered. (Sunday)
Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
making his way to his apartment, entering by the front door, that was locked by key, when it was 09H40/09H45. (still Thursday)
Then it suddenly changes;
He remained at home for about 15 minutes, dressing in tennis clothes, left by the front door, that he did not lock.....
the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent. (All Thursday)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Monday to Wednesday aren't mentioned, but door-locking featured heavily in the accounts of Saturday, Sunday and Thursday after breakfast. Only after that do we hear uncertainty about the front door lock; note the patio doors were locked even then. Cites for unlocked patio doors during the week would be helpful.
They left by the front door, which he locked with the key, (Saturday)
the deponent having entered the apartment by the main door, which was locked, (Sunday)
Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered. (Sunday)
Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
making his way to his apartment, entering by the front door, that was locked by key, when it was 09H40/09H45. (still Thursday)
Then it suddenly changes;
He remained at home for about 15 minutes, dressing in tennis clothes, left by the front door, that he did not lock.....
the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent. (All Thursday)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Monday to Wednesday aren't mentioned, but door-locking featured heavily in the accounts of Saturday, Sunday and Thursday after breakfast. Only after that do we hear uncertainty about the front door lock; note the patio doors were locked even then. Cites for unlocked patio doors during the week would be helpful.
They left by the front door, which he locked with the key, (Saturday)
the deponent having entered the apartment by the main door, which was locked, (Sunday)
Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered. (Sunday)
Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
making his way to his apartment, entering by the front door, that was locked by key, when it was 09H40/09H45. (still Thursday)
Then it suddenly changes;
He remained at home for about 15 minutes, dressing in tennis clothes, left by the front door, that he did not lock.....
the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent. (All Thursday)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Monday to Wednesday aren't mentioned, but door-locking featured heavily in the accounts of Saturday, Sunday and Thursday after breakfast. Only after that do we hear uncertainty about the front door lock; note the patio doors were locked even then. Cites for unlocked patio doors during the week would be helpful.
It would be very interesting to know what they actually said
If you must do it in Portugal then Tavira.Whether the McCanns did it or someone else did it (burglars-abductors), it was done in Luz.
It has a British tourist itinerant population and is a bloody sight closer to the border by sea then up the river or over the bridge.
Whether the McCanns did it or someone else did it (burglars-abductors), it was done in Luz.
Is there any evidence of an MW-like reservation system in use anywhere in Tavira?
Is there any evidence of an OC-like holiday complex in Tavira?
There is no point in ruling the nature of Luz-OC out, given Luz-OC is the crime scene.
It's not what Brietta posted unless she has other sources.
Whether the McCanns did it or someone else did it (burglars-abductors), it was done in Luz.
Is there any evidence of an MW-like reservation system in use anywhere in Tavira?
Is there any evidence of an OC-like holiday complex in Tavira?
There is no point in ruling the nature of Luz-OC out, given Luz-OC is the crime scene.
none of us know or will ever know.....as the interviews were not recorded
They shouldn't have signed them then.
Lace asked the hypothetical question: "where better than Luz" I answered that hypothetical question.Your first sentence is fine.
The rest of your questions are being prescriptive for the sake of it having no bearing on the question I was posed and answered.
If an OC like establishment were essential to snatching kids then the answer is to rid the world of OC like
establishments. Jobs a goodun'.
I would ask instead if it was a requirement that an MW - like reservation system and an OC - like holiday complex existed. I'm sure enterprising would - be abductors could have managed in different circumstances if they were determined. It is, after all, just an assumption that the system in Luz helped.If I could prove this then OG would have the perpetrator(s) for supper. I can't prove it, and I'm not hearing anything to convince me that OG is close to a collar.
Your first sentence is fine.
Your second sentence is inaccurate. I have laid out clearly two reasons why Luz fits and Tavira does not.
As to the third sentence, IMO the OC should switch from mechanical locks to an electronic system.
The only real 'improvement' in safety to date is that the incident has already happened. Therefore anyone attempting something similar would probably cop for both.
I doubt this incident would have occurred in Estrela da Luz or any of the other complexes in Luz that use electronic security, and can track when tourists use a key to open the door.
If the patio door was used as an entry point, one has to shoehorn everything into 5 days, including twigging that the patio door was being used.
If the front door was used, the start time for planning goes back to when the MW scheme was dropped into the OC, with the realisation it contains information that the other reservation system does not.
The date of the Payne booking is possibly when the operation moved from agreement and recruitment to a more active stage of the operation.
If the window was used, it is required to explain how a perpetrator knew the shutter could be raised from the outside.
I cannot comment on shutters elsewhere, but I was surprised when I found out it could be done.
And if one thinks the McCanns did it, one has to come up with a body disposal route, or a concealment/retrieval/disposal route.
That happens to be easier in Tavira than Luz, but I'm confident very few people, whether locals or tourists, would have known that.
Only if you work backwards.Going forwards is easy.
Going forwards:
Objective: Kidnap a white girl aged 3 to 4 years who speaks English for the purpose of selling on at random or specifically.
Now work out a convincing case for Luz being the easiest/only place on Earth to do it going forwards not backwards.
I have difficulty removing from my mind the following passage from the archiving report:
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
Them being professionals and all having spent 15 months investigating more than one option, not finding enough evidence to establish what happened only to be upstaged by Jessica Fletcher, Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot and Lord Peter Bloody Wimsey who have it bang to rights; they must be galled.
Going forwards is easy.
Why should Luz be the easiest place/only place on Earth ... etc. Easiest/only is not a realistic test, so why explore that route?
The conditions were set fair for an abduction in Luz. A long lead time. A way to set it up. A set of residences easy to get in to. A choice of targets.
You still haven't read the relevant statements, have you?
David Payne says in his rogatory that Portugal was chosen because it was the only MW site open at the time. That is incorrect. The MW site in Egypt opened up about 3 weeks before the visit to Luz.
So why did this incident not happen in Egypt? Obvious answer is the party did not pick Egypt. But the Egypt resort is a 'standard' hotel, not a set of private residences in a public place with a contract to MW.
I can't remember if they offered a listening service in Egypt. However, I think there was a much smaller chance of an incident in a standard hotel of medium security, than there was in Luz, with very limited security.
Merely because conditions could be set fair, does not mean it actually happens.Correct in both sentences.
What the abduction scenario lacks, as with the others, is evidence.
I know I have posted this previously but how on earth could someone abduct a young child from a private apartment and not be seen either going to or exiting from said apartment?
I know I have posted this previously but how on earth could someone abduct a young child from a private apartment and not be seen either going to or exiting from said apartment?Kindly visit Luz, preferably around the 10th anniversary, and I shall be happy to show you just how easy this is. The explanation takes between 5 and 10mins tops.
How did she come to draw the short straw? Out of dozens of girls over the months long holiday period? In a preplanned abduction
Bump for SIL, you may have missed my questionMissed this earlier on.
Id add
involving OC who seem to be thought of as dishonest dna impregnated criminals ready to be used whenever asked to take part in stealing chldren
Missed this earlier on.
Let's play musical chairs. In an innocent sense, just a lot of clean fun for the kids. A lot about you can't win every time, so all good so far.
Then the dark side. Every child, bar one, gets eliminated. Lots of second best, just a single victor. Isn't that tough for a littlie?
Sorry, I don't understand the second part of your question.
Going forwards is easy.
Why should Luz be the easiest place/only place on Earth ... etc. Easiest/only is not a realistic test, so why explore that route? OK so what do think is the most important criterion
The conditions were set fair for an abduction in Luz. A long lead time. A way to set it up. A set of residences easy to get in to. A choice of targets.What do believ was the primary event in this chain of events
You still haven't read the relevant statements, have you? I have read them
David Payne says in his rogatory that Portugal was chosen because it was the only MW site open at the time. That is incorrect. The MW site in Egypt opened up about 3 weeks before the visit to Luz.Maybe they couldn't afford Egypt
So why did this incident not happen in Egypt? Obvious answer is the party did not pick Egypt. But the Egypt resort is a 'standard' hotel, not a set of private residences in a public place with a contract to MW. Are you suggesting that this event could only take place at a MW complex? if so why?
I can't remember if they offered a listening service in Egypt. However, I think there was a much smaller chance of an incident in a standard hotel of medium security, than there was in Luz, with very limited security.what you seem to be suggesting is sinister bordering on libellous and without foundation
I repeat from earlier. What in your opinion was the primary event
If I understand your post, which Im not sure I do, you are sayng MM was chosen? Against others?MBM might or might not have been 'chosen', or unlucky, I do not have the means to tell.
Cos you said in an earlier post she wasnt special she was unlucky.
My post about OC staff was about the notion that they were probably involved as you cant trust these bloody foreigners
Was the guy or girl on the receiving end of the bookings details a known criminal? A potential criminal? Someone who could be bribed into givng info? What about the local cleaners? Not your favourites as accomplices in meticulously planned abductions, I could go on
Going forwards is easy.
Why should Luz be the easiest place/only place on Earth ... etc. Easiest/only is not a realistic test, so why explore that route? OK so what do think is the most important criterion
The conditions were set fair for an abduction in Luz. A long lead time. A way to set it up. A set of residences easy to get in to. A choice of targets. What do believe was the primary event in this chain of events
You still haven't read the relevant statements, have you? I have read them
David Payne says in his rogatory that Portugal was chosen because it was the only MW site open at the time. That is incorrect. The MW site in Egypt opened up about 3 weeks before the visit to Luz. Maybe they couldn't afford Egypt
So why did this incident not happen in Egypt? Obvious answer is the party did not pick Egypt. But the Egypt resort is a 'standard' hotel, not a set of private residences in a public place with a contract to MW. Are you suggesting that this event could only take place at a MW complex? if so why?
I can't remember if they offered a listening service in Egypt. However, I think there was a much smaller chance of an incident in a standard hotel of medium security, than there was in Luz, with very limited security. What you seem to be suggesting is sinister bordering on libellous and without foundation
I repeat from earlier. What in your opinion was the primary event
The event could have taken place anywhere in the world where there were ...
(a) locals prepared to assist
(b) and to carry out the task
(c) and to keep their mouths shut after the event
Perhaps Praia da Luz fitted that criteria.
Going forwards is easy.
Why should Luz be the easiest place/only place on Earth ... etc. Easiest/only is not a realistic test, so why explore that route? OK so what do think is the most important criterion
The conditions were set fair for an abduction in Luz. A long lead time. A way to set it up. A set of residences easy to get in to. A choice of targets.What do believ was the primary event in this chain of events
You still haven't read the relevant statements, have you? I have read them
David Payne says in his rogatory that Portugal was chosen because it was the only MW site open at the time. That is incorrect. The MW site in Egypt opened up about 3 weeks before the visit to Luz.Maybe they couldn't afford Egypt
So why did this incident not happen in Egypt? Obvious answer is the party did not pick Egypt. But the Egypt resort is a 'standard' hotel, not a set of private residences in a public place with a contract to MW. Are you suggesting that this event could only take place at a MW complex? if so why?
I can't remember if they offered a listening service in Egypt. However, I think there was a much smaller chance of an incident in a standard hotel of medium security, than there was in Luz, with very limited security.what you seem to be suggesting is sinister bordering on libellous and without foundation
I repeat from earlier. What in your opinion was the primary event
Kindly visit Luz, preferably around the 10th anniversary, and I shall be happy to show you just how easy this is. The explanation takes between 5 and 10mins tops.
Just for your entrada. My second visitor enquired in the local ironmonger in the high street how much it cost to get a copy of a crucifix key cut. €6.50 was the answer. The OC must have got replacement keys cut somewhere.
So someone looked at the booking forms and gave out information. How did those looking for information know it was available from the MW system? Was there a similar Thomas Cook system which we haven't seen? If not, how did the Ocean Club know when to put cots in TC apartments?There was a TC system. it did not give the same level of information.
Did the information givers know why the information was wanted? Details of white girls 3 or under is pretty specific, or did they just give out details of all bookings for the week.
Someone allowed keys to be used for unauthorised purposes. Did they lend the keys out so copies could be cut or nip off from work to get them cut themselves? Did they get them done locally? Was the shop used to them coming to have keys cut or was it a one-off? Did the OC have an account for such things or was petty cash used? If local, did the shop people not join the dots?
Were these people aware why they were doing what they did?
People were recruited to be look-outs/abductors.
Were these people aware of all the details of the plan? How do you find someone willing to abduct a child? A risky question to ask imo.
Leaving aside people's consciences this must be the best kept secret in Portugal. Even a £2.5 million reward didn't tempt anyone. No family or friends noticed any signs of stress/guilty consciences.
MBM might or might not have been 'chosen', or unlucky, I do not have the means to tell.
Please look up who took the bookings, how the bookings were dealt with, and how this particular booking was handled. It is up to you from that point on.
Erm, ok
I have looked through several of your posts on this subject and am not clearer at all, so will leave it at that.
Every story has a beginning ~ a middle and an ending. The beginning of this one may have been when the on line bookings were made. With any luck, SY may be working on the ending.
The cleaner in the apartment on WED. If she cleaned the window (as Amaral claimed) she would have locked it if not secure.As a seasoned traveller, staying at 4*+ hotels generally, I can tell you that in my experience the only time that a cleaner at a hotel / apartment complex in Europe would clean the windows would be at change over day. Unless the window was in a complete mess
"On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's." Chapter 18 Truth of the Lie
There was a TC system. it did not give the same level of information.
As to what those giving information gave, how would I know? The simplest solution is money for info, but I have made it clear that I do not claim to know.
I have no idea how the OC got replacements for missing keys. It looks like it might be Luz. But Lagos is a few minutes off.
Were the people all aware of what they were doing? Perhaps not. Possibly people just got sucked in.
Why do you assume people were recruited to be look outs? Not necessary.
2.5 million reward v going to jail for 3 or 5 or 10 years? Always assuming you actually get the reward. Crunchy!
If the child had been safe and secure in her home, and parents present there would have not been a botched burglary....and what do they mean by BOTCHED?
So you go in and decide you are going to steal cameras, laptops perhaps etc et el, and you come out with a dead body of a child................sounds more like a scenario from one of those programmes on the T.V. about the most stupidest criminals.
Jeez give me a break.
I dont think this child was targeted. Perhaps THE children were targeted who knows. 3 vulnerable babies left in a room unatteneded with a sign outside the door which said help yourself?
If someone was watching they would have known the flat was unlocked so why try and get in through a window?
In the front door and out the back, or vice versa, with a child all you have to do is say just taking you to mummy shhhhhh its a game you have to stay quiet, and the deed is done.
Nothing botched about it. The only scenario for me, is she was taken quickly and freely, or she went out on her own and ended up stuck somewhere, or she was harmed. But no burglary.....there was no need the doors were open.
Theories are all well and good but starting at the beginning I haven't seen the Thomas Cook arrivals system, do you have a link?
I don't think people can be treated like pawns. They are thinking beings whose motivations have to be considered. Steady job v getting sacked for giving out information for eg. Same for keys. Yobs and petty burglars are not child abductors no matter how much people try to equate them. Even they have standards, believe it or not.
I think theories need more to rest on than just being possible. We have seen many flights of fancy about what may have happened, but theories should arise from the facts, not just fit in with them.
Have you never seen the photos in the press and on TV of bruised and battered (mainly elderly) victims of burglars who have been beaten half to death by these vile people during a burglary? What sort of standards are those burglars displaying IYO?
Judging by the number of times we see instances of the vicious treatment some burglars mete out to their victims - then attempting to paint all burglars almost as cuddly creatures who wouldn't dream of harming anyone - including a child - is not an accurate description of these criminals - not by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
There is no evidence of a burglary in this case.
'.. then attempting to paint all burglars almost as cuddly creatures who wouldn't dream of harming anyone - ..'
Who has been doing this on this forum or elsewhere, and place that in reference to my first sentence in this post ?
This is what G-Unit said.
'' Yobs and petty burglars are not child abductors no matter how much people try to equate them. Even they have standards, believe it or not. ''
My post was to question the above claim.
There is no evidence that yobs or petty burglars have never resorted to violent treatment of their victims. However there is evidence that burglars are capable of abducting a child.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/05/colo-parolee-charged-with-kidnapping-burglary-in-attempted-abduction-aurora/
There is no evidence of a burglary in this case.The fact that SY are very interested in 3 men that we have been told have been involved in burglary is a strong indicator that SY are seeing links. They have made them arguidos after a lot of investigation into burglaries.
'.. then attempting to paint all burglars almost as cuddly creatures who wouldn't dream of harming anyone - ..'
Who has been doing this on this forum or elsewhere, and place that in reference to my first sentence in this post ?
The fact that SY are very interested in 3 men that we have been told have been involved in burglary is a strong indicator that SY are seeing links. They have made them arguidos after a lot of investigation into burglaries.
Have you never seen the photos in the press and on TV of bruised and battered (mainly elderly) victims of burglars who have been beaten half to death by these vile people during a burglary? What sort of standards are those burglars displaying IYO?
Judging by the number of times we see instances of the vicious treatment some burglars mete out to their victims - then attempting to paint all burglars almost as cuddly creatures who wouldn't dream of harming anyone - including a child - is not an accurate description of these criminals - not by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
The fact that SY are very interested in 3 men that we have been told have been involved in burglary is a strong indicator that SY are seeing links. They have made them arguidos after a lot of investigation into burglaries.
[ moderated ]
Some burglars are violent but you can't assume all burglars are. I've met some arrogant and sadistic doctors in my time, but that doesn't allow me to assume that all doctors are arrogant and sadistic.
All burglars are different just as all members of other groups are different.
Some burglars are violent but you can't assume all burglars are. I've met some arrogant and sadistic doctors in my time, but that doesn't allow me to assume that all doctors are arrogant and sadistic.
All burglars are different just as all members of other groups are different.
... and it is not unknown for them to steal or attempt to steal children as noted in the link supplied by Benice.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/05/colo-parolee-charged-with-kidnapping-burglary-in-attempted-abduction-aurora/
Most important criterion? I don't know.
Primary event? Again I don't know. In this particular option, you can take your pick. MW, date not precise, drops a booking system into the OC that has not been used before. Or David Payne makes a booking, date a bit wobbly.
You need to read the relevant statements again.
MW complex. Booking details on MW v booking details on other tour operators. Compare and contrast.
What I am suggesting is something that I cannot prove. I am not willing to wander into libel territory.
The event could have taken place anywhere in the world where there were ...
(a) locals prepared to assist
(b) and to carry out the task
(c) and to keep their mouths shut after the event
Perhaps Praia da Luz fitted that criteria.
With respect G - your previous statement (below) to which I replied - strongly contradicts what you say above as you made no exceptions IMO.
Quote
' Yobs and petty burglars are not child abductors no matter how much people try to equate them. Even they have standards, believe it or not. ''
unquote
The event can take place anywhere in the world period.The event did not take place anywhere in the world, though. It took place in Luz. So why Luz? The options are that the event was totally random, therefore Luz was unlucky, and Madeleine was unlucky. Or Luz was in some way special. Whilst Madeleine was unlucky (random) or else fitted some criteria.
I am still waiting for someone to give me the first steps in this "theory".
The first one is a bit chicken and egg but I can see why no one who proposes the planned abduction is willing to take it on.
With the result that the proposition as ducked dived is akin to a Rutland Weekend Television sketch.
The event did not take place anywhere in the world, though. It took place in Luz. So why Luz? The options are that the event was totally random, therefore Luz was unlucky, and Madeleine was unlucky. Or Luz was in some way special. Whilst Madeleine was unlucky (random) or else fitted some criteria.
I have made it clear that there is insufficient evidence in the public domain to 'solve' the case.
That is blindingly obvious. If it could be solved with information in the public domain, OG would hardly have been necessary, let alone racked £12 million.
I have also made it clear there is more in the files to support the line I have proposed, down to named individuals, but as I cannot prove this theorem, to name such individuals would be libel.
These are all simple concepts. You appear to be unwilling to consult the files to get to the people who could make this happen. That is your choice.
But to state no one has given you a start point is both a factual error and nonsense.
1. I have read the relevant bits in the files. I have told you that but you seem to unwilling to believe I have because I am questioning your theory which thus far you have failed dismally to support. I can read the files and weave a fairy story too.
2 No one has yet said what the primary event was despite my having asked several times. In the event I may have missed that post in all the excitement humour me and remind me what was the primary event.
You should be able to do it in a sentence and in generic terms so not being libellous.
If no one can come up with a straightforward response and identify the primary event then include me out.
How can anyone not immediately involved in Madeleine's abduction conjure up the primary event? It is my opinion your negativity about Shining's posts is because she is hitting too close to the bone and has brought something to the equation that if not totally ignored has seldom been discussed in any depth.
Bit of a cop out to rule yourself out on the basis of an impossible diktat instead of entering into the discussion which at the least has the advantage of being a bit different.
It rests upon the specific booking system used by Mark Warner. I have been told the Thomas Cook system was different but no link to that system was provided so I don't know if that's fact or rumour.I may be mixing up Thomas Cook with Thompsons, and if that is the case, mea culpa. Just compare and contrast the two major tour operators at the time, and make up your own mind about what level of information appears on the MW arrivals list that does not appear on the other.
This unique MW system apparently allowed certain people to be pinpointed before arrival and that info to be shared with other unnamed people. We need reasons to believe that people would share information. How were they approached and persuaded?
Keys are mentioned. The mechanics of who, why and how are ignored.
Lots of questions there to kick start a discussion, but no answers being offered.
How can anyone not immediately involved in Madeleine's abduction conjure up the primary event? It is my opinion your negativity about Shining's posts is because she is hitting too close to the bone and has brought something to the equation that if not totally ignored has seldom been discussed in any depth.
Bit of a cop out to rule yourself out on the basis of an impossible diktat instead of entering into the discussion which at the least has the advantage of being a bit different.
How can anyone not immediately involved in Madeleine's abduction conjure up the primary event? It is my opinion your negativity about Shining's posts is because she is hitting too close to the bone and has brought something to the equation that if not totally ignored has seldom been discussed in any depth.
Bit of a cop out to rule yourself out on the basis of an impossible diktat instead of entering into the discussion which at the least has the advantage of being a bit different.
How can anyone not immediately involved in Madeleine's abduction conjure up the primary event? It is my opinion your negativity about Shining's posts is because she is hitting too close to the bone and has brought something to the equation that if not totally ignored has seldom been discussed in any depth.'Primary event' is moveable goalposts. If primary event = when was it possible to start detailed planning on the T9, I have covered it. If primary event = when did such capability first arrive in Luz, I have covered it.
Bit of a cop out to rule yourself out on the basis of an impossible diktat instead of entering into the discussion which at the least has the advantage of being a bit different.
If you are making a postulation you must know the primary event in that postulation.Feel free not to discuss this idea.
If you don't like the term primary event then think of it as a start point or trigger. Given the postulation is the operation was a planned abduction then you have two options for the start point or trigger. Were it planned the job certainly didn't start in the middle now did it?
Your semi goading remarks notwithstanding I am not discussing fairy stories where the story teller does not even know where it begins.
Does anyone here remember if there is anything in PJ files about Malinka's car arson? I only have a Daily Mail article of March 21, 2008.
Many thanks.
My post on Praia da Luz yobs: http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-role.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-role.html)
Are yobs and petty burglars also child abductors then? Maybe some do multi-task but that's not a valid reason for suggesting that specific ones in a certain geographical location fit that profile, which is what some people seem to be trying to do imo.
I get upset by assumptions because so much harm is done by relying on them. People have been convicted and hanged for crimes because police assumed the actual perpetrator was a respectable middle-class person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christie_(murderer)#Mistakes_in_the_investigation
Feel free not to discuss this idea.
However, putting 'semi goading remarks' and 'fairy stories' in the same sentence is a bit rich, is it not?
For guests who may not know my position on the case, I have quite recently explained to members, in considerable detail, that a number of alternative solutions are possible, and pre-planned abduction is just one of these alternatives.
I have also made it clear that my understanding of the case is incomplete. By that, I mean I can get all the alternatives to add up to about 40%, when if I understood everything well, they should add up to around 100%.
I've got to say I am a bit surprised any of the senior posters are unaware of this.
But to put it in plain and simple English, this is just one alternative out of several, and I cannot prove it happened this way. I hope that is clear enough.
You need to start with the alternatives...parental involvement....abduction from apartment... woke and wanderedSorry, I read Darryl Huffs 'How to lie with statistics'. You appear to be adrift of early 1970s thoughts on simple maths. I had to apply the maths for 4 years. You?
those have to add up to 100 unless you can think of other alternatives
Sorry, I read Darryl Huffs 'How to lie with statistics'. You appear to be adrift of early 1970s thoughts on simple maths. I had to apply the maths for 4 years. You?
So Dave, what type of statistical model would be appropriate to this case ?I've just explained...don't you understand.....the sum of all possibilities is 1 or 100%...do you disagree
happy to discuss but your post doesn't make any sense...what does "I had to apply the maths for four years mean"I note that again, you seem to avoid the simplest of simplest of simple questions. I did applied maths for 4 years. You should be aware where applied maths is required. But it seems you don't.
this is quite simple maths...the sum of all possibilities has to add up to 1 or 100%.
Daryll Huffs book was written in 1954 and was an introduction to statistics for the general reader. Huff was a journalist not a statitician....is reading his book supposed to make you something of an expert..it doesn't
I've just explained...don't you understand.....the sum of all possibilities is 1 or 100%...do you disagree
I note that again, you seem to avoid the simplest of simplest of simple questions. I did applied maths for 4 years. You should be aware where applied maths is required. But it seems you don't.
Are you going to answer the question? How long did you study maths? I cannot make it easier.
Oh Dave, that's amazing.
I never knew that.
Wow. 8)--))
I note that again, you seem to avoid the simplest of simplest of simple questions. I did applied maths for 4 years. You should be aware where applied maths is required. But it seems you don't.
Are you going to answer the question? How long did you study maths? I cannot make it easier.
which means you reluctantly agree @)(++(*
Indeed Shining.
Dave has claimed that Maths is his specialised subject, up to the former 'S' level standard.
I may be mixing up Thomas Cook with Thompsons, and if that is the case, mea culpa. Just compare and contrast the two major tour operators at the time, and make up your own mind about what level of information appears on the MW arrivals list that does not appear on the other.
The reason as to why the individual might have been involved at this level of activity is documented in the files. Note I have stressed 'might', as I definitely cannot prove 'was'.
Said individual could determine where the T9 were to be accommodated, had access to the keys and is on file as saying the T9 would probably choose Tapas over Millennium, due to the distances involved.
Said individual had no control over 1) whether the T9 all had decent baby monitors 2) whether the T9 used the crèche or had a nanny sit in 3) whether the T9 took their children to the Tapas a la Stephen Carpenter 4) whether the T9 conducted checks every 5 minutes or not.
Point 4) is predictable and provides the major window of opportunity in both a botched burglary and a pre-planned abduction. While the T9 stated the checks were time driven (i.e. look at watch, 30mins has gone by, must go and check) nothing supports this and various statements suggest otherwise. The visits appear to be largely event driven. I can find no evidence whatsoever of any of the checkers looking at their watches, during either starters or mains, deciding the time had come for a check, and getting up and leaving the meal half-eaten to conduct a check.
Everything supports that when starters began to be served, the checkers stayed at the table until they had eaten, then did any check between starters and mains. Seeing starters come out would give a perpetrator a quite limited window of opportunity to act. I can't remember off hand if Gerry's check was before or after starters, because it is not particularly significant. At the time of Gerry's check, it was still too light to conduct a burglary/abduction/body disposal with any degree of safety.
That moves us to around 9.30, when it WAS dark enough to carry out the deed under the cover of darkness. Two checkers go, one stays behind re a sick child (also an event a burglar/abductor could not possibly control) and Matthew pops into 5A to do his check, which does not involve actually checking Madeleine.
Matthew returns to the table. We are now back into event-driven checking. Mains start to be served. As per usual, none of the checkers gets up with a meal half-eaten. One checker eats her meal hurriedly, then goes to take over from her partner, but no-one leaves until his/her mains have been consumed. This switch between one partner and another is out of pattern, but I don't see that as being important either.
A burglar or an abductor who had any inkling of the T9 routine should have been into 5A as soon as the mains started to be served. It is the longest, most predictable window of opportunity for that night. Neither burglary nor abduction requires more than one perpetrator.
That perpetrator does not have to be the person making the T9 arrangements. I have no evidence to support it was, or was not. It just has to be a perpetrator willing to take a risk. With the knowledge I have detailed that risk gets minimised, but of course it might have been lightning-strike random instead.
I have already pointed, as clearly as I am going to, to the small group of people with access to the knowledge, with access to the keys, and wit. h ability to control. I can only make it clearer by naming names, and I'm not prepared to do that, even if everything is covered in the files.
The event did not take place anywhere in the world, though. It took place in Luz. So why Luz? The options are that the event was totally random, therefore Luz was unlucky, and Madeleine was unlucky. Or Luz was in some way special. Whilst Madeleine was unlucky (random) or else fitted some criteria.
I have made it clear that there is insufficient evidence in the public domain to 'solve' the case.
That is blindingly obvious. If it could be solved with information in the public domain, OG would hardly have been necessary, let alone racked £12 million.
I have also made it clear there is more in the files to support the line I have proposed, down to named individuals, but as I cannot prove this theorem, to name such individuals would be libel.
These are all simple concepts. You appear to be unwilling to consult the files to get to the people who could make this happen. That is your choice.
But to state no one has given you a start point is both a factual error and nonsense.
1. I asked that about three days ago when the idea of a planned job was being bandied about.I can't give the why, other than narrowing it to two obvious alternatives.
2. I can identify the who but the sticking point is going to be the why.
I can't give the why, other than narrowing it to two obvious alternatives.
Paedophilia v replacement/surrogate child.
I do not have any evidence to be more precise.
I don't think Madeleine's disappearance was opportunistic I think it was planned.
She may have fitted the location or she might have fitted the template. I doubt all that trouble would have been gone to for paedophilia. Replacement/surrogate child has always been high on my list of what may have happened to Madeleine and is one of the reasons to hope she may still be alive.
Therefore not a botched burglary but a highly successful one which achieved its objective.
I don't know if there is anything about it in the files but I came across this while browsing ... the link no longer exists.
I may be mixing up Thomas Cook with Thompsons, and if that is the case, mea culpa. Just compare and contrast the two major tour operators at the time, and make up your own mind about what level of information appears on the MW arrivals list that does not appear on the other.
The reason as to why the individual might have been involved at this level of activity is documented in the files. Note I have stressed 'might', as I definitely cannot prove 'was'.
Said individual could determine where the T9 were to be accommodated, had access to the keys and is on file as saying the T9 would probably choose Tapas over Millennium, due to the distances involved.
Said individual had no control over 1) whether the T9 all had decent baby monitors 2) whether the T9 used the crèche or had a nanny sit in 3) whether the T9 took their children to the Tapas a la Stephen Carpenter 4) whether the T9 conducted checks every 5 minutes or not.
Point 4) is predictable and provides the major window of opportunity in both a botched burglary and a pre-planned abduction. While the T9 stated the checks were time driven (i.e. look at watch, 30mins has gone by, must go and check) nothing supports this and various statements suggest otherwise. The visits appear to be largely event driven. I can find no evidence whatsoever of any of the checkers looking at their watches, during either starters or mains, deciding the time had come for a check, and getting up and leaving the meal half-eaten to conduct a check.
Everything supports that when starters began to be served, the checkers stayed at the table until they had eaten, then did any check between starters and mains. Seeing starters come out would give a perpetrator a quite limited window of opportunity to act. I can't remember off hand if Gerry's check was before or after starters, because it is not particularly significant. At the time of Gerry's check, it was still too light to conduct a burglary/abduction/body disposal with any degree of safety.
That moves us to around 9.30, when it WAS dark enough to carry out the deed under the cover of darkness. Two checkers go, one stays behind re a sick child (also an event a burglar/abductor could not possibly control) and Matthew pops into 5A to do his check, which does not involve actually checking Madeleine.
Matthew returns to the table. We are now back into event-driven checking. Mains start to be served. As per usual, none of the checkers gets up with a meal half-eaten. One checker eats her meal hurriedly, then goes to take over from her partner, but no-one leaves until his/her mains have been consumed. This switch between one partner and another is out of pattern, but I don't see that as being important either.
A burglar or an abductor who had any inkling of the T9 routine should have been into 5A as soon as the mains started to be served. It is the longest, most predictable window of opportunity for that night. Neither burglary nor abduction requires more than one perpetrator.
That perpetrator does not have to be the person making the T9 arrangements. I have no evidence to support it was, or was not. It just has to be a perpetrator willing to take a risk. With the knowledge I have detailed that risk gets minimised, but of course it might have been lightning-strike random instead.
I have already pointed, as clearly as I am going to, to the small group of people with access to the knowledge, with access to the keys, and with ability to control. I can only make it clearer by naming names, and I'm not prepared to do that, even if everything is covered in the files.
If you can show that your daughter was in Luz 2007, you may be right.
Can you show that your daughter was in Luz in 2007?
I would guess the answer to this one is no, so why on Earth have you introduced your daughter into the mix?
You are saying that someone connected with booking the t9 in the the OC may have passed that information on to a perpetrator. That person is someone's son or daughter. As you have no evidence of anything, I am standing up for them against that slur.
You are saying that someone connected with booking the t9 in the the OC may have passed that information on to a perpetrator. That person is someone's son or daughter. As you have no evidence of anything, I am standing up for them against that slur.
You are saying that someone connected with booking the t9 in the the OC may have passed that information on to a perpetrator. That person is someone's son or daughter. As you have no evidence of anything, I am standing up for them against that slur.
SiL is corrrect, nobody is above suspicion. Someone in the know could very well have provided information about guests staying at the Ocean Club.
There are a little limited number of people who could do that. It could be seen as libel to suggest what you are suggesting.
It is a possibility...police have to look at all possibilities...every parent is under suspicion when a child disappears...that is not libellous
I can't give the why, other than narrowing it to two obvious alternatives.
Paedophilia v replacement/surrogate child.
I do not have any evidence to be more precise.
I tend to favour the woke and wandered, met with an accident and was lifted.
A parent is usually one of the last people in contact with the child. The police do not usually go in for fairy stories without some facts pointing to it.
You are familiar with "inside job"? It happens when employees use information gained in the course of their employment to commit a crime ... and it happens a lot.
Normally bank robberies
when was the last "inside job abduction" ?
Well it has been like pulling teeth but let's flesh that out a bit also in the light of Brietta's following post to yours.
1.Mrs and Mrs Plutocrat wanted to purchase a bootleg child to a particular spec. for whatever reason. ..... &%+((£
2.Mr Abductor wanted to abduct a child to play with or sell on......... &%+((£
You can play tunes with a and b versions of the same themes but essentially that's it.
Without one of those there is no prime mover for a planned abduction.
So from 1 and 2 Lay on Macduff.
How does it go from there and why? We will not be so ungentlemanly as to ask why the so and so Mr and Mrs Plutocrat want a bootleg child when the likes of Tom Cruise and Elton John find adoption no problem.
Exactly the same principle ... someone whose position working on the inside enables information to be passed to others enabling the crime ... whatever that crime may be ... to take place.
That stretches to providing information about the best time to grab someone's passport as in the Sun's 'botched' robbery theory.
Or planning a home invasion to grab something of more value. Exactly the same difference.
If a burglar opened the child's bedroom window and shutter from outside, and the child fled to the parents' bedroom, found they were out, and decided to hide in a wardrobe, which wardrobe would a child choose to hide in, left or right?
If such a thing did happen, Pegasus, I doubt very much if it would have been the shelved cupboard.Yes that is what I have just realised Brietta, a child would choose the wardrobe on the right, without shelves.
Well it has been like pulling teeth but let's flesh that out a bit also in the light of Brietta's following post to yours.You are now asking for sheer speculation, given that I have made it plain I have no evidence upstream of the point at which the MW system was dropped in situ.
1.Mrs and Mrs Plutocrat wanted to purchase a bootleg child to a particular spec. for whatever reason. ..... &%+((£
2.Mr Abductor wanted to abduct a child to play with or sell on......... &%+((£
You can play tunes with a and b versions of the same themes but essentially that's it.
Without one of those there is no prime mover for a planned abduction.
So from 1 and 2 Lay on Macduff.
How does it go from there and why? We will not be so ungentlemanly as to ask why the so and so Mr and Mrs Plutocrat want a bootleg child when the likes of Tom Cruise and Elton John find adoption no problem.
You are now asking for sheer speculation, given that I have made it plain I have no evidence upstream of the point at which the MW system was dropped in situ.
It is clear you have still not gone through the files to identify who had the capability, otherwise you would not be asking the questions you are asking.
You have not been able to show that the MW booking system was different to the Thomas Cook booking system. Until you can do that there's no reason to suppose it made a difference.I have had another look because I did all this months back and memory is a tricky beast.
I have identified at least 12 people who could access the computer systems.
I have identified at least 8 people who could access the apartment keys held by reception.
I have had another look because I did all this months back and memory is a tricky beast.
It is Thomas Cook, so at least I got that one right. Now try their web site. The TC split is 0-2, 2-18, 18+. There isn't info beyond that. Madeleine would have appeared as 2-18, with no indication she was 3.
Your list of 12 people who could access the IT sounds big to me, so I'm not sure in what sense you mean access. Various people worked from printed records, but otherwise had no access, and would not have known of the booking until 27 Apr or 28 Apr.
The ones who had early access (as soon as the booking was made) I put at 4 but then stopped counting.
However, who controlled allocation of the T9 to block 5? Allocating the T9 to a block or apartments near the Tapas area is what tilts in favour of use of the Tapas Restaurant, as opposed to the Millennium.
That element of control is what increases the possibility.
And I repeat again, whilst this information is in the files or on the net, I cannot prove it happened this way.
You are now asking for sheer speculation, given that I have made it plain I have no evidence upstream of the point at which the MW system was dropped in situ.
It is clear you have still not gone through the files to identify who had the capability, otherwise you would not be asking the questions you are asking.
I looked at the Thomas Cook website and the ages are less specific. Nevertheless ages and associated extras became known at some point because cots and high chairs were placed in the apartments in advance.Let's see if we can clarify a bit. Are you working under the assumption that reception staff at the Tapas and Millennium had computer access? Under such circumstances there was no need for them to get paper reports. ditto the cleaning supervisors. I'm seeing paper reports printed the evening before to control these activities. Therefore I am assuming the OC did not have a distributed network. I do not know if you are counting those in your 12, but I'm excluding them.
As far as I can ascertain all reception staff plus all bookings staff would have been able to access the computer systems. They performed check-in and check-out procedures, some of which would require knowledge of extras owing. I can see no reason why access to certain areas of the system would have been restricted.
I don't see the relevance of controlling where the group were housed. It was near the Tapas, so what? Unless it was known at the time of booking that children were going to be left home alone every evening?
They are all perfectly straightforward questions which need to be answered in the broad term if you wish your theory to stand up to scrutiny.May I ask you, politely, if you read and absorb what I say?
So take it from my earlier post where I said Lay on Macduff.
At present your main thrust seems to be that in your opinion I have not read the files therefore what would I know about anything (a gross assumption which may or may not be right but you have no way of knowing for sure so why say so). Coupled with the the whole kin schmeer being run from the middle by a couple of opportunistic people who had access to things you deem essential for a planned abduction.
As an exercise in logistics, which is what it is when boiled down, so far your theory is unconvincing.
Let's see if we can clarify a bit. Are you working under the assumption that reception staff at the Tapas and Millennium had computer access? Under such circumstances there was no need for them to get paper reports. ditto the cleaning supervisors. I'm seeing paper reports printed the evening before to control these activities. Therefore I am assuming the OC did not have a distributed network. I do not know if you are counting those in your 12, but I'm excluding them.
The only ones with a legitimate need to update the booking system are those making bookings, those producing control reports, and the IT bod. I can't remember if there was a bookkeeper, who might or might not have access to reservations.
As to why allocation is important. First, from memory, that was done the evening before. No one who had access could know the location in advance of that, with exception of those who would do the allocation.
Second, why is location important. I have yet to see any evidence of those guests located 100m plus from one of the two restaurants doing a listening check. The Carpenters in Fiji Palms took their children to Tapas, as did other guests. Others put their children in the crèche or hired nannies.
If the T9 had been 100m plus away as the crow flies, or out of eyesight, would they have used a listening scheme? Or would they have thought it too risky and picked any of the alternatives, including take-aways (Berry+Balu), crèche, nanny, take kids to restaurant.
Blocks 4 and 5 look visually safe, in the sense that the apartments being above the Tapas can be seen. I am not arguing how much the McCanns could see, merely that there is a false sense of security in being able to see the rear of one's apartment.
I don't think you get a decent view of block 6 from the Tapas restaurant, but I cannot be certain. And I know very little about the layout of the Millennium.
I don't know the working range of the Payne's baby monitor, but I suspect it to would fail at much over 100m, due to obstacles in the way.
Plonk the T9 wherever in the OC is farthest from those 2 restaurants and the T9 would have been forced to scrap the listening idea. The myth of the visit to Chaplins fails for that reason (and others).
It's not those who make the bookings or produce reports that have control. They have knowledge, but not control. It is those who determine the allocation of customers to locations that are important. They have control.
Let me repeat. I do not have proof of this happening that would stand up in a civil or criminal court. I am merely pointing out a major weakness in the OC system, that a major change in 2007 was the MW booking info, and that Madeleine's disappearance happened relatively shortly after this change.
Shining bears no responsibility for anything I may post, my opinions are my own.
The 'botched' burglary may be a theory only because other lines of inquiry were not pursued at the time ... or were pursued asking the wrong questions.
One of those lines was the bookings trail leading from Britain to the Ocean Club.
I agree with you Brietta
I think it more likely that known burglars were commissioned to carry out an abduction.
I think the whole abduction was planned to the finest detail before hand ... and to a certain extent probably practiced before hand.
And my thinking, at the moment, is that it is quite likely that Madeleine was chosen for a number of reasons:
Attractive
Vivacious
Personable
Intelligent
From a Good and loving family
But the most important criteria was that she was of the right bloodline
Most of us have theories and opinions. Some of us choose to keep them to ourselves. This is what this Forum is all about.
Sadie gave her opinion.
I gave mine.
She, as you will have noted , gives her opinion of other theories.
That is how it works.
Sadie gave her opinion.
I gave mine.
She, as you will have noted , gives her opinion of other theories.
That is how it works.
Good at calling others theories cobblers, yet has no theory of your own, oh, hang on, it's Amaral's theory isn't it? didn't need to think hard did you.
May I ask you, politely, if you read and absorb what I say?Reply: yes
If I could dot every i and cross every t, would I be putting this on the Internet?Reply: I do not know
When I say the total probability of all alternatives adds up to 40% rather than 100%, and the main deduction to be made from this is that my understanding is miles off being complete, is that unclear to you? Reply: the sum of the probabilities of all outcomes must be unity. If it isn't all outcomes have not been identified or analysed.
You are asking for speculation about 2 massive areas - paedophilia and child kidnap. I do not have to spout about these, and I choose not to spout about these.Reply: anyone postulating paedophilia or child kidnap is speculating anyway as the ruling document for the police says the nature of the crime if any is unknown. I am however asking for an explanation how this scenario works from beginning to end. Otherwise we are in the situation of you merely saying "because I say so".
The reason I am saying you do not seem to have read the files using the information I have supplied is simple. It gets you to names and potential motive. You have neither. Ergo you haven't gone back and looked.Reply: or from the documents we have both read we do not share the same conclusions. .
You have a penchant for getting things wrong.
There are two theories I hold with. 8)-)))
Not only is there no proof, there's no clear connections between the different parts.You seem to be working quite hard not to drink the water placed in front of you.
New MW booking system. May be significant, may not. Information on other existing systems is sparse, so we can't judge.
Access to bookings. Potentially all staff who worked in the main OC reception building; reception, bookings, and admin. people.
Allocations; I would be very surprised if they were made only the evening before arrivals. It's like a theatre allocating all the seats only on the day of the performance. I await a cite for the idea they were left so late.
Control. You seem to think allocation to Block 5 is significant, but it's only significant if the person making allocations could see some advantage in placing the group in this block rather than in another location. What do you suggest the 'controller's' purpose was?
You seem to be working quite hard not to drink the water placed in front of you.
I have stated repeatedly that I cannot get access to all of the information to 'prove' this, therefore you are going to have to make do with the pieces that ARE available.
New MW booking system that makes clear, for the very first time, that 8 children under 4, 7 of them girls, were in the same party. A TC booking system that did not do the same. If you wish to disregard this change, you need to show it was not significant e.g. the TC info would have showed Madeleine's age, which it wouldn't.
Access to bookings. Who would care? Let me see, the person making the booking. And the fixer, whether that is the booker or otherwise. There is no reason other staff would give a jot.
Allocations. I am working on what is in the statements and what I see on the print-outs. It is quite, quite different to a theatre allocating tickets. In that scenario, the theatre customer tells the price he wants to pay, the theatre checks seats available, and issues a ticket. End of story. Ditto other scenarios like air flights.
The OC working is quite different. The OC has a stock of properties, each with facilities that vary e.g. there are T1s, T2s, T3s and I vaguely remember a T8 (or did I get that wrong - that sounds too big). It is not single seats being sold to individuals. It is grouped capability, where the apartments have different properties. It would not have been possible to squeeze the Payne group into a T1 if the OC had run out of T2s.
From memory, Textusa has used the files to come up with an occupancy rate of roughly 50%. The actual figure is not important - there was a lot of spare capacity.
A booker therefore had a simple task, particularly with the T9. Check there were plenty of T2s available (did any of the group have a T1) and job done.
The allocator had a somewhat harder task - to try to make the allocations fit the requests. This seems to have been 3 step.
First, allocate properties to owner's making owner requests, which is another likely reason allocation was done late in the day. Imagine telling an owner he could not have his property because it had been allocated to a 3rd party some time before.
Second, try to cater for parties wishing to be co-located. Not a big issue at 50% occupancy.
Third, try to take into account the many other requests, such as ground floor, sea view and the such like. From memory, Balu requested ground floor and got it, Berry requested ground floor and did not get it. Payne requested ground floor for all and the other 3 families got it while he did not.
Why is allocation to block 5 important? From where did Madeleine disappear? Would she have disappeared if the McCanns were allocated an apartment in Rua do Pouço, which is too far away when dining to leave the children?
IF things happened that way, and I stress again it is a very big IF, it is simply a case of incorporating a knowledge of the OC into a well-constructed plan.
After all, whatever happened . the McCanns, a botched burglary, an abduction - whoever did it has been successful in getting away with it for the last 9 years.
I don't know if this will turn out correctly, but to explain, the original points made are mine, while the replies are Alice's. Here goes.
May I ask you, politely, if you read and absorb what I say? Reply: yes
If I could dot every i and cross every t, would I be putting this on the Internet? Reply: I do not know
When I say the total probability of all alternatives adds up to 40% rather than 100%, and the main deduction to be made from this is that my understanding is miles off being complete, is that unclear to you? Reply: the sum of the probabilities of all outcomes must be unity. If it isn't all outcomes have not been identified or analysed.
You are asking for speculation about 2 massive areas - paedophilia and child kidnap. I do not have to spout about these, and I choose not to spout about these. Reply: anyone postulating paedophilia or child kidnap is speculating anyway as the ruling document for the police says the nature of the crime if any is unknown. I am however asking for an explanation how this scenario works from beginning to end. Otherwise we are in the situation of you merely saying "because I say so".
The reason I am saying you do not seem to have read the files using the information I have supplied is simple. It gets you to names and potential motive. You have neither. Ergo you haven't gone back and looked. Reply: or from the documents we have both read we do not share the same conclusions. .
I don't know if this will turn out correctly, but to explain, the original points made are mine, while the replies are Alice's. Here goes.
I write. You read and absorb. Accepted! Thank you!
You don't know if I had a bullet-proof theorem, I would post in on the Internet? That surprises me. I thought I had enough of a track record by now, whatever. You don't know. Fine.
I'm at 40%. "Reply: the sum of the probabilities of all outcomes must be unity. If it isn't all outcomes have not been identified or analysed." I have been saying this for 2 months now. I said it again in the post you quoted.
Last bit about going back and reading the files again. I have simple and clear reasons why I think you have not Your response was "Reply: or from the documents we have both read we do not share the same conclusions."
I note, nothing about rereading the files, and an either/or about whether we share the same conclusions. Hard to agre or disagree with something as vague as that.
You seem to be working quite hard not to drink the water placed in front of you.
I have stated repeatedly that I cannot get access to all of the information to 'prove' this, therefore you are going to have to make do with the pieces that ARE available.
New MW booking system that makes clear, for the very first time, that 8 children under 4, 7 of them girls, were in the same party. A TC booking system that did not do the same. If you wish to disregard this change, you need to show it was not significant e.g. the TC info would have showed Madeleine's age, which it wouldn't.
Access to bookings. Who would care? Let me see, the person making the booking. And the fixer, whether that is the booker or otherwise. There is no reason other staff would give a jot.
Allocations. I am working on what is in the statements and what I see on the print-outs. It is quite, quite different to a theatre allocating tickets. In that scenario, the theatre customer tells the price he wants to pay, the theatre checks seats available, and issues a ticket. End of story. Ditto other scenarios like air flights.
The OC working is quite different. The OC has a stock of properties, each with facilities that vary e.g. there are T1s, T2s, T3s and I vaguely remember a T8 (or did I get that wrong - that sounds too big). It is not single seats being sold to individuals. It is grouped capability, where the apartments have different properties. It would not have been possible to squeeze the Payne group into a T1 if the OC had run out of T2s.
From memory, Textusa has used the files to come up with an occupancy rate of roughly 50%. The actual figure is not important - there was a lot of spare capacity.
A booker therefore had a simple task, particularly with the T9. Check there were plenty of T2s available (did any of the group have a T1) and job done.
The allocator had a somewhat harder task - to try to make the allocations fit the requests. This seems to have been 3 step.
First, allocate properties to owner's making owner requests, which is another likely reason allocation was done late in the day. Imagine telling an owner he could not have his property because it had been allocated to a 3rd party some time before.
Second, try to cater for parties wishing to be co-located. Not a big issue at 50% occupancy.
Third, try to take into account the many other requests, such as ground floor, sea view and the such like. From memory, Balu requested ground floor and got it, Berry requested ground floor and did not get it. Payne requested ground floor for all and the other 3 families got it while he did not.
Why is allocation to block 5 important? From where did Madeleine disappear? Would she have disappeared if the McCanns were allocated an apartment in Rua do Pouço, which is too far away when dining to leave the children?
IF things happened that way, and I stress again it is a very big IF, it is simply a case of incorporating a knowledge of the OC into a well-constructed plan.
After all, whatever happened . the McCanns, a botched burglary, an abduction - whoever did it has been successful in getting away with it for the last 9 years.
If you haven't identified all outcomes you cannot calculate probability
Your maths is totally skewed
I have a bag of numbered balls ... What is the probability of drawing number 23
Without knowing the total number of balls you cannot calculate the probability
If you haven't identified all outcomes you cannot calculate probabilityWhat?
Your maths is totally skewed
I have a bag of numbered lls?balls ... What is the probability of drawing number 23
Without knowing the total number of balls you cannot calculate the probability
Without pretending that I am a maths guru, which I am not - isn't that what Bayesian theory tries to deal with...
On the contrary, you seem to be working very hard to defend a theory which is not supported by what we know. No-one has to 'make do' with lack of evidence, it's the one suggesting a theory who needs to find something to underpin it, not those being asked to believe it.OK, lets try it step by step.
Your first post on the subject mentioned weak security (keys) Advance information (booking system) and control (allocating accommodation). You suggested one person in particular had knowledge of and access to all three.
Many more than one person could have had the knowledge and access, so the 'one person' assertion falls down.
It isn't possible to know if the MW system made a difference because we haven't seen booking information from other operators, so advance information could apply to all bookings.
Without a motive for allocating clients to a certain block, the 'control' serves what purpose?
What?You have discussed probability...or have you forgotten
Am I supposed to care about your bag of numbered balls? Or is this forum about the Madeleine McCann case?
OK, lets try it step by step.
Cruciform keys. According to Heri, he nipped into the Luz high street key cutter and asked how much it was to get a copy made, the answer was €6.50. According to me, the cost of a machine to cut cruciform keys in 2007 was ... €300.
Do you consider that cruciform keys, which are as common as Yale keys in the UK, and which can be duplicated for €6.50, within Luz, are secure?
OK, lets try it step by step.
Cruciform keys. According to Heri, he nipped into the Luz high street key cutter and asked how much it was to get a copy made, the answer was €6.50. According to me, the cost of a machine to cut cruciform keys in 2007 was ... €300.
Do you consider that cruciform keys, which are as common as Yale keys in the UK, and which can be duplicated for €6.50, within Luz, are secure?
It doesn't matter how much it costs to have a key cut. The system of key control within OC is what matters.
no '''if this was a fiancially motivated abduction...as still suggests,33%..... it's important to look at all the financial outlay involved to check viability
no '''if this was a fiancially motivated abduction...as still suggests,33%..... it's important to look at all the financial outlay involved to check viability
By inspection it can see the cost of producing keys even buying your own key cutter will be chicken feed in comparison to the whole job.
I would rather wait for the breakdown on the running costs before making any decision
Just how much power do you think a key cutter consumes?
Your comment demonstrates just how little you know about such things.
It doesn't matter how much it costs to have a key cut. The system of key control within OC is what matters.True.
I think you will find electricity is realtively cheap in portugal... I suggest you check your facts thoroughly before posting in future...anyone who is not familiar with the relative price structure of energy in the EU is poorly educated...imo...LOL
True.
So around 2012/13 we have evidence that the local ironmonger could cut keys easily.
Plus the cleaners could go off site at lunchtime, without handing keys back in.
Is there a jot of evidence that key control in the OC was secure?
Cos there is a bucketload it wasn't.
I don't suppose there was anything to stop a cleaner or maintenance worker from nipping into the ironmongers to get a key cut. They would need to be approached; 'Psst! get me a key cut will you?' 'Which key?' 'G5A' 'What for?' 'My boss wants one of the kids/ I want to break in and steal their goods/ any other excuse that suits' 'Get lost, it's more than my job's worth and I'm going to tell'. Risky.Heri did it without having a key to be cut.
Receptionists, booking and office staff had probably got access to keys, but less of an excuse to take them off the office premises. If they were needed and they weren't there was the risk for these people. The higher up the food chain the less likely to be challenged, but often longer service with the company so more to lose.
Heri did it without having a key to be cut.
How many cleaners do you know that are easily persuaded to take part in a crime, Id thnk cleaners were the last kind of people to approach, 40 50 60 yr omld women just making a few euros for their familieis, hardly the nub of sin city
Agreed ridiculous and no evidence to support any of it except for my theory of course which fits with everything that happened. I've got no doubts. Everything has been investigated except the last one. There's only one!
Smithman is definitely being avoided it seems
He is avoided at all costs but has to be the last lead. There's no other credible one in this case.
Many are being manufactured though as we speak, i mean how many suspects can you have, or rather is there anyone who is not a suspect, it does get a tad ridiculous at the very least after a while when y have a prime suspect and no one is tryng figure out who it is, and totally ignored more or less by the mccanns too!!! bizarre
Ok , thats me, bye for now
How many cleaners do you know that are easily persuaded to take part in a crime, Id thnk cleaners were the last kind of people to approach, 40 50 60 yr omld women just making a few euros for their familieis, hardly the nub of sin city
So?
I will put it another way.
What size kin motor in kilotwots do you think a key cutter has ?
Then work out the power it consumes in cutting a key which will be less than the motors plated power then use any countries price per kWh and you will find the energy to cut a key is practically FA.
So in the real world what would happen would be the sum of about 500 euros would be bunged in as lump sum to do the key cutting bit including buying the machine, a few blanks and power costs. Quite why you would want to buy your own key cutter is a bit beyond me. Some one who buys a key cutter will be remembered whereas someone having a key cut in the PT version of Timsons will be virtually unnoticed. But hey don't let little things like reality get in the way of a good conspiracy.
A cleaner need not even be aware. Keys can be nicked, copied and put back in a handbag or jacket pocket and the cleaner would never notice a thing.
There is also the potential issue of guests leaving a key under a doormat for fellow guests.
Are you suggesting that someone followed Maria Julia Serafim da Silva around waiting for an opportunity to dive into her pocket/handbag, find and take the keys to G5A, trot off and get a key cut, came back, find the cleaner again and put the originals back without her noticing? Please!
There is no record of the McCanns leaving their keys under any doormat.
I do have knowledge in this area having purchased my own key cutting machine for personal use some yeras ago...so I am speaking from experience
Now the sun is actually mentioning the unnamed Met Officers who donated to Amaral's fund.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7150021/Web-trolls-raise-50000-for-Portuguese-cop-who-wrote-book-claiming-Kate-and-Gerry-killed-Madeleine-McCann-And-even-Brit-police-donated.html
Heri did it without having a key to be cut.
Did what?
No one seems to have asked where the cleaner had lunch. Keys left in a jacket on a hook in a café over lunch would be easy. In any case, everybody and their brother apparently knew the access code to the key box, so keys could have been nicked any time.
I don't know whether the McCanns left the key under a mat, but I would have thought it would have been mentioned somewhere if they had. We don't know whether previous occupants did or not.
You think searching someone's pockets in a cafe for the precise key you need would be easy? I suggest you try it yourself as an empirical test. Good luck! Supposing you managed that, you'd be in a mess on your return to replace them if she'd gone back to work.
Do you have a cite for everyone and their brother knowing this code? Where was this particular key box? Could passing strangers get to it or are you suggesting that OC employees nicked keys? Why did no-one mention it if the keys to G5A had gone missing recently?
You think searching someone's pockets in a cafe for the precise key you need would be easy? I suggest you try it yourself as an empirical test. Good luck! Supposing you managed that, you'd be in a mess on your return to replace them if she'd gone back to work.
Do you have a cite for everyone and their brother knowing this code? Where was this particular key box? Could passing strangers get to it or are you suggesting that OC employees nicked keys? Why did no-one mention it if the keys to G5A had gone missing recently?
Managed to open the window & shutter, but I don't recall him actually squirming his way in or out again.
Managed to open the window & shutter, but I don't recall him actually squirming his way in or out again.
Keys did go missing. You would know this if you had read The Files.
G you surprise me I thought you were smarter. Have you not tried that ole trick: a fishing line with a magnet huh tsk!
So, lets just run this again. The cleaner, the thief and the child stealer: do we have three people? two people? were they all in on it?
When did they plan this? day before? two days before? the day the families arrived telling the receptionist they would be leaving their children alone every night?
Keys did go missing. You would know this if you had read The Files.
*&*%£
Could you provide a cite please?
Were these specifically the keys to 5A , or just keys in general ?
It's in The Files. Big, big thingy. He mislaid his keys and they all covered it up so he wouldn't lose his job.
How many cleaners do you know that are easily persuaded to take part in a crime, Id thnk cleaners were the last kind of people to approach, 40 50 60 yr omld women just making a few euros for their familieis, hardly the nub of sin cityThat isn't the point. Security wrt keys was weak.
Lots of keys.
There is also the potential issue of guests leaving a key under a doormat for fellow guests.At 5H during the daytime the key was left under the doormat.
Smithman is definitely being avoided it seemsA burglary interrupted before entry, with the burglar taking nothing, would not necessarily rule out smithman.
Did what?Established that in one of his visits here, one could get a cruciform key cut in Luz, perhaps one or two hundred metres from OC reception for €6.50.
Established that in one of his visits here, one could get a cruciform key cut in Luz, perhaps one or two hundred metres from OC reception for €6.50.
Thus, OC key security = weak.
I'm losing the plot completely here. Shining has a theory that a pre-planned abduction may have taken place. She suggested three components to her theory.While this particular theory is not botched burglary, the two overlap considerably.
1. Weak security as in keys, hence the discussion about who would be able to have a set cut.
2. The MW booking system offering details about children's ages which weren't shown on other booking systems. Hence the discussion about who could see the details and whether the system was actually significantly different.
3. Control over allocation of apartments. I haven't as yet been able to discover the advantage of having this control.
I think perhaps a new thread to discuss Shining's theory may be needed, as it's not a botched burglary.
One presumes he nicked a key and had a copy made ?No, he asked how much it was to get a copy of cruciform key made. The answer is still €6.50.
No, he asked how much it was to get a copy of cruciform key made. The answer is still €6.50.
So establishing that one can have a common format key cut for six and half Euros 100 odd metres down the road proves O.C key security is weak?Electronic lock with keycard plus a change every time there was a new visitor.
I don't follow.
That test would appear not to stand up.
Electronic lock with keycard plus a change every time there was a new visitor.
Physical keys unchanged for ?? years and copy-able for loose change.
Not rocket science.
As a sensible, workable believable theory I give this 2 out of 10. Far too many ifs and buts and no answers to the obvious questions. It's very badly thought out and needs a lot more work in my opinion.Do you have a 3 out of 10?
Do you expect people to read the entire files to check that what you're saying is correct? Please provide a cite confirming your assertion.
Eleanor is right. It is common knowledge to anyone who has followed the case.
So some dozy git lost a bunch of keys?
That isn't the point. Security wrt keys was weak.
As is so happens, security wrt to closed but unlocked windows was not too hot either. Combine knowing the shutter could be opened from outside with knowing the window was unlocked, and you have the possibility of a burglary and more.
I presume OG was talking to John Hill about something, and I don't think that something was Smithman.
What would your questions be to put to Mr Hill? How about - how many burglaries in the OC - and in how many was there no evidence of forced entry?
Eleanor is right. It is common knowledge to anyone who has followed the case.
Actually, it's not in the files, Sadie. The alleged loss of the keys to block 5 only came to light following an investigation by the Daily Express, as reported in Feb 2014.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
So not even a fact then, just a newspaper article.
One presumes he nicked a key and had a copy made ?
I don't believe the keys were lost, no - but I do wonder why somebody felt the need to make people think that they were.
That isn't the point. Security wrt keys was weak.
As is so happens, security wrt to closed but unlocked windows was not too hot either. Combine knowing the shutter could be opened from outside with knowing the window was unlocked, and you have the possibility of a burglary and more.
I presume OG was talking to John Hill about something, and I don't think that something was Smithman.
What would your questions be to put to Mr Hill? How about - how many burglaries in the OC - and in how many was there no evidence of forced entry?
Reduce blame.
I don't believe the keys were lost, no - but I do wonder why somebody felt the need to make people think that they were.
I think that they were lost, stolen or borrowed, because I am convinced that entry to 5A was via the isolated and very very dark front door. A door which was recessed... in a 'black hole' ... and a place that was not overlooked from anywhere ... and that no-one passed.
No damage to that door so a key must have been used.
I remember when trying to buy a flat in St Johns Wood, the estate agent used a credit card to overcome the lock. It worked on one flat but another flat had a Banham high security lock and it wouldn't open that.
On one forum that I was on, someone said that type of lock that was on 5A could not be overcome by a credit card or any other device.
But then someone else came on (from PT with a similar type lock) and assured us that there was a way that the 5A type of lock could be overcome.
So take your pick !
(snip) I have asked this before - where, exactly, is the laundry/maintenance room where those keys were kept?The laundry is in the same building as the Tapas restaurant/bar Misty, underneath it.
Actually, it's not in the files, Sadie. The alleged loss of the keys to block 5 only came to light following an investigation by the Daily Express, as reported in Feb 2014.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
thanks, that should stop people posting untrue factsWhere has anyone posted untrue facts about this point?
Where has anyone posted untrue facts about this point?
Please elaborate.
Where has anyone posted untrue facts about this point?
Please elaborate.
The laundry is in the same building as the Tapas restaurant/bar Misty, underneath it.
(snip) On one forum that I was on, someone said that type of lock that was on 5A could not be overcome by a credit card or any other device.If only we had a video of someone trying to open 5A door with a plastic card.
But then someone else came on (from PT with a similar type lock) and assured us that there was a way that the 5A type of lock could be overcome. (snip)
HelloNobody said that the loss of the keys was on the files.
Somene said the loss of a bunch of keys was in the files, misty said it wasnt
Unless you or others have a link to the files where its shown, then mistys post stands as the true fact and the other one doesnt, one has got be true, whch is it?
The laundry is in the same building as the Tapas restaurant/bar Misty, underneath it.
Nobody said that the loss of the keys was on the files.
I said that it was common knowledge that the keys were lost ... no mention of being in the fikles
Misty, was Not correcting anyone ... just adding knowledge that the info didn't come from the files
Electronic lock with keycard plus a change every time there was a new visitor.
Physical keys unchanged for ?? years and copy-able for loose change.
Not rocket science.
Someone said what was shown to be incorrect "is common knowledge to anyone who has followed the case"
Yes they did
Re: The Sun claims Madeleine McCann was kidnapped during a botched burglary.
« Reply #1017 on: Today at 12:57:41 PM »
Quote
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 12:49:09 PM
*&*%£
Could you provide a cite please?
ELeanor:
It's in The Files Big, big thingy. He mislaid his keys and they all covered it up so he wouldn't lose his job.
And yes, Misty did correct somene, YOU and Eleanor
Quote from: misty on May 14, 2016, 10:27:42 PM
Actually, it's not in the files, Sadie. The alleged loss of the keys to block 5 only came to light following an investigation by the Daily Express, as reported in Feb 2014.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/458798/Apartment-key-theft-cover-up-by-resort-staff-in-Madeleine-McCann-case
I NEVER said that it WAS IN THE FILES
Misty did NOT correct me, she added info
Please get your facts right .
It is also 'common knowledge' that the retired worker who spoke anonymously to the Express also told his supervisor that he had seen someone acting suspiciously around the resort the day before Madeleine disappeared. The supervisor assumed this had been communicated to the PJ as he had already been interviewed.
A quick check of his statements ... he made two ... confirms that he did not communicate that information to the PJ ... in fact he stated the opposite.
His second statement concerned a phone call made by him on the third.
My old grannies recipe for jugged hare started with "first catch your hare".
How is the key removed and taken for copying ?
Your thrust seems to be "inside job". In that case tell how an easily programmable electronic keycard is more secure?
I have some nice magic mushrooms in the woods near me shall I send you some?
It is also 'common knowledge' that the retired worker who spoke anonymously to the Express also told his supervisor that he had seen someone acting suspiciously around the resort the day before Madeleine disappeared. The supervisor assumed this had been communicated to the PJ as he had already been interviewed.Yes B da Silva did communicate his sighting to police. See his statement "in informal conversation with the inspectors of this police force (DIC Portimao), he reported a situation, which at the time seemed abnormal". The details of his sighting are in a different part of the files. And BTW he saw stairwellman at about 6pm on Thu 3rd.
A quick check of his statements ... he made two ... confirms that he did not communicate that information to the PJ ... in fact he stated the opposite.
His second statement concerned a phone call made by him on the third.
Yes B da Silva did communicate his sighting to police. See his statement "in informal conversation with the inspectors of this police force (DIC Portimao), he reported a situation, which at the time seemed abnormal". The details of his sighting are in a different part of the files. And BTW he saw stairwellman at about 6pm on Thu 3rd.
Yes B da Silva did communicate his sighting to police. See his statement "in informal conversation with the inspectors of this police force (DIC Portimao), he reported a situation, which at the time seemed abnormal". The details of his sighting are in a different part of the files. And BTW he saw stairwellman at about 6pm on Thu 3rd.
Do you expect people to read the entire files to check that what you're saying is correct? Please provide a cite confirming your assertion.Unless I am mistaken, this story is in the media, but not in the files.
My old grannies recipe for jugged hare started with "first catch your hare".I will pass on your nice magic mushrooms. I have never indulged and I don't intend to start now.
How is the key removed and taken for copying ?
Your thrust seems to be "inside job". In that case tell how an easily programmable electronic keycard is more secure?
I have some nice magic mushrooms in the woods near me shall I send you some?
Is it a crime to be in a stairwell?Of course it is not
Eleanor is right. It is common knowledge to anyone who has followed the case.
http://youtu.be/qdMoUFnnYfc?t=43m38s
Opening 5A door with plastic card is prevented by design of doorframe (43m41).
Even if it was possible to get card in, it would be prevented by protruding screw (44m25).
I will pass on your nice magic mushrooms. I have never indulged and I don't intend to start now.
I am curious, however, as to their impact on brain function, for the following reason.
Mechanical key. Access by multiple staff. Key cutter within 100m. €6.50 per copy. Weak control over key retention.
Q1 What in this issue do you not understand? Reply: I don't understand why you have failed to work out that most security is to deter the average Joe. If someone wants to get in ie the "professional" they will.
Q2 Is this, or is this not, weak security re keys? Reply: security of key depends on who has access. Once it is handed over to a third party security gorn as you might say. If one is running a business letting out rooms it is very hard not to hand the key, whatever sort of, to a third party. Particularly if one has designs on staying in that particular business.
Q3 Are you going to tell us what your 3 out of 10 theory is?Reply:I do not understand the question. What is the the two out of ten theory and by whom was it identified/specified as such
4 How does one tell if a mushroom is magic? Reply:Fairies become pregnant when sitting on them in areas where they cannot find toadstools
Q5 How does one tell if a magic mushroom is 'nice'? Reply: Their manners give it away
Q6 Do magic mushrooms and jugged hare go together? I am trying to get some distinctive recipes together. I think I can manage the hare. Not sure what the Portuguese is for magic mushroom, though. Reply: Oh yes rather. The hare is fleet of foot and the mushrooms hallucinogenic ; amazing flights of fancy can stem from a jugged hare served in a soup of magic mushrooms.
I've never understood what "screw" this may have been. I eventually found the model in question and there doesn't appear to be anything protruding. (snip)Photo 1: The doorframe prevents inserting a plastic card far enough to open the latch.
There is absolutely no evidence that the wooden door was opened by a stranger.
On the other hand there is very clear evidence that the window and shutter were opened by a stranger.
The evidence is: The witness who discovered the scene states clearly that the window and shutter were open.
The case should be completely solve-able starting with the evidence: that a stranger opened the window and shutter from outside but then immediately got disturbed and did not enter.
So why didn't he try moving the card up a bit to avoid the screw?Yes you are right, moving the card up a bit would get past the screw. However the screw is an absolutely hypothetical issue with no relevance, because Simas's main point is that the doorframe does not permit a plastic card to be inserted as far as the screw or latch. Before he knocks, you can see him trying to insert the plastic card, and it won't even go around the bend, therefore it's impossible to open that door with a plastic card.
We don't know whether it was opened from the outside or the inside, though. It possibly was, but there is no firm evidence.
You assume it was opened before 10 pm.Yes there is clear evidence it was opened before 10 Steve - a witness gives evidence that she discovered it already open.
b....r all evidence of that.
We don't
I will pass on your nice magic mushrooms. I have never indulged and I don't intend to start now.
I am curious, however, as to their impact on brain function, for the following reason.
Mechanical key. Access by multiple staff. Key cutter within 100m. €6.50 per copy. Weak control over key retention.
Q1 What in this issue do you not understand?
Q2 Is this, or is this not, weak security re keys?
Q3 Are you going to tell us what your 3 out of 10 theory is?
Q4 How does one tell if a mushroom is magic?
Q5 How does one tell if a magic mushroom is 'nice'?
Q6 Do magic mushrooms and jugged hare go together? I am trying to get some distinctive recipes together. I think I can manage the hare. Not sure what the Portuguese is for magic mushroom, though.
Yes there is clear evidence it was opened before 10 Steve - a witness gives evidence that she discovered it already open.
And there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that she opened the window.
BTW the supposed fingerprint, in a position which indicates she opened it, simply does not exist
Prints on glass are consistent with leaning on the already open window. Not with opening it.
Think back, when was the last time you opened a window touching only the glass?
Who did before 10 pm ?KM gave evidence that the window and shutter were opened before 10pm.
Never seen that.
(snip)
KM gave evidence that the window and shutter were opened before 10pm.
There is no evidence (unless you can post any?) to indicate she is lying.
The first part of the case (child missing from that room) is entirely solve-able on the basis that KM is telling the truth.
I am not interested in what she said.
Where is the independent verification the window was open before 10 pm ?
No comments on opening windows Pegasus ?
There is none. What she said may be true or false and we have no way of knowing which it is.
You can press the glass after lifting the catch.Look at a photo of the window handle and its two buttons.
I see that happening regularly.
KM gave evidence that the window and shutter were opened before 10pm.
There is no evidence (unless you can post any?) to indicate she is lying.
The first part of the case (child missing from that room) is entirely solve-able on the basis that KM is telling the truth.
The only evidence found on the window was hers.Pathfinder unless you can give an exact step-by-step description of how you would open that window from inside, leaving 5 prints all on the glass, then you are not qualified to accuse KM of doing what you can't.
Pathfinder unless you can give an exact step-by-step description of how you would open that window from inside, leaving 5 prints all on the glass, then you are not qualified to accuse KM of doing what you can't.
Unfortunately for Kate there is no independent corroboration that the window was found open. It might have been open, it might not. Even if it was found open that in itself does not support the abduction theory.
(snip) Even if it was found open that in itself does not support the abduction theory.Agreed 100% John.
Pathfinder unless you can give an exact step-by-step description of how you would open that window from inside, leaving 5 prints all on the glass, then you are not qualified to accuse KM of doing what you can't.
I don't see that any prints on the inside of the window need be contemporary with it being opened. They might have been made days earlier.A good general point, however this was almost certainly the first time this witness touched the window, therefore her prints on the glass were made when she leaned to look out of the already open window at about 10pm on the 3rd.
A good general point, however this was almost certainly the first time this witness touched the window, therefore her prints on the glass were made when she leaned to look out of the already open window at about 10pm on the 3rd.
How people can possibly claim the 5 prints on glass indicate she opened the window is a mystery to me. If she'd opened the window she would have used the handle, not the glass - it's just common sense.
A good general point, however this was almost certainly the first time this witness touched the window, therefore her prints on the glass were made when she leaned to look out of the already open window at about 10pm on the 3rd.
How people can possibly claim the 5 prints on glass indicate she opened the window is a mystery to me. If she'd opened the window she would have used the handle, not the glass - it's just common sense.
Evidence Peggy. Don't criminals wear gloves in Portugal?Yes burglars do wear gloves.
Look at a photo of the window handle and its two buttons.
Imagine you are inside the bedroom and want open the window - how would you do it?
Leaving 5 identifiable prints on the glass and none anywhere else.
If you can't do that, then it's unfair to claim that KM did.
KM clearly stated that she found the window and shutter already open.
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate she is lying - if there is please post it.
If you're claiming there is a fingerprint indicating she opened the window, please post a photo or file reference of it.
Unless you can post some actual evidence that the witness is lying, the reasonable presumption must surely be that she is telling the truth.
The only place a witness is judged is in court.
Otherwise it is opinion.
Try to comprehend Pegasus, many oeople do not believe kaye mccanns version of events.
What do you base that on - another uncorroborated statement?It's based on KM statements Jassi.
It's based on KM statements Jassi.
If you start out assuming this witness is not truthful, and if you are wrong, you guarantee you will not solve the case, because by rejecting everything that the most important witness (apart from the missing child) states, you would lose a large part of the accurate information needed to solve the case.
It's based on KM statements Jassi.#
If you start out assuming this witness is not truthful, and if you are wrong, you guarantee you will not solve the case, because by rejecting everything that the most important witness (apart from the missing child) states, you would lose a large part of the accurate information needed to solve the case.
#I find this witness to be truthful Davel. For example without this witness we would never have known about the extent of involvement of MB GB TB and DM, and never known about the ACC, and there are many many more examples. An honest and valuable source IMO. To dismiss this witness's testimony would guarantee the non-solving of the case IMO.
you are absolutely right and i have said this many times. SY have to make a decision ..is Kate telling the truth...and if she is then abduction is odds on...as SY seem to believe
The only evidence for a burglary attempt is the open shutter and window.
Think about it - if you claim that KM opened the window, you are really completely ruling out a burglary attempt.
A good general point, however this was almost certainly the first time this witness touched the window, therefore her prints on the glass were made when she leaned to look out of the already open window at about 10pm on the 3rd.
How people can possibly claim the 5 prints on glass indicate she opened the window is a mystery to me. If she'd opened the window she would have used the handle, not the glass - it's just common sense.
@Jassi If KM is truthful aout finding the window and shutter already open, that indicates there was a burglary attempt, which would directly explain the child exiting the room - to get away from the danger by pulling the bedroom door open and running through to another room.
If you claim that KM opened the window, then there would be no evidence of any burglary attempt, so my simple explanation of why and how the child left that bedroom would be impossible rubbish.
So it would need replacing with an alternative theory. Why, and exactly how, do you propose the child left that bedroom? On foot? Carried? Awake? Not awake?
It's based on KM statements Jassi.
If you start out assuming this witness is not truthful, and if you are wrong, you guarantee you will not solve the case, because by rejecting everything that the most important witness (apart from the missing child) states, you would lose a large part of the accurate information needed to solve the case.
There is insufficient data available in the public domain to come to a definitive conclusion.By assuming that KM is telling the truth about finding the window and shutter open
By assuming that KM is telling the truth about finding the window and shutter open
- the first room of the case can be solved
If only we had a video of someone trying to open 5A door with a plastic card.
Oh wait a minute - found one Sadie. http://youtu.be/qdMoUFnnYfc?t=43m38s
Surely you have to make other assumptions as well, such as Madeleine being capable of moving, ... (snip)IMO it is reasonable to make the assumption the child was capable of moving. There was no cage around the bed was there? Also I seem to be the only person to credit her with the intelligence to move away from danger. If someone outside opened my bedroom window in the middle of the night when I was 3, I certainly would have moved, fast, into another room.
Surely you have to make other assumptions as well, such as ... (snip) ... being there in the first place.IMO the child was certainly in the child bedroom at about 7.15pm. Weren't there two witnesses to that? Two-witness sightings tend to be very reliable.
Thanks Pegasus
Key to 5A
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4WzaXOhhQQk/T27yQhGHRKI/AAAAAAAACm4/IXwS8Atj1hg/s1600/1105_maddie2_05.jpg
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4WzaXOhhQQk/T27yQhGHRKI/AAAAAAAACm4/IXwS8Atj1hg/s1600/1105_maddie2_05.jpg)
With that funny key, turning the tumblers at different times, I never really thought that a credit card was used ... but then again, perhaps on some less recessed doors it might have worked. Dunno
Seems to me that with that funny key the tumblers would move at different stages of the keys rotation .... surely that would make it more difficult for credit card opening. But I am not a locksmith so I could be wrong on that thought.
Incedently, a copy of the key could very easily be made by casting it in a home made mold (from the original). Instructions are on the internet
Back to the home furnace tale are we?
Thanks Pegasus
Key to 5A
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4WzaXOhhQQk/T27yQhGHRKI/AAAAAAAACm4/IXwS8Atj1hg/s1600/1105_maddie2_05.jpg
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4WzaXOhhQQk/T27yQhGHRKI/AAAAAAAACm4/IXwS8Atj1hg/s1600/1105_maddie2_05.jpg)
With that funny key, turning the tumblers at different times, I never really thought that a credit card was used ... but then again, perhaps on some less recessed doors it might have worked. Dunno
Seems to me that with that funny key the tumblers would move at different stages of the keys rotation .... surely that would make it more difficult for credit card opening. But I am not a locksmith so I could be wrong on that thought.
Incedently, a copy of the key could very easily be made by casting it in a home made mold (from the original). Instructions are on the internet
That does seem to be a theme among some mccann supporters.
Four options:Borrow a key, get it copied, return original.
1. Make a key from a key you have nicked, using metal you have lying about, melted in a portable furnace and cast in a sand mould you have just cobbled up from kiln sand you just happen to have lying about. Two minor snags. Power source for the furnace and heating the sand mould up to kin hot so you don't blast hot metal every where when pouring into a cold wet mould.
2. Cut a key from a key you have nicked using your own key cutter. 1 snag power source.
3. Have a key cut at "Timsons" from a key you have nicked.
4.My favourite. Nick the key, stick it in the lock and turn it thus avoiding all the other faffing about.
I suppose you could use the greasy chin and baccy tin full of Plasticine trick a la James Fox aka The Jackal right in front of the receptionist otherwise its back to from a key you have nicked
Borrow a key, get it copied, return original.
Are you still promoting the inside job routine?Just noting that the key does not need to be stolen to be copied.
Just noting that the key does not need to be stolen to be copied.
The Payne's could have nipped up to the Luz ironmonger to get copies cut rather than sticking it under the mat outside the front door.
Any one of the cleaners could have been making money on the side by passing a copy of a key or two on to petty thieves.
It does not need to be stolen.
Do you have anything to support this allegation, or is just another flight of fancy?
Do you have anything to support this allegation, or is just another flight of fancy?It is not an allegation.
Just noting that the key does not need to be stolen to be copied.
The Payne's could have nipped up to the Luz ironmonger to get copies cut rather than sticking it under the mat outside the front door.
Any one of the cleaners could have been making money on the side by passing a copy of a key or two on to petty thieves.
It does not need to be stolen.
It is not an allegation.
The difference between 'could' (no allegation) and 'was' (allegation) is pretty simple.
Four options:
1. Make a key from a key you have nicked, using metal you have lying about, melted in a portable furnace and cast in a sand mould you have just cobbled up from kiln sand you just happen to have lying about. Two minor snags. Power source for the furnace and heating the sand mould up to kin hot so you don't blast hot metal every where when pouring into a cold wet mould.
2. Cut a key from a key you have nicked using your own key cutter. 1 snag power source.
3. Have a key cut at "Timsons" from a key you have nicked.
4.My favourite. Nick the key, stick it in the lock and turn it thus avoiding all the other faffing about.
I suppose you could use the greasy chin and baccy tin full of Plasticine trick a la James Fox aka The Jackal right in front of the receptionist otherwise its back to from a key you have nicked
Buy a cheapo kit from the internet. £20 or so.
Make your own mold using foundry sand well rammed into a sturdy box. Two halves. You will need an inner and an outer for the metal to be poured in and to allow a little overfill. Also a strap to hold the two halves together
Melt the low temperature metal (tin alloy?) in a pan or crucible on the cooker, until it is runny like water. Scrape off the film on top and pour into the mold. Gently tap the mold to get rid of bubbles ... then leave to cool.
When cool enough, tapm the mold again, open the two halves and tip out the key copy.
It will likely be a bit rough around the edges but using a file, or grinding wheel fettle the edge.
Voila a new key
Easy peasy
Thousands of youngsters and older guys have made toy soldiers etc using a very similar method
As a kid during the war, I saw my friend making dozens of soldiers, model planes etc using this simple method.
I think he used lead, but he was only a school boy and found it very straight forward.
What ever metal is used must have a low melting point and have reasonably good tensile strength for hobby casting of a key. It was only for using once.
There are a number of instructive videos on the internet.
It is the professional and specialist casting that needs furnaces and really high temperatures. Now that is a different kettle of fish. The metal then is spitting white hot flecks of metal as it is poured. The pourers wear leather spats over their lower legs, eye protectors and thick leather gauntlets
Tin alloys ? aka solder. What do we know about those?. They are soft and ductile and lacking the shear strength necessary for things like keys.
Buy a cheapo kit from the internet. £20 or so.Surely someone going to all the trouble of casting a counterfeit key from molten metal would not wish to take the lazy short cut of using existing metal. They would wish to mine and refine their own metal ores. Perhaps we should be looking for a small illicit iron-ore or tin-ore mine on the outskirts of PDL?
Make your own mold using foundry sand ... (snip)
Surely someone going to all the trouble of casting a counterfeit key from molten metal would not wish to take the lazy short cut of using existing metal. They would wish to mine and refine their own metal ores. Perhaps we should be looking for a small illicit iron-ore or tin-ore mine on the outskirts of PDL Sadie?
Tin alloys ? aka solder. What do we know about those?. They are soft and ductile and lacking the shear strength necessary for things like keys.Toy soldiers are lead which is soft and ductile.
You are unobservant in the extreme.
And you would seem to be pretty ignorant of the properties of metals.
ORLY....its not as bad as I thought......only 22 hrs 47 mins with no traffic....and BTW....some of us are working with cast metals everyday...if you get my drift although their use is being superceded by cad cam milling due to inaccuracies of the casting process....shouldnt be a problem with a key though... cobalt chrome is readily available as are the means to cast it....having said that a run out to Timpsons may be preferable
Come again.
It is not an allegation.
The difference between 'could' (no allegation) and 'was' (allegation) is pretty simple.
There is strong evidence that a criminal opened the window and shutter.
There is zero evidence that any criminal opened the wooden door.
I think it depends where you're standing. If I was an OC cleaner reading this I might be feeling quite insulted.If you are innocent, you might well feel insulted.
There is strong evidence that a criminal opened the window and shutter.
There is zero evidence that any criminal opened the wooden door.
Would running away from a stranger opening the shutter significantly increase the risk of accident?
If the stranger was already in the bedroom.....& running away resulted in a fall which rendered the child unconscious without bloodloss.....still doesn't explain why the child went missing.IMO the moment the child heard and saw a stranger outside reaching in with their arm and operating the shutter strap, the child would run away fast from the shutter. I doubt the child would wait politely while the shutter was being opened, and delay running away until someone climbed in.
IMO the moment the child heard and saw a stranger outside reaching in with their arm and operating the shutter strap, the child would run away fast from the shutter. I doubt the child would wait politely while the shutter was being opened, and delay running away until someone climbed in.
Running away from a danger increases the risk of accident compared with staying in bed in the absence of a danger.
IMO the moment the child heard and saw a stranger outside reaching in with their arm and operating the shutter strap, the child would run away fast from the shutter. I doubt the child would wait politely while the shutter was being opened, and delay running away until someone climbed in.
Running away from a danger increases the risk of accident compared with staying in bed in the absence of a danger.
(snip).....still doesn't explain why the child went missing.True it doesn't explain the disappearance at all yet Misty.
I think that all that the child would have seen would have been the closed curtain which would have cut off the view of the intruder who would have had the shutter raised in secondsGood point Brietta you are right
What 3 pieces of equipment would a burglar use, when entering a property via an unlocked window in the dark?
A torch is a give away, Pegasus. So one would not have been used.It's an interesting detail. Hypothetically if a criminal did open the shutter and window from outside, and then pulled a curtain aside, do you think he would be able to see, from outside, anything inside the room?
Despite his/her eyes being attuned to the dark outside it would take a few seconds to adjust to conditions inside the room if entry had been via the window (which I don't think it was). I think s/he would have been in the room before realising the cots and the beds were occupied.
If no-one criminal opened the wooden door then no-one would have needed to say the keys to Block 5 went missing shortly before May 3rd. Someone must have known that a key was used to make such an allegation.
Toy soldiers are lead which is soft and ductile.
I suggested a tin alloy or similar metal of decent tensile strength. Enough for a use once-only key.
ORLY....its not as bad as I thought......only 22 hrs 47 mins with no traffic....and BTW....some of us are working with cast metals everyday...if you get my drift although their use is being superceded by cad cam milling due to inaccuracies of the casting process....shouldnt be a problem with a key though... cobalt chrome is readily available as are the means to cast it....having said that a run out to Timpsons may be preferable
[/quote
I would imagine most people have something to do with cast metals every day.
It's big step from there to knowing anything about the processes that produce the lump of cast metal.
oink oink
Ten to one the mods think that is an insult and not subtle comment @)(++(*
ORLY....its not as bad as I thought......only 22 hrs 47 mins with no traffic....and BTW....some of us are working with cast metals everyday...if you get my drift although their use is being superceded by cad cam milling due to inaccuracies of the casting process....shouldnt be a problem with a key though... cobalt chrome is readily available as are the means to cast it....having said that a run out to Timpsons may be preferable
[/quote
I would imagine most people have something to do with cast metals every day.
It's big step from there to knowing anything about the processes that produce the lump of cast metal.
oink oink
Ten to one the mods think that is an insult and not subtle comment @)(++(*
I'm not offended in the slightest....it's quite boring but I have cast several metals ...gold...gold alloys and non precious...others do it for me now
I'm not offended in the slightest....it's quite boring but I have cast several metals ...gold...gold alloys and non precious...others do it for me now
It's the torsional stresses that will cause a key to fail not tensile.
Remember your Ts Js Gs rs ls and thetas ?
The use of Lead/Tin alloys would be ineffective.
They would break in the lock.
Very low tensile strength.
Of course you have and of course they do.
so I've claimed to have worked as an anaethetist....on duty in casualty and to have cast metals...there's actually a common denominator to all three
There is a common denominator between technocratic societies and cast metals.
Most homes will have cast metals in them somewhere.
Wax on wax off.
I'm surprised you can't work it out
What makes you think I haven't ?
It's an interesting detail. Hypothetically if a criminal did open the shutter and window from outside, and then pulled a curtain aside, do you think he would be able to see, from outside, anything inside the room?
your posts
That says more about your lack of knowledge rather than mine.
Maybe you should make a better investment.
It's the torsional stresses that will cause a key to fail not tensile.Actually Alice, I am inclined to think that with a well oiled lock, a copy key very simply made of lead might be OK for a once off key turning effort.
Remember your Ts Js Gs rs ls and thetas ?
S/he would be listening and looking into a backlit room with a shard of light entering via the ajar door. Madeleine's bed would be in shadow and it would not be immediately apparent that it was occupied. One cot had an opaque back therefore the child sleeping in it could not be seen ... dependent on the angle of the light entering it is possible a soundly sleeping child might have been seen.After opening the window and shutter, IMO a burglar would certainly look into the room before climbing in - to see whether there was any furniture in the way. If the light from the small lounge tablelamp getting through the crack of the almost shut bedroom door was insufficient, he would shine a small torch into the room. This torch would be clearly visible to an awake child inside the room.
I don't think a person observing the room from the window and holding the curtain back to do so would have had a very clear view of the interior.
Had the window been opened from the outside with the intention of entering the residence I am of the opinion entry would have been effected.
I don't think that is what happened. I think a key was used.
However, had an intruder entered via the patio door and been disturbed when Madeleine's father unexpectedly turned up ... it might have been opened as an escape route ... but I don't think it was an escape route either.
If the patio door was the entry ... the wooden door was the exit ... the open window being the contingency emergency exit.
When the burglar opened the window and shutter, it would cause the very slightly ajar bedroom door to slam shut.
What about the curtains or did a milliom beaufort wind open them aka mrs mccann in tv interviews and docus ....despite her saying the joint statement she ran over and opened the curtainsYes, if a burglar opened the window and shutter, very probably the curtains would blow slightly inwards, and the slightly ajar bedroom door would slam shut.
Yes, if a burglar opened the window and shutter, very probably the curtains would blow slightly inwards, and the slightly ajar bedroom door would slam shut.
Actually Alice, I am inclined to think that with a well oiled lock, a copy key very simply made of lead might be OK for a once off key turning effort.
The "lugs" on the key are very small. It is not as tho' they are long at all.
If there was a breeze or a gust of air outside, the curtain may have moved. I don't think the door would have slammed shut unless the patio door was open to create the necessary through draft.According to Kate it was the door shutting that alerted her, then she checked to ensure the patio door was closed, which it was.
When the burglar opened the window and shutter, it would cause the very slightly ajar bedroom door to slam shut.
I have doubted the cooperation all along but SY have had to choose their words carefully.......i'm sure if they are not being blocked the PJ will let us know
If there was a breeze or a gust of air outside, the curtain may have moved. I don't think the door would have slammed shut unless the patio door was open to create the necessary through draft.the chimney above the cooker provides the through draft
Which burgulah would that have been?The burglar whose existence is deduced by the fact the window and shutter were open Alice
the chimney above the cooker provides the through draft
The burglar whose existence is deduced by the fact the window and shutter were open Alice
Ah the burgulah who left no trace except uncorroborated open windows shutters and whooshing curtains. That burgulah.
Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge ? my brother wants to sell it.
Ah the burgulah who left no trace except uncorroborated open windows shutters and whooshing curtains. That burgulah.Riddle: a burglar opens a window and shutter from outside but then doesn't climb in.
Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge ? my brother wants to sell it.
Pegasus I believe, thinks because Kate McCann said something, it must be 8(0(*true.I believe that witness's statements because they concur with the evidence Steve.
I believe that witness's statements because they concur with the evidence Steve.
Only in this case there is no evidence to concur with the statement is there?The definite indisputable mechanical evidence is:
Ie no evidence the window and shutter were open at 10 pm and by a stranger
???
The definite indisputable mechanical evidence is:
1. The shutter design has a complete absence of any locking mechanism or bolt.
2. The window design has a complete absence of any auto-locking mechanism or latch.
Therefore it is entirely possible for a stranger to open the window and shutter from outside without jemmying and without causing any damage.
KM's statement concurs exactly with that evidence.
(snip) ... Oh btw there is evidence the tapas group tampered with it after the event, why did they do that?Because they believed it was impossible to open the window and shutter from outside Merc.
Because they believed it was impossible to open the window and shutter from outside Merc.So?
Entirely possible is not evidence of occurrence ...(snip)It's entirely possible, therefore there is no reason to disbelieve it Merc.
It's entirely possible, therefore there is no reason to disbelieve it Merc
If it's a lie you should be able to offer some sort of evidence that it's a lie.
Instead of just saying "Oh there's no evidence it's a lie but it might be a lie anyway".
(snip) ...you have no evidence really or proof that it was not staged as a top uk forensic expert suggested it might beWhich top uk forensic expert was that Merc?
@PegasusNet curtains are almost weightless Misty they can be pushed aside effortlessly (even while they remain fully closed at the top).
How far back do you think the net curtain had been drawn to enable the fingerprints of KM to be clearly identifiable on the window glass?
Do you think that would have been possible from outside the window?
Net curtains are almost weightless Misty they can be pushed aside effortlessly (even while they remain fully closed at the top).
Net curtains do not slide along a rod or cable particularly easily to an open position.There is no need to slide the net curtains along a rod or wire Misty they part easily without any need to do that.
If Kate had to push the nets to one side with her left hand to look out the window, how did her prints get on the glass?
There is no need to slide the net curtains along a rod or wire Misty they part easily without any need to do that.
Remember only the right half of the window opening was open. The witness would effortlessly push the right net to the right with her right arm or hand.
The key point is that the window and shutter being opened from outside fully explains why the child disappeared from that bedroom.
That would leave the left hand net hanging down in front of the window, forming a barrier between hand & glass.Not a barrier Misty. An almost weightless bit of material that is effortlessly pushed aside.
(My nets at 66" x 44" small windows are one piece, not two)
Not a barrier Misty. An almost weightless bit of material that is effortlessly pushed aside.
This is not a window that opens completely. And it has no hinges. When open, both panes occupy the left half (viewed from inside) of the wall hole.
The theory of a key to the front door & an abductor opening the window from inside fully explains not only why the child disappeared from the bedroom but also from the apartment.No because in your scenario of an abductor entering via the wooden door, it would be a completely pointless waste of time for him to open the window and shutter. He would just grab the child and leave by the wooden door.
No because in your scenario of an abductor entering via the wooden door, it would be a completely pointless waste of time for him to open the window and shutter. He would just grab the child and leave by the wooden door.
In your scenario exactly where is the child while your abductor is opening the window and shutter? On the bed? Then why doesn't the child run to another room?
Sorry - but can you not see what I'm driving at? If Kate had pushed back the r/h curtain to look out the open part of the window, why would she bother pushing back the left hand curtain? It would just hang down the pane & be a barrier between the glass & her fingerprints. Don't forget the position of the main left hand curtain.what is your constructive alternative Misty? What in your scenario happened to produce prints on the glass?
what is your constructive alternative Misty? What in your scenario happened to produce prints on the glass?
The child is on top of the bed, sedated, having been lifted from under the covers as per how she was put to bed by KM.In your scenario GM entering lounge would see your abductor going from child bedroom to parent bedroom.
The process was interrupted by GM returning unexpectedly & the intruder had to hide in the parents' bedroom. (Door move 1). The intruder could not leave by the front door because he/she would be seen from the lounge.
After GM had left, the window & shutters were opened from the inside (exact reason unclear).
Intruder leaves by front door - bedroom door move 2 - and the curtains are now tinged green by the exterior street light shining through the open shutter as seen by MO.
Just my opinion. Child possibly then taken up to 5J for change of clothes & hair alteration.
In your scenario GM entering lounge would see your abductor going from child bedroom to parent bedroom.
I don't believe he would if you look at the view from his entry point on the left side of the patio door into a semi-darkened room. The children's bedroom door is in a recess & the opening side is nearest the adjacent bathroom door.Where in the adult bedroom would your abductor have hidden Misty?
By the time GM had gone through the patio door, turned & closed it, the intruder could have made it to the other bedroom quite easily.
Where in the adult bedroom would your abductor have hidden Misty?
I believe that witness's statements because they concur with the evidence Steve.
Behind the floor length curtains or possibly just down behind the far-side of the bed, praying that the incomer wouldn't enter.
Riddle: a burglar opens a window and shutter from outside but then doesn't climb in.
The solution is elementary my dear Alice. A child could solve it.
Someone must have disturbed the burglar just before he would have climbed in.
You could argue that of the many hundreds of witness statements taken by police, not a single witness statement mentions disturbing a burglar outside 5A that night.
Here is the surprising deduction:
The person, who disturbed the burglar just after he opened the window and shutter, has never made a statement to police.
Because they believed it was impossible to open the window and shutter from outside Merc.
Riddle: a burglar opens a window and shutter from outside but then doesn't climb in.
The solution is elementary my dear Alice. A child could solve it.
Someone must have disturbed the burglar just before he would have climbed in.
You could argue that of the many hundreds of witness statements taken by police, not a single witness statement mentions disturbing a burglar outside 5A that night.
Here is the surprising deduction:
The person, who disturbed the burglar just after he opened the window and shutter, has never made a statement to police.
Two minutes dicking about outside with the shutters and windows on first arrival would answer the question irrefutably.
I don't understand why anyone would rely on an assumption that can be so easily checked in practice.
I can understand why the McCanns initially assumed that the shutters had been opened from the outside. If I entered my place, that would probably have been my first reaction as well.
What I still don't understand is why the PJ assumed that an abduction couldn't have happened because it seemed unlikely that an abductor could have got through the window.
It was an initial assumption from a panicked family.
It's up to the police to take that into account and work out other possibilities. Yes, including the parents and entourage. And also the possibility of access to strange contraptions called keys.
It's not rocket science.
I am afraid it doesn't.A person inside that bedroom wishing to open that sliding window would put a hand around the handle and slide the right half of the sliding window to their left. No person would open it by pressing on the glass. It is possible but it would be a bizarre way of doing it.
People do use their hands to open windows after opening the catch.
It is a regular practice.
A person inside that bedroom wishing to open that sliding window would put a hand around the handle and slide the right half of the sliding window to their left. No person would open it by pressing on the glass. It is possible but it would be a bizarre way of doing it.
Who do you think opened the window and shutter stephen25000?
Two minutes dicking about outside with the shutters and windows on first arrival would answer the question irrefutably.In the first minutes after the apparent disappearance, GM and 2 others tried raising a shutter.
I don't understand why anyone would rely on an assumption that can be so easily checked in practice.
The person whose fingerprints were identified.But this window does not have a "catch" Steve. It has a lock button and a an unlock button. Both buttons are on the handle. If you press the unlock button your hand is already on the handle. So why on earth would you take your hand off the handle and open it using the glass?
I have tried that on several windows and once the catch is released it is very easy to use your hands and slide it open, and even more so if the catch is difficult to reach and the person is straining to reach it. The bed did look relatively undisturbed, didn't it ?
So, next question pegasus.
But this window does not have a "catch" Steve. It has a lock button and a an unlock button. Both buttons are on the handle. If you press the unlock button your hand is already on the handle. So why on earth would you take your hand off the handle and open it using the glass?
Inside the parents' wardrobe? Less likely, though, as someone could have come back for an extra jacket.If an adult hid in a wardrobe in the parents bedroom it would be the right wardrobe, which is hanging space so has plenty of room for an adult. (The shelves in the left wardrobe make the spaces there a bit small to conceal a fully grown adult IMO).
Behind the floor length curtains or possibly just down behind the far-side of the bed, praying that the incomer wouldn't enter.If an adult wanted to hide in the parent's bedooom, IMO the chosen hiding place would probably be to lay down on the floor between the far bed and the balcony door, like you suggest Misty.
All hypothetical.
Why would a burglar want to hide ?
If they found someone in the apartment, in all likelihood they would scarper.
Lock or catch, once released the window can be slid open. Perhaps you should try it.KM stated she found the window and shutter already open. There is absolutely no evidence she is telling anything less than the truth. Do you not realise Steve25000 that this witness's veracity and a non-abduction theory are mutually compatible?
I have used that kind of window, by the way.
Bottom line, there is no independent verification the window was open before 10 pm, and please do imply there was.
Agreed. I've rather lost track of who is theoretically wanting to hide.
KM stated she found the window and shutter already open. There is absolutely no evidence she is telling anything less than the truth. Do you not realise Steve25000 that this witness's veracity and a non-abduction theory are mutually compatible?
Lock or catch, once released the window can be slid open. Perhaps you should try it.IMO the window and shutter were certainly opened before KM's check Steve.
I have used that kind of window, by the way.
Bottom line, there is no independent verification the window was open before 10 pm, and please do imply there was.
IMO the window and shutter were certainly opened before KM's check Steve.
Because the witness stated they were already open, and there is no evidence the witness is lying, and because it solves the disappearance of the child from that room.
Merely because a witness makes a statement, it doesn't make it true.It solves the disappearance of the child from that room Steve.
Neither would it solve Madeleine's disappearance.
(snip)
It solves the disappearance of the child from that room Steve.
The child runs out of the bedroom because someone is opening the shutter.
That is supposition Pegasus.Supposition, and the ability to think like a child.
That is all you have.
Supposition, and the ability to think like a child.
I have been teaching for some time Pegasus.So how do you apply your expertise in thinking like a child to this case Steve?
So I do have some idea of how children behave/react.
If an adult hid in a wardrobe in the parents bedroom it would be the right wardrobe, which is hanging space so has plenty of room for an adult. (The shelves in the left wardrobe make the spaces there a bit small to conceal a fully grown adult IMO).
So how do you apply your expertise in thinking like a child to this case Steve?
Does your theory have the child doing anything at all that evening?
Too noisy, Pegasus. Rattling of coat hangers & thump of shoes against mdf manoeuvring himself into position.
There is no proof Pegasus any third party was in the apartment.Agreed 100% Steve, no intruder entered the apartment.
Even Mitchell admitted that.
No light to see what he's doing.
That, too, although he may have used a torch or light from a mobile phone but that could have attracted attention.
Too noisy, Pegasus. Rattling of coat hangers & thump of shoes against mdf manoeuvring himself into position.Not if he was wearing rats-fur slippers Misty.
Not if he was wearing rats-fur slippers Misty.
But seriously, IMO no intruder hid in the parent's bedroom wardrobe, no intruder hid anywhere, no intruder even entered the apartment.
That, too, although he may have used a torch or light from a mobile phone but that could have attracted attention.Yes believe it or not, burglars at the lower-end of the intelligence spectrum sometimes use the illumination of their mobile phone screen because they were too stupid to think of buying a torch.
Maybe he had his feet wrapped in surgical bandages :)You talk of the tiny noise of plastic coathangers rattling, when the noise of the shutter being opened is a hundred times louder Misty, ask the lady who stayed there the week before, very noisy.
Sorry, but I disagree with you entirely. Your analysis hits a brick wall after Madeleine leaves the bedroom but mine doesn't.
We've been discussing this for over a month now, so, supposing Madeleine flees from burglar, what then ?If it was me at age 3 in the middle of the night I would have instinctively run first to the other bedroom Jassi wouldn't you?
Lets move on to what you think happened to her.
You talk of the tiny noise of plastic coathangers rattling, when the noise of the shutter being opened is a hundred times louder Misty, ask the lady who stayed there the week before, very noisy.
Why would the intruder inside the apartment wish to possibly alert GM to his presence by making any noise?IMO there was no intruder Misty. If you were a burglar and saw people present in a room would you climb into it?
IMO there was no intruder Misty. If you were a burglar and saw people present in a room would you climb into it?
That would depend on what I wanted to steal, Pegasus & how much reconnaissance I had done beforehand.The most likely loot is whatever cash tourists leave in their accomodation when they have a night out Misty.
If it was me at age 3 in the middle of the night I would have instinctively run first to the other bedroom Jassi wouldn't you?
OK. And then?... discovers that there is no-one in that bedroom
Can we advance this at more than 1 millimetre at a time ?This hypothesis advances about 300mm (one step) at a time Jassi.
The most important question, which the original investigation failed to ask, is:If I told a 4 year old
"Did you tell the child exactly which restaurant you would be at?"
If I told a 4 year oldThe most important witness certainly knew that the parents had gone out on Wednesday night.
1 We were not going to be in while she slept and
2 Which restaurant we were going to be in
then
what I would expect is tantrums before bedtime
and
after sleeping, the child had not a clue about which restaurant, merely that we were leaving her.
The most important witness certainly knew that the parents had gone out on Wednesday night.
In fact that is the only statement we have.
Therefore, finding the south bedroom empty on Thursday night, she would assume they had gone out again.
The question is, did she know exactly where they had gone out to?
Can we deduce this from the statements?
The most important question, which the original investigation failed to ask, is:
"Did you tell the child exactly which restaurant you would be at?"
Which top uk forensic expert was that Merc?
Yes. If the searcher knew where the two missing people were, the searcher would go in that direction.
Would that knowledge make any difference to her subsequent actions ?
This one
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-evidence-doesnt-add-up-514328
He also appeared on a sky documentary in dec 07 Mystery of Madeleine Mccann
This oneThat team of experts are clever men but their analysis is flawed becuse they never tested the actual window and shutter. Therefore they are not qualified to suggest the shutter and window were staged.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-evidence-doesnt-add-up-514328
He also appeared on a sky documentary in dec 07 Mystery of Madeleine Mccann
"We checked the scene of the crime and it struck us immediately how unlikely it would be for anyone to try and access the apartment through the back windows."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-evidence-doesnt-add-up-514328
Not true. For a start what is that about "windows"? In fact there is only one window on the north side of 5A. And in the evening that window is by far the most likely place for a burglar to attempt entry.
If I was a burglar, I would not have chosen to enter an apartment with 2 gates & a flight of steps at the rear & a front window immediately overlooking a car park, illuminated by a street light & at the end of a walled walk-way.Why has the owner of 5A added external metal security bars on the north bedroom window?
Why has the owner of 5A added external metal security bars on the north bedroom window?
And why has the owner of 4A added an internal metal security grille on its identical north bedroom window?
Obviously they must both think there is a definite risk of burglar entry via this window.
Most folk only tend to increase their security after suffering an incident or there is a sudden increase in crime in the area they live.Precisely. The owners of 5A and 4A both fitted extra security to the burglar-vulnerable bedroom window on the carpark side. See streetview.
Yes. If the searcher knew where the two missing people were, the searcher would go in that direction.
Why has the owner of 5A added external metal security bars on the north bedroom window?
And why has the owner of 4A added an internal metal security grille on its identical north bedroom window?
Obviously they must both think there is a definite risk of burglar entry via this window.
G5A was interfered with by journalists and others following Madeleine's disappearance. Everyone wanted to play with those shutters; people were found on the balcony too. It's just as likely that was the reason for additional security.
The 2 windows belonging to 5B haven't had security bars fitted. I'm not sure about the rest of the ground floor or first floor windows in the block.
G5A was interfered with by journalists and others following Madeleine's disappearance. Everyone wanted to play with those shutters; people were found on the balcony too. It's just as likely that was the reason for additional security.How would you extend that understanding to the equivalent apartment in block 4? There, using streetview, you can see on the exactly equivalent carpark-facing shuttered bedroom window, an internal lockable metal security grille has been installed. Also on the top right of that window you can see a notice which is presumably a "protected by alarm" warning notice to potential burglars. Why did an owner install that internal grille and and install that notice?
How would you extend that understanding to the equivalent apartment in block 4? There, using streetview, you can see on the exactly equivalent carpark-facing shuttered bedroom window, an internal lockable metal security grille has been installed. Also on the top right of that window you can see a notice which is presumably a "protected by alarm" warning notice to potential burglars. Why did an owner install that internal grille and and install that notice?
When was it installed?I don't know the exact date, but after a burglary.
Bearing in mind some of the properties were let out on a commercial basis rather than owner occupied I would make sure there had been no legislative changes in the interim, retrospective or otherwise before I became too excited. Or maybe a new owner was simply a bit security conscious.It is nothing to do with legislation Alice.
It is nothing to do with legislation Alice.
It is simple - a groundfloor flat very close to and virtually identical to 5A got burgled. To prevent it getting burgled again, the owner installed extra security, especially on the most burglar-vulnerable window, which is the bedroom window facing the carpark, where a strong lockable internal metal grille was installed, to make the Heri opening method impossible.
Well as long as someone knocked on the door and had the owner confirm the reasoning that's OK.
Or are we guessing?
Guessing ? On this forum ? You're joshing, surely ? 8(0(*An apartment gets burgled, then the owner fits extra security.
An apartment gets burgled, then the owner fits extra security.
The causal relationship between the two events should be fairly obvious.
I don't know the exact date, but after a burglary.
Sorry, I seem to have missed that info. When was block 4 apartment burgled?Feb 2007 G-Unit a ground-floor apartment in Block 4 was burgled.
But the door, the unlocked door...why use a window when a door is there unlocked?The petty burglar at 5A would have been unaware that the balcony door was unlocked.
Feb 2007 G-Unit a ground-floor apartment in Block 4 was burgled.
Layout almost identical to 5A.
Burglary was in the evening.
I believe the adults had gone out to a restaurant.
Loot = cash, 2 mobiles, a camera.
Mr Redwood seemed to be unaware of this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476689/Madeleines-parents-meet-Ken-Bigleys-brother-discuss-abduction-agony.html
@G-Unit. Yes that is the burglary. I assure you that it is a ground-floor apartment in block 4.
Also that it is virtually identical in layout, positions of doors, positions of windows (including the one bedroom window facing the carpark) to 5A.
I can't give you a direct cite because neither the Mail article nor any of the others state which block it was in.
However the articles contain sufficient information which when combined with elementary internet sleuthing, leads to its exact location. Heriberto's site contains more details.
If Mr Redwood had been aware of this burglary of a ground-floor apartment virtually identical to 5A, he would IMO have said so. He mentions 5G and 5L (which are not ground-floor and not same layout as 5A) but does not mention this one. Therefore he was unaware of it. Remember some of us on this forum have better internet sleuthing skills than OG.
So are you and Heriberto going with the 100 yards or the 100 metres distance from G5A?100 metres or 100 yards are both very inaccurate figures of speech G-Unit.
Where did you get that distance from?Measured it on an aerial photo.
Measured it on an aerial photo.
Measured it on an aerial photo.
That suggests you chose the apartment you wanted it to be and then measured it's distance from G5A. If so, that sounds more like speculation than research to me.The burgled ground-floor apartment was identified with complete certainty by internet sleuthing G-Unit.
@pegasusDid you find the apartment name? Look on streetview, I believe you will find it's block 4 not 2.
I have done my research and the gentleman named in the newspaper does indeed own an apartment in Luz which he rents out. It is not in Block 4, it is in Block 2, directly north of Block 5.
There's more than one Casa Maria, believe it or not. Mine has the man's name associated with it. ?{)(**
Click on 'Location' for a map showing where his apartment is.
https://www.homeaway.co.uk/p71588
There's more than one Casa Maria, believe it or not. Mine has the man's name associated with it. ?{)(**Like I said it is ground-floor block 4 G-Unit
Click on 'Location' for a map showing where his apartment is.
https://www.homeaway.co.uk/p71588
Also of interest is that the owner of the burgled ground-floor apartment said that two further ground-floor apartments had been burgled around the same time.By October 2015 it seems SY were aware of 28 cases of illegal access to properties in the vicinity around 2007.
By October 2015 it seems SY were aware of 28 cases of illegal access to properties in the vicinity around 2007.
Poor record keeping by the GNR combined with low-priority crime probably didn't help.
http://news.sky.com/story/1476413/madeleine-police-probe-more-break-ins
It was only going to be a matter of time before something more serious than petty theft occurred given the volume of burglaries in the area.
That something I think escalated and is connected to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
What I find extraordinary about it is the total disregard which appears to have been prevalent about this situation as far as the PJ were concerned. Had the relevant information not been passed up the chain and they did not know? Or were they aware of the situation and chose to disregard it?
The serious assaults on children while their parents slept which should have had alarm bells ringing off the wall immediately Madeleine disappeared were also inexplicably ignored.
I would love to know why.
It was only going to be a matter of time before something more serious than petty theft occurred given the volume of burglaries in the area.If a stranger did open the child's shutter and window Brietta, (and remember that is what KM's statement indicates), do you not credit the child with the basic intelligence to run away from the window and into another room?
That something I think escalated and is connected to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
What I find extraordinary about it is the total disregard which appears to have been prevalent about this situation as far as the PJ were concerned. Had the relevant information not been passed up the chain and they did not know? Or were they aware of the situation and chose to disregard it?
The serious assaults on children while their parents slept which should have had alarm bells ringing off the wall immediately Madeleine disappeared were also inexplicably ignored.
I would love to know why.
It was only going to be a matter of time before something more serious than petty theft occurred given the volume of burglaries in the area.
That something I think escalated and is connected to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
What I find extraordinary about it is the total disregard which appears to have been prevalent about this situation as far as the PJ were concerned. Had the relevant information not been passed up the chain and they did not know? Or were they aware of the situation and chose to disregard it?
The serious assaults on children while their parents slept which should have had alarm bells ringing off the wall immediately Madeleine disappeared were also inexplicably ignored.
I would love to know why.
By October 2015 it seems SY were aware of 28 cases of illegal access to properties in the vicinity around 2007.Sorry, one of the worst articles I have read.
Poor record keeping by the GNR combined with low-priority crime probably didn't help.
http://news.sky.com/story/1476413/madeleine-police-probe-more-break-ins
Sorry, one of the worst articles I have read.
Summers claims 28 cases according to unnamed source?
PS Where did you get your GNR comments from?
I guess the lack of a decent computer system may be the answer, along with 3 different police agencies dealing with specific types of crime.
The Portuguese had no DNA database at the time iirc & no Sex Offenders Register.
Thinking back to how easily Ian Huntley managed to elude detection on what was supposed to be UK state of the art CRB system, I can quite understand why the PJ had limited knowledge of localise petty crime & crimes against holidaymakers who were unlikely to pursue matters.
If a stranger did open the child's shutter and window Brietta, (and remember that is what KM's statement indicates), do you not credit the child with the basic intelligence to run away from the window and into another room?
http://portugalresident.com/citizens-advised-to-complain-about-unprofessional-gnrThe link is very interesting.
I wonder if the British Ambassador knew about the child assaults before the PJ did?
The link is very interesting.
I have heard gossip recently that Mrs Fenn did not report her intruder immediately because there was a fee for a police report.
The fee in the gossip was €15. And if nothing was actually stolen, she didn't need a police report. Hmmm.
Might say something about petty crime in Luz, and equally it might not.
The holidaymakers would only disturb the police to get a crime number for the insurance companies and would have had little opportunity to make much of a fuss anyway as a traditional time for them to be targeted was just before their departure date.
I'm not sure if any thought was given by the PJ to the possibility of Madeleine's case resulting from a botched burglary. As we know, her parents fell under suspicion immediately according to Mr Amaral. We don't know how the different forces rubbed along as far as an exchange of information is concerned ... but we do know that the PJ were in possession of DNA from one of the home invasions in which a child had been assaulted.
So there must have been an element of involvement there because of the serious nature of the offence. The British ambassador also knew about the assaults ... therefore the PJ must have known about them.
It was only going to be a matter of time before something more serious than petty theft occurred given the volume of burglaries in the area.
That something I think escalated and is connected to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
What I find extraordinary about it is the total disregard which appears to have been prevalent about this situation as far as the PJ were concerned. Had the relevant information not been passed up the chain and they did not know? Or were they aware of the situation and chose to disregard it?
The serious assaults on children while their parents slept which should have had alarm bells ringing off the wall immediately Madeleine disappeared were also inexplicably ignored.
I would love to know why.
The PJ had DNA? Cite? The British Consul knew about the assaults, but didn't he hear at a meeting of Tour Operators? I know one woman reported an incident the GNR, so no evidence the PJ knew as far as I know.
The PJ had DNA? Cite? The British Consul knew about the assaults, but didn't he hear at a meeting of Tour Operators? I know one woman reported an incident the GNR, so no evidence the PJ knew as far as I know.
That argument does not withstand logical extension.
When you look at all the old blx that has circulated around this case since almost the beginning is it any wonder at the manhours and expenses bill for O.G chasing down a load of old blx. I wonder what the final throw of the O.G die will reveal ?
If you disagree that committing petty crimes doesn't educate and encourage the petty criminal into escalating their criminal behaviour that is fine by me.
It's good to know that this deceased man has been cleared of that crime - especially for his family.
However I would be interested to know how he got into the properties which he did steal from.
Quote
Snipped
. Euclides matched the description made by some of the victims and had already served time for theft using the same method of intrusion into houses - without forced entry.
End quote
I wonder how he did that.
in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, Nov. 6 2014
6 November 2014
DNA clears crucial suspect in the Maddie Case
Euclides already deceased motivated the reopening of the Maddie case process.
By Marisa Rodrigues
It has [finally] collapsed the investigation line that had Euclides Monteiro as a suspect, which also led to the reopening of the “Madeleine McCann process”. The Judiciary police (PJ) bet everything in the abduction of child at the hands of a sexual predator that allegedly attacked British children in the Algarve. However, DNA tests ruled out from the investigation the already deceased man.
At the site of one of the alleged sex abuses a sample of semen was collected, which the PJ already know that it does not belong to the former Ocean Club resort worker. Euclides' DNA was not found, in any case, at the Praia da Luz apartment from where the child disappeared seven years ago.
The thesis of the sexual predator began to be 'drawn' when the PJ inspectors grouped five cases of alleged sex abuse involving British children on holiday in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006, a year before the disappearance. Euclides matched the description made by some of the victims and had already served time for theft using the same method of intrusion into houses - without forced entry. Additionally, he worked at the Ocean Club, and also, in the same day of the disappearance he used his mobile phone in that area. He was the man that fitted the profile of the suspect.
Positive that the correspondence of the cases with an identical “modus operandi allowed for the admission of the possibility that the crimes had been committed by the same author and that this one could be related with Madeleine's disappearance, the PJ asked, in 2013, for the Public Ministry of Portimão to reopen the case.
The detectives knew that in one of the alleged sex abuse cases, there was a semen sample. They compared it with a biological vestige that had been collected previously from Euclides, which was in the possession of the Portuguese National Institute of Forensic Medicine. The man, it should be recalled, died in a tractor accident, in 2009, and was subject to an autopsy as the law dictates. The tests, however, ruled him out from the sex abuse and from the Ocean Club apartment.
The investigations remains open, at the hands of the Porto PJ, no further developments are known.
Arguidos among the 10 to be questioned
The Judiciary Police are going to question about ten people, all at the request of the Scotland Yard, within the scope of the English investigation. In the list, are Ocean Club former employees. All of them are going to be called for the first time. Some as witnesses and other as arguidos [formal suspects], who will join the already four other suspects that were questioned back in July. The questionings should be concluded before the end of the current month.
Here's a detailed scenario, there are of course several possible variations, this is one
1 Burglar assesses that everyone is out.
2 Burglar knocks on door to double-check everyone is out - and nobody responds.
3 Burglar from outside raises shutter about 25cm.
4 Burglar reaches right arm under the shutter and slides window open.
5 This causes the barely ajar bedroom to slam shut.
6 Burglar's reaches right arm in under the shutter and begins to operate the shutter strap.
7 Child (unseen by burglar) flees to hide either in parents bedroom or in lounge.
8 Burglar fully raises shutter using strap.
9 Burglar looks into room and, having been sure everyone was out, is shocked to see two children in cots.
10 Burglar flees without having entered.
Here's a detailed scenario, there are of course several possible variations, this is one11. Open shutter, open window. Door does not shut again as Kate finds it open.
1 Burglar assesses that everyone is out.
2 Burglar knocks on door to double-check everyone is out - and nobody responds.
3 Burglar from outside raises shutter about 25cm.
4 Burglar reaches right arm under the shutter and slides window open.
5 This causes the barely ajar bedroom to slam shut.
6 Burglar's reaches right arm in under the shutter and begins to operate the shutter strap.
7 Child (unseen by burglar) flees to hide either in parents bedroom or in lounge.
8 Burglar fully raises shutter using strap.
9 Burglar looks into room and, having been sure everyone was out, is shocked to see two children in cots.
10 Burglar flees without having entered.
11. Open shutter, open window. Door does not shut again as Kate finds it open.Yes that's correct Shining.
12. Kate starts to close wide open door, which slams shut.
Apparently its against forum rules now to suggest its possible kate mccann was lying oh looooooolThe scenario I posted results in open window, open shutter, and open bedroom door Merc.
We have turned a corner does admin endorse this newfound agenda???! Yeah or ney? Dont delete as i will be taking it up with them, well u can delete if youre embarrassed or cant answer the question
11. Open shutter, open window. Door does not shut again as Kate finds it open.
12. Kate starts to close wide open door, which slams shut.
The scenario I posted results in open window, open shutter, and open bedroom door Merc.Just cos your scenario is a possibility doesnt make it so infact or make any witness honest sorry bout that
Exactly as KM describes. A truthful witness IMO.
13 maybe mrs k wasnt telling the truth, is it a possibility or not?????It would have been easy for someone on the night to make the error of disbelieving the witness Merc, due to the easily observable absence of damage to the window and shutter.
It would have been easy for someone on the night to make the error of disbelieving the witness Merc, due to the easily observable absence of damage to the window and shutter.
But with the benefit of unpanicked time to work it out, and knowing now the three-stage Heri method (which the people testing shutters shortly after 10pm failed to deduce), her account agrees exactly with what I would expect the discovered scene to be.
I wasnt there on the night and i dont believe her because she is a very unbelevable personageThe scene she describes (open window, open shutter, open bedroom door,) is exactly the scene that would result if a burglar commenced a burglary via that window. Because the burglary would absolutely inevitably be disturbed just before the burglar climbed in. The burglar would certainly see at least two people in the room and therefore would not climb in. Her account is eminently believable - it matches what is possible and what is likely to have happened.
Further cos heri showed how a shutter could be opened dont mean it was
Thats all
The scene she describes (open window, open shutter, open bedroom door,) is exactly the scene that would result if a burglar commenced a burglary via that window. Because the burglary would absolutely inevitably be disturbed just before the burglar climbed in. The burglar would certainly see at least two people in the room and therefore would not climb in. Her account is eminently believable - it matches what is possible and what is likely to have happened.
How high off the floor were the twins on their mattresses in the travel cots behind the bed immediately under the window?IMO regardless of the exact cot heights, it is obvious that as soon as the burglar, after opening the shutter, looked into the room, he would notice there were children in there. An attempted burglary via that window inevitably must be an interrupted burglary.
IMO regardless of the exact cot heights, it is obvious that as soon as the burglar, after opening the shutter, looked into the room, he would notice there were children in there. An attempted burglary via that window inevitably must be an interrupted burglary.
How tall was the burglar?Probably average adult height IMO Misty. The long and short of it is that if a burglary commenced via that window, it would become without any doubt whatsoever an interrupted burglary.
Probably average adult height IMO Misty. The long and short of it is that if a burglary commenced via that window, it would become without any doubt whatsoever an interrupted burglary.
How did the average height burglar see over the opaque end of the travel cot from ground level outside the window?A burglar outside looking into the room after opening the shutter would see two cots.
A burglar outside looking into the room after opening the shutter would see two cots.
And as soon as the noise of opening the shutter finished, he would hear that children were in the cots.
OK. Let's move on to what happened after Madeleine found her parents missing from the apartment, the burglar having scarpered.
OK. Let's move on to what happened after Madeleine found her parents missing from the apartment, the burglar having scarpered.The instinctive first place to go would be the adults' bedroom.
The instinctive first place to go would be the adults' bedroom.
On finding the adults not there the next natural instinct would be to hide, but where?
IMO in addition to the fear of the potential intruder, there would also at this young age be a fear of the dark.
There is one effective hiding place in the apartment which maximises distance from the threat and at the same time minimises fear of dark.
Behind the sofa, then. What is your theory as to subsequent events, especially regarding non-response to Kate's voice?First the possibility that the window and shutter were opened before the 9.30pm check needs to be considered. Assuming the child was hiding, and further assuming the child was awake, the likely behaviour during that check would be to keep quiet and stay hidden?
First the possibility that the window and shutter were opened before the 9.30pm check needs to be considered. Assuming the child was hiding, and further assuming the child was awake, the likely behaviour during that check would be to keep quiet and stay hidden?
I'd go along with that, although MO should have spotted an open shutter from the outside if he checked his own daughter using that method.Behind the sofa is just one of several possible places, it might not be correct.
So, she remained hidden behind the sofa, no shoes, no cardi or coat....then what?
Behind the sofa is just one of several possible places, it might not be correct.
During the 9.30pm check it is possible the child was hiding in apartment, and may have been either awake or not awake.
During the 10pm check it is possible the child was hiding in apartment, but if so, it's not possible that the child was awake (because if awake would have responded to checker's voice).
Matthew oldfield git that he is and was has to be asked WHY he didnt check the kids room properly but went into the parentsroomAccording to RO rog he "looked into Gerry and Kates room" Merc which is not the same as going in.
After GM left the apartment at approx. 9.10pm, the only other known person to allegedly enter & exit it was MO, at around 9.30pm. ...(snip)If an interrupted burglary happened anytime after the chat had ended, the first parent's voice the child would hear would be KM's.
If an interrupted burglary happened anytime after the chat had ended the first familiar voice the child would hear would be KM's.
(snip) ... Would a frightened, hiding child sleep? A sleeping child could not leave her hiding place. A child awake would have either remained hidden until she considered it safe to move or responded to the first familiar voice.There have been plenty of cases where searchers for a missing child have taken hours to find a non-awake child.
If she was sleeping, imo she would have been quickly found.
It's just that first door move, Pegasus.....and was GM being entirely truthful in his statement about everything at 9.10pm inside the apartment?Possibly just going to the bathroom Misty?
There have been plenty of cases where searchers for a missing child have taken hours to find a non-awake child.
Possibly just going to the bathroom Misty?
Possible. That meant one awakening between 8.30 & 9.05pm - but she apparently didn't get back under the bedcovers.If the bedroom door was opened before GM's check it can only have been the mobile child who pulled it open, either to go see her parents in the other bedroom, or to go for a wee, there is nothing remarkable about either action.
According to RO rog he "looked into Gerry and Kates room" Merc which is not the same as going in.
Ok let's pick up on that...WHY did he look in Kate N Gerry's room? what reason would he have for doing that exactly?according to RO he wondered where Madeleine slept, yes, I know, more questions than answers
to sniff the sheets?
Did Kate or Gerry ask him to do this and did anyone explain why they would ask him?
AND if no one can offer an answer then we ask why look in Kate N Gerry's room, when he was supposed to be checking on the children, and didn't 'look' in their room? Hmmm
If the bedroom door was opened before GM's check it can only have been the mobile child who pulled it open, either to go see her parents in the other bedroom, or to go for a wee, there is nothing remarkable about either action.
The remarkable thing is that you think she got out of bed in the dark, went to the bathroom, returned to her bed & went back to sleep without looking for either of her parents.
Why? That's what people do...
The under 4's do that when in a strange environment?
Of course they do, once they know where the loo is.
Lavatory. Or Toilet if you really want to be posh.
I like the American "Rest room".
I remember being at a lecture with a world authority in my field....from australia.....he pointed out where the"shitters"
were
I remember being at a lecture with a world authority in my field....from australia.....he pointed out where the"shitters"
were
47-month-olds are generally very capable of getting out of bed and going for a wee wee Misty.
I seem to remember my daughter needing a training seat to use an adult toilet at that age, Pegasus."We shepherded our three little weary ones through to the bathroom to brush their teeth and for M to do her bedtime wee-wee". Source: KM book
I'm thinking about the age of the twins & wondering at what stage Madeleine was potty/toilet trained (what sort of a conversation is this?!!!)
"We shepherded our three little weary ones through to the bathroom to brush their teeth and for M to do her bedtime wee-wee". Source: KM book
Hmmm, yes....but I doubt she sat on the seat without help. I may be wrong---it's been many a long year since the age of the potty here---but I'd bet she had a night-time pull-up on in case of any little accident.Then why isn't that mentioned in same sentence as putting on two nappies? (Sources: book, and Sept statement)
Then why isn't that mentioned in same sentence as putting on two nappies? (Sources: book, and Sept statement)
Don't know, can't answer that.Interesting. For a start here is GM operating the child bedroom light switch with his left hand. That switch is very low, easily reached by a small child. Source: Cutting Edge film.
So, assuming no night nappy, move on to the bathroom light switch. Could Madeleine reach it? Now with this, I have an issue between the crime scene photos taken on 4th May & the cadaver dog videos filmed in August. One shows a switch on the outer wall, the other doesn't (unless my eyes deceive me).
Interesting. For a start here is GM operating the child bedroom light switch with his left hand. That switch is very low, easily reached by a small child. Source: Cutting Edge film.
IMO in the crimescene photo the bathroom switch is there but is not visible because of image compression Misty.
I'll try to find some more photos...
I cropped, enhanced & enlarged but I just can't see any trace of it, Pegasus.It's a lo-res photo and I think software compression. followed by printing it at a small size, then scanning it, has made the switch appear invisible Misty.
In Foto 11 you can see the lounge light switch next to the curtain just above the TV.Every single light switch we have got is at door handle height and this place is not designed for wheelchair access.
In Foto 12 on the left you can see the dining area light switch.
All the light switches are low down, at door handle height.
This apartment is obviously designed for wheelchair accessibility.
A small child could easily reach every light switch.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foto11.jpg
Every single light switch we have got is at door handle height and this place is not designed for wheelchair access.It makes sense to design every residence with accessible light switches.
I can't remember where the light switches were in previous houses.
So we have established MM was capable of switching lights on and off? ...(snip)Yes certainly all the light switches are very low and easily operated by a toddler.
Yes certainly all the light switches are very low and easily operated by a toddler.
The mystery is.....
The child got off the bed and went to another room and did not return (Proof - at 10pm the child was missing from the child bedroom, and the child bedroom door was opened, it's elementary), BUT the child did NOT turn on any light switch.
This IMO is indication that the child was not relaxedly wandering around the apartment playing, but was fleeing and hiding from something (therefore turned no light switches on).
Proof? Afraid not. Try this; an adult picked the child up from the bed and carried her elsewhere, leaving the bedroom door open.
The child who was removed from the bed was alive due to lack of cadaver dog alerts in the children's bedroom?
If she was removed from the bed by someone then yes. I'm not actually saying she was though. My intention was to point out that an open door doesn't prove that a walking child opened it, as was being suggested.
The child who was removed from the bed was alive due to lack of cadaver dog alerts in the children's bedroom?
Proof? Afraid not. Try this; an adult picked the child up from the bed and carried her elsewhere, leaving the bedroom door open.Ok it's not proof but it's the simplest solution. And G-Unit there is no evidence any intruder entered the apartment.
THE MADELEINE MCCANN ABDUCTION: CRIMINAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE OFFENDER
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-criminal.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-criminal.html)
THE MADELEINE MCCANN ABDUCTION: CRIMINAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE OFFENDERInteresting read, however there is one fatal flaw in your reasoning. If Madeleine disturbed the burglar and he had to take her for fear of being id'ed then why was the 'abductor' seen with a sleeping child in his arms? Your theory only works if we discount the possiblility of Tannerman and Smithman being the abductor.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-criminal.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-criminal.html)
THE MADELEINE MCCANN ABDUCTION: CRIMINAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE OFFENDER
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-criminal.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-criminal.html)
A child lured to the bedroom window would not have opened the bedroom door (again).
A child lured to the bedroom window would not have opened the bedroom door (again).Precisely Misty. If Heri's walk towards window theory were correct, the bedroom door would have still been only barely ajar (or more likely completely slammed closed by the wind) when KM arrived.
it wasn't just the McCann's who thought it was safe, I read a cleaner said many holiday makers left their doors open during the day.
One theory we discussed on Heri's visit was whether Jane Tanner's sighting was at the time she claimed.
oh so that makes it ok then in your book.... 8**8:/:
i bet though three little children were not ....... left alone inside....
what i also find odd about your post ......you find acceptable people left doors open
yet what about the so called spate of burglaries ...the staff/cleaner's would have been aware of ...
and you would have thought ...alerted them about this...
not make out it's a natural thing to do .....
As already stated, burglars just don't kidnap children. It is very possible a local burglar lifted the shutter and slid the window across but he could hardly miss the three sleeping children within. Had any of them woken up he would have been bout of there like a rat up a drainpipe
For me its like watching a magician on TV....When you see the trick you think...that's impossible...how could he have done that. When you find out how it's done...you think....that was so simple......the solution to this disappearance is something very simple
Did you reach a conclusion?Not really. I happen to live at the top of perhaps the steepest hill in Luz, and after maybe 5 trips into Luz my calf muscles were screaming that enough was enough.
Yeah but everybody knows how all criminals escalate to the next level at the drop of a hat. Or the raising of a shutter in this instance.
It's plain common sense it happens innit..... 8(0(*
A very big difference between pilfering a few tourists' trinkets to abducting an infant.
How would you explain the phone calls these men made to each other, each lasting just a minute or so and coinciding with Madeleine being collected, to where she was taken home?
I don't think the burglars would have been surprised by Madeleine being in the apartment, they had been watching closely and knew they were in there and knew they were alone. They could have been hired to kidnap Madeleine, sometimes when a huge sum of money is offered it is hard for some to refuse.
How would you explain the phone calls these men made to each other, each lasting just a minute or so and coinciding with Madeleine being collected, to where she was taken home?
I don't think the burglars would have been surprised by Madeleine being in the apartment, they had been watching closely and knew they were in there and knew they were alone. They could have been hired to kidnap Madeleine, sometimes when a huge sum of money is offered it is hard for some to refuse.
You seem unsure whether they were planning a burglary or an abduction Lace. Phone calls neither a burglar or abductor make imo.
First I was being ironic if that escaped your attention.
There is no evidence of anyone watching the apartment with a plan to kidnap/burgle.
The phone calls? First off in 2007 few phones had GPS facilities so location was by using triangulation off masts. Off three masts with the hand set communicating with all three simultaneously it might be possible in rural areas to locate the handset within an area of 1 sq km. If there are only two masts the accuracy decreases. So at best case you have an envelope of say 2km x 1 km. That would mean a large lump of Luz. So phone calls in that envelope would hardly be damning evidence of anything other than people where phoning each other.
Do you seriously believe someone with a shedful of dosh would buy a bootleg child rather than adopt?
"In 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that an F.B.I. agent could not testify about the location of a defendant’s cell phone because the analyses did not rise to the level of trusted, replicable science. Other courts have found for the defendant after the defense attorney discredited the prosecution’s expert witness".
"Put another way, if I’m making a cell-phone call from my couch and someone commits a murder in a bar half a mile away, my cell records may serve as corroborating evidence that I took part in the crime. That might be true if I’d claimed to be in another state at the time, but those records cannot place me next to the body. What they don’t show is the precise location of a cell phone. Yet prosecutors often present those records as if they were DNA".
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phone-cant-tell-the-police
http://pursuitmag.com/locating-mobile-phones-through-pinging-and-triangulation/
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/01/cell-tower-triangulation-how-it-works/
The phone calls corresponded with every move the McCann's made, from picking Madeleine up to the McCann's entering the apartment, too much of a coincidence for me.
SY are following that lead, if they didn't know where the phone calls were coming from how come they were able to say who made them and how long they were, plus they coincided with the movements of the McCann's.
The phone records in Luz 2007 did not triangulate.
There were 3 servers.
Optimus had 3 antennas, cutting Luz into a 3-way pie.
TMN and Vodafone had 2 antennas each, both cutting Luz into W v E.
If the phone records triangulated, this would have been done and dusted around 9 years ago.
So not much chance of determining anything then other than a few people made phone calls.Slightly more, but not a lot.
Slightly more, but not a lot.
I happen to be of the opinion that the 2 OG digs to the E of Luz in June 2014 probably relate to phone calls made by Euclides Monteiro, but I do not get anywhere near to proving this.
And I have no reason to believe Mr Monteiro was up to anything illegal that night.
The part I can never get to grips with is why these allegedly super dooper criminal types are too bleedin' thick to use burner phones.I think you are probably about 5 levels of sophistication above the reality of Luz 2007.
Clearly from expert documentation and testimony the only way to pinpoint a phone is if it has a GPS facility and even then in the United States [drivers] the accuracy expected is only 50 to 150 metres for GPS and 100 to 300 metres for networks. Taking a 300 metre diameter circle that's about 7 hectares, I don't know about Luz but in UK there could be up to 200 dwellings in 7 hectares.
I get the idea too many people are watching Person of Interest and NCIS and believing it's real.
http://educatedevidence.com/Viewpoint_J-F.pdf
I can just about believe that a burglar surprised inside a property by a screaming child might panic, put his hand over her mouth and possibly kill her by mistake.Precisely. Therefore the scenario advances to: window and shutter open, burglar gone, child in apartment.
I cannot imagine a burglar outside the property deciding to lift the child out, carry her away and then kill her in cold blood. He would just clear off. Had any of Heri's burglars shown any violent tendencies then maybe, but Mrs Fenn's burglar, for example, made no attempt to hurt her.
Why dont the portuguese simply allow SY to interview these men then the case can be shelved
You would assume they could clearly identify what they want to ask?
Is it possible that the PT authorities would prefer it if this case remained a mystery forever?
Why dont the portuguese simply allow SY to interview these men then the case can be shelved
Is it possible that the PT authorities would prefer it if this case remained a mystery forever?
That would be the logical thing to do. If further formalities are required there has been plenty of time to accomplish getting the necessary paperwork in order.
Strange the alleged reason for Portuguese refusal is that there is no "new evidence". If as alleged Scotland Yard wish to question these people further, it is in everyone's interest to get it done and dusted.
Not quite in everyone's interest though. I'm sure whoever is responsible for the crime against against Madeleine is content that Scotland Yard's investigation has been allegedly blocked.
What blocking ?
Thew PJ want to know first why they need interviewing again.
How fascinating that the only point being discussed is the allegation by an unnamed source that the Portuguese are hampering Operation Grange's 'last line of investigation'.
The article is made up of unconfirmed rumours and speculations, SY declined to comment, but members have chosen to believe one 'fact' which allows them to criticise the Portuguese authorities. Par for the course it seems.
Even if the allegation is based on fact, it is the prerogative of the country receiving such requests to assess, question and refuse them if they see fit. Amaral tells us in his book that the UK didn't give the PJ information they requested. One refused request concerned financial information;
As you know, in considering requests for coercive measures the Secretary of State must consider necessity and proportionality.
Page 58 (PJ Ref XXII) Transaction details for 2 MasterCard credit cards used by Gerry McCANN ; this has not been completed as per the conversation between Detective Superintendent Stuart PRIOR and Head of UKCA Frances KENNAH.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FRANCES_KENNAH.htm
well that shouldnt take more than six months to explain
I think you are probably about 5 levels of sophistication above the reality of Luz 2007.
Paper files for the PJ.
No DNA database.
No paedo database.
An Excel system that could not handle more than 64k calls.
I wasn't talking about the PJ, I was talking about the reality of the accuracy to which a network phone can be located. That was pretty much the same the world over in 2007. Once you have established the reality that it is +/_ 300 metres it kind of frags a lot of theories.
The Sun article has a map showing an exact location where the dastardly burglars phones pinged. Wrong again, it seems.
There is that possibility.In my opinion if this case were solved by investigations undertaken by the Met and if the outcome was that it was a PT national who committed the crime of abduction / sexual assault / child trafficking / murder (a combination of one of more of these) then that would be deeply embarrassing for the PT authorities in more ways than one. It is not in the PT authorities' interests to get this case solved any time soon, IMO.
I think the old order is changing ... but it hasn't as yet quite yielded to the new.
"Pinging" requires the phone to have GPS aware capability and to be powered up. On that basis the Sun know it does ?!. "Pinging" is also a real time activity that has to be carried out by the network provider.
If what SiL says is right the best will be knowing which 120 degree sector the phone is in.
I would take the Sun's assertions with a pinch of salt.
I read what The Sun says then try to find out the truth. @)(++(*
In my opinion if this case were solved by investigations undertaken by the Met and if the outcome was that it was a PT national who committed the crime of abduction / sexual assault / child trafficking / murder (a combination of one of more of these) then that would be deeply embarrassing for the PT authorities in more ways than one. It is not in the PT authorities' interests to get this case solved any time soon, IMO.
Would it be embarrassing for the UK if the PJ solved it and found it was a UK national?
A UK national might not be living in Uk, in which case SY would have no jurisdiction
So not The McCanns then?
Would it be embarrassing for the UK if the PJ solved it and found it was a UK national?No, why should t be?
It obviously isn't a UK National. Scotland Yard don't need permission from Portugal on that one.
No, why should t be?
I don't know why you think the Portuguese might be embarrassed? I can see nothing to be embarrassed about, but if there is then why not the other scenario? It can't be because they failed to catch whoever, they had a year and OG have had a lot longer, loads more people and loads more money.I think the Portuguese authorities would be embarrassed because it would confirm without doubt that their initial investigation, leading to the making arguidos of the McCanns was a complete cock-up. It would be embarrassing because of how quickly they gave up on the case when there were many leads left un-followed up. It would also prove that "national hero" Amaral's judgement was seriously flawed, that under his and his colleagues' watch they allowed a child abductor to evade justice for many years. The majority of the country apparently is still convinced the McCanns dunnit - how would the country cope with the knowledge that they'd been wrong to be pointing the finger at innocent parents of a missing child all these years? I'd hope they'd be ashamed of themselves, but maybe if they have no shame, then perhaps you're right - no embarrassment either.
I think the Portuguese authorities would be embarrassed because it would confirm without doubt that their initial investigation, leading to the making arguidos of the McCanns was a complete cock-up. It would be embarrassing because of how quickly they gave up on the case when there were many leads left un-followed up. It would also prove that "national hero" Amaral's judgement was seriously flawed, that under his and his colleagues' watch they allowed a child abductor to evade justice for many years. The majority of the country apparently is still convinced the McCanns dunnit - how would the country cope with the knowledge that they'd been wrong to be pointing the finger at innocent parents of a missing child all these years? I'd hope they'd be ashamed of themselves, but maybe if they have no shame, then perhaps you're right - no embarrassment either.I don't know much about the Oporto investigation, but I thought one of the drivers was to look at Euclides Monteiro?
I don't know much about the Oporto investigation, but I thought one of the drivers was to look at Euclides Monteiro?I dunno, is it? Have the PJ confirmed this?
That ticks all the boxes you are suggesting the Portuguese don't want ticked.
I think the Portuguese authorities would be embarrassed because it would confirm without doubt that their initial investigation, leading to the making arguidos of the McCanns was a complete cock-up. It would be embarrassing because of how quickly they gave up on the case when there were many leads left un-followed up. It would also prove that "national hero" Amaral's judgement was seriously flawed, that under his and his colleagues' watch they allowed a child abductor to evade justice for many years. The majority of the country apparently is still convinced the McCanns dunnit - how would the country cope with the knowledge that they'd been wrong to be pointing the finger at innocent parents of a missing child all these years? I'd hope they'd be ashamed of themselves, but maybe if they have no shame, then perhaps you're right - no embarrassment either.
I think the Portuguese authorities would be embarrassed because it would confirm without doubt that their initial investigation, leading to the making arguidos of the McCanns was a complete cock-up. It would be embarrassing because of how quickly they gave up on the case when there were many leads left un-followed up. It would also prove that "national hero" Amaral's judgement was seriously flawed, that under his and his colleagues' watch they allowed a child abductor to evade justice for many years. The majority of the country apparently is still convinced the McCanns dunnit - how would the country cope with the knowledge that they'd been wrong to be pointing the finger at innocent parents of a missing child all these years? I'd hope they'd be ashamed of themselves, but maybe if they have no shame, then perhaps you're right - no embarrassment either.
The investigation made mistakes but so do UK investigations, so no shame there. The McCanns behaviour has raised suspicions all over the world, not just in Portugal, so no shame there either. Amaral had 5 months to investigate and faced many hindrances. Had the group returned for the reconstruction the case may not have been archived, we'll never know.When investigations are discovered to have made mistakes, or worse when attempts to cover up those mistakes or shift the blame to others are uncovered then it should be a major embarrassment and shame should be felt by those responsible. Just because mistakes and cover ups occur the world over does not mitigate that fact.
When investigations are discovered to have made mistakes, or worse when attempts to cover up those mistakes or shift the blame to others are uncovered then it should be a major embarrassment and shame should be felt by those responsible. Just because mistakes and cover ups occur the world over does not mitigate that fact.
I think the Portuguese authorities would be embarrassed because it would confirm without doubt that their initial investigation, leading to the making arguidos of the McCanns was a complete cock-up. It would be embarrassing because of how quickly they gave up on the case when there were many leads left un-followed up. It would also prove that "national hero" Amaral's judgement was seriously flawed, that under his and his colleagues' watch they allowed a child abductor to evade justice for many years. The majority of the country apparently is still convinced the McCanns dunnit - how would the country cope with the knowledge that they'd been wrong to be pointing the finger at innocent parents of a missing child all these years? I'd hope they'd be ashamed of themselves, but maybe if they have no shame, then perhaps you're right - no embarrassment either.
I don't like to refer to a recent case in the UK where mistakes were made and a cover-up succeeded for many years, only finally being exposed after years of effort by Liverpool families but.......................Yes, that was the case I had in mind also, so you understand my point then.
Hopefully those involved feel major embarrassment and shame; they certainly ought to.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.what a strange response to my post.
Yes, that was the case I had in mind also, so you understand my point then.
Are you suggesting that the PJ have behaved in a similar manner? I think you need more than opinion or innuendo to make such an accusation. Do you have any verifiable grounds?I think you need to re-read my posts and calm down with the interrogation.
I think you need to re-read my posts and calm down with the interrogation.
I have re-read your posts and it stll looks as if you are accusing the Portuguese authorities of wrongdoing. If not, I'm sure yu can clarify.
Not sure if you have noticed but the McCanns have been accused of wrongdoing for the past nine years and it doesn't seem to have bothered you in the slightest
I have re-read your posts and it stll looks as if you are accusing the Portuguese authorities of wrongdoing. If not, I'm sure yu can clarify.My posts speak for themselves and are crystal clear. I have nothing further to add.
Not by me. If someone is accusing the Portuguese of wrongdoing they need to provide the facts they are basing their accusations on. Why should the Portuguese authorities feel ashamed in the same way that those responsible for Hillsborough should feel ashamed is what I'm asking, because that's what I've deduced is being said. If I've misunderstood I will apologise.You have regularly implied the McCanns are lying
You have regularly implied the McCanns are lyingEvidence? What evidence?
The Portuguese authorities should feel ashamed because of the mess they made of the investigation
They should feel ashamed for allowing amaral to defame the McCanns
The evidence to support both these statements has been posted many times
You have regularly implied the McCanns are lying
The Portuguese authorities should feel ashamed because of the mess they made of the investigation
They should feel ashamed for allowing amaral to defame the McCanns
The evidence to support both these statements has been posted many times
My posts speak for themselves and are crystal clear. I have nothing further to add.
Thats up to you if you don't mind standing by what seems to be just your opinion because you offer no facts. It would help if you said it was just your opinion in my opinion. You said;When I preface a post with the statement "I think" isn't it fairly obvious that what I am offering is my opinion? If opinions are no longer allowed on this forum then please point me to the rule which outlaws it, alternatively if you don't like me expressing my opinion don't read it.
I think the Portuguese authorities would be embarrassed because it would confirm without doubt that their initial investigation, leading to the making arguidos of the McCanns was a complete cock-up. It would be embarrassing because of how quickly they gave up on the case when there were many leads left un-followed up. It would also prove that "national hero" Amaral's judgement was seriously flawed, that under his and his colleagues' watch they allowed a child abductor to evade justice for many years.
All of the bolded amounts need cites or they remain opinion.
I haven't implied the McCanns are lying, they have. If they make contradictory statements how can they both be true?Oh my days. The McCanns have implied they are lying??! No, what has happened is that you have scoured reams of statements, newspaper articles, books to find minor discrepancies (most of the more significant ones which have been subsequently corrected) which you have then used to imply the McCanns are liars. They have not pointed the finger at themselves have they? It is you, using the McCanns' own statements to imply that they are lying.
Please define 'mess', with cites. Please remember Amaral is guilty of defaming no-one at the moment. Sometimes people think they have 'evidence' when they haven't.
Evidence? What evidence?Disappointed yes, ashamed no - they were not responsible for letting the case go cold for years, for not following up leads, for deciding at the outset that the parents dunnint, for putting an arguido (subsequently convicted) officer in charge, for botching up the collection of forensic data, for not checking CCTV when it was available etc etc etc etc.
You do not appear to like the court decision, which is quite different to evidence. You have an opinion as to the conduct of the investigation, which is quite different to evidence.
Should OG feel ASHAMED because they have thrown 12 million and man years at it without solving the case?
Evidence? What evidence?
You do not appear to like the court decision, which is quite different to evidence. You have an opinion as to the conduct of the investigation, which is quite different to evidence.
Should OG feel ASHAMED because they have thrown 12 million and man years at it without solving the case?
I haven't implied the McCanns are lying, they have. If they make contradictory statements how can they both be true?
Please define 'mess', with cites. Please remember Amaral is guilty of defaming no-one at the moment. Sometimes people think they have 'evidence' when they haven't.
It is abundantly clear the mccanns have made contradictory statements.
The inevitable conclusions will be made.
When I preface a post with the statement "I think" isn't it fairly obvious that what I am offering is my opinion? If opinions are no longer allowed on this forum then please point me to the rule which outlaws it, alternatively if you don't like me expressing my opinion don't read it.
Disappointed yes, ashamed no - they were not responsible for letting the case go cold for years, for not following up leads, for deciding at the outset that the parents dunnint, for putting an arguido (subsequently convicted) officer in charge, for botching up the collection of forensic data, for not checking CCTV when it was available etc etc etc etc.For deciding at the outset that the parents dunnit? That happens to be one of the myths on this forum that is contradicted by the evidence. The PJ Files are replete with them following up other angles. Murat was not made an arguido just as a diversion to lure the McCanns into a false sense of security.
we dont have the statements teh mccanns made we have the twice translated non verbatim reports they initially made...any attempt to compare the two for discrepancies is ridiculous
If you think the contradictions are only in their statements you haven't been paying attention.
Oh my days. The McCanns have implied they are lying??! No, what has happened is that you have scoured reams of statements, newspaper articles, books to find minor discrepancies (most of the more significant ones which have been subsequently corrected) which you have then used to imply the McCanns are liars. They have not pointed the finger at themselves have they? It is you, using the McCanns' own statements to imply that they are lying.
I have demonstrated contradictions but given no opinion as to why. Maybe they just have bad memories. It is you who have decided my posts are 'implying' something. Your opinions of other's motives are constantly posted as fact, but they are just your opinions. If I contradicted myself it would be questioned, why should others be immune?
I have demonstrated contradictions but given no opinion as to why. Maybe they just have bad memories. It is you who have decided my posts are 'implying' something. Your opinions of other's motives are constantly posted as fact, but they are just your opinions. If I contradicted myself it would be questioned, why should others be immune?
Thank you for admitting it's all just your opinion. It remains to be seen whether your opinions will be proved right or wrong at some point. My opinion is they won't.Of course it was my opinion, I wasn't admitting anything, it was plain for all to see.
For deciding at the outset that the parents dunnit? That happens to be one of the myths on this forum that is contradicted by the evidence. The PJ Files are replete with them following up other angles. Murat was not made an arguido just as a diversion to lure the McCanns into a false sense of security.So it's a myth that Amaral was suspicious of the parents from the off then?
I won't bother with the rest.
A rumour in The Sun cannot be believed, but if the Portuguese are refusing a request I assume there's a valid reason. If SY wish to interview arguidos we must remember they have the right to remain silent.And if they exercise that right it doesn't automatically mean they have something to hide rght?
What have the PT authorities got to lose by allowing the Met to have one last stab at solving ths case be re-questioning those they want to re-question?Absolutely nothing assuming -
Absolutely nothing assuming -
Such a request has been put in - and -
The relevant authority in Portugal deems it to be legal and supported by sufficient evidence to re-grill the 3 arguidos.
Personally, if I was instructed to appear at Faro (at my time and expense) in the company of my lawyer (at my expense), whilst the media bandied about my arguido status (at my expense), I would not be impressed by the argument that the Met should be allowed one last stab.
It takes a lot more than 'one last stab'.
Absolutely nothing assuming -If the unnmamed officer in the article is correct it would seem to boil down to a matter of opinion regarding the validity of the evidence that the Met has pieced together to lead them to the conclusion that further interviews are necessary. The Met think they might be on to something that requires further lines of questioning, the PT authorities seem to think otherwise. If the PT authorities have their way then we will never know if the Met's lead might have been the one that helped solve the case. IMO this would be a tragedy.
Such a request has been put in - and -
The relevant authority in Portugal deems it to be legal and supported by sufficient evidence to re-grill the 3 arguidos.
Personally, if I was instructed to appear at Faro (at my time and expense) in the company of my lawyer (at my expense), whilst the media bandied about my arguido status (at my expense), I would not be impressed by the argument that the Met should be allowed one last stab.
It takes a lot more than 'one last stab'.
If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have producedsnap.
If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have produced
If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have producedWe are not permitted to know if SY investigated any of the T9 before the remit was drawn up, so we will never know. Unless someone squeals.
Sounds like a preemptive excuse.
We are not permitted to know if SY investigated any of the T9 before the remit was drawn up, so we will never know. Unless someone squeals.No, what it boils down to (if the report is to be believed) is that the Met have a further line of enquiry which runs the risk of never being properly investigated. If you think that's OK, well then sorry but I'm not impressed.
We don't know if a request by OG to PT has been put in, and unless someone squeals, we won't.
We have no idea if such a request is either legal, or pertinent.
So your argument, and Alfie's, boils down to -
let's stick them on the rack again, and see if anything pops out.
I'm not impressed.
And if it so happens, one or more were involved in petty burglary, so what? Does that now stack up to abduction or murder?
No, what it boils down to (if the report is to be believed) is that the Met have a further line of enquiry which runs the risk of never being properly investigated. If you think that's OK, well then sorry but I'm not impressed.
Or the Met are clutching at straws in a vain attempt to justify the wage of money. 8)-)))And we will never know which unless the met are allowed to conduct further questioning.
And we will never know which unless the met are allowed to conduct further questioning.
They have been questioned already.
What makes you think the team of 4 remaining officers know any better ?
The word of four officers who have all the information or you
It's rather obvious
No, the Portuguese.
They know best.
SY have a great deal of 'egg on their face' trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
No stone unturned, of course.
They have been questioned already.Know any better than who? You?
What makes you think the team of 4 remaining officers know any better ?
Know any better than who? You?
Are you suggesting that police should only be allowed one opportunity to question suspects?
You sound desperate.
The Portuguese have questioned the men and found NOTHING.
So what makes you think, SY know better ?
That is why they seem there
You sound desperate.
The Portuguese have questioned the men and found NOTHING.
So what makes you think, SY know better ?
And we will never know which unless the met are allowed to conduct further questioning.
Frankly guys, I think SY have given up on Madeleine.
ps interesting avatar Stephanie
Do you like my hair ?
I had it done special. %&5%£ %&5%£ %£5&%
It suits you stephanie
Now about your avatar ..... 8**8:/:
Perhaps a blond wig could be supplied with it. @)(++(*
Frankly guys, I think SY have given up on Madeleine.
ps interesting avatar Stephanie
You sound desperate.
The Portuguese have questioned the men and found NOTHING.
So what makes you think, SY know better ?
1) I am not desperate
2) Imagine you question someone. Then subsequently after further investigation you have more questions for the person you first questioned. Should you be denied because you already questioned them before and therefore you've had a shot at it?
3) Know better than who, you?
Believing what The Sun says are you? Most of the article is guesswork. My comments in brackets, couldn't be bothered with the rest of it.If you care to read my recent posts on this subject properly you will see I repeatedly use the caveat "if the report is to be believed".
Brit cops 'know who snatched Maddie' [They didn't say that]
MADELEINE McCann was snatched during a botched robbery by a gang of thieves which included a 16-year-old youth, British police believe. [And they haven't said that]
she was abducted in May 2007. [She's 'missing']
British police fear that during a break-in at the apartment where Madeleine was sleeping she woke up and in a panic one of the gang snatched her. [Do they? They haven't said so]
More straw clutching.More avoiding answering the questions. Back on ignore now Stephanie.
More avoiding answering the questions. Back on ignore now Stephanie.
The Portuguese Police have rightly refused the English police any further interviews with the current arguidos on the basis that they have failed to introduce any new evidence against them. That is the Law!
The Portuguese Police have rightly refused the English police any further interviews with the current arguidos on the basis that they have failed to introduce any new evidence against them. That is the Law!ISnt that the basis in the UK too? If a suspect is released from questioning, dont the police need concrete grounds/new evidence to bring them in again?
ISnt that the basis in the UK too? If a suspect is released from questioning, dont the police need concrete grounds/new evidence to bring them in again?
ISnt that the basis in the UK too? If a suspect is released from questioning, dont the police need concrete grounds/new evidence to bring them in again?
In the UK there are strict rules relating to the questioning of suspects. Within a specified period of time police must charge or release someone they have arrested in relation to a crime.Do they only get one shot at it then?
In the UK there are strict rules relating to the questioning of suspects. Within a specified period of time police must charge or release someone they have arrested in relation to a crime.
Do they only get one shot at it then?
In the UK there are strict rules relating to the questioning of suspects. Within a specified period of time police must charge or release someone they have arrested in relation to a crime.
If SY have valid questions that they would like asking, they will have submitted them to PT. If PT agree, they will ask, unless they have already asked the questions.
PT will not give SY free reign as it could jepodise any future trial due to incorrect process.
If SY have good reason they can clearly state it and there shouldn't be an issue.
If SY have valid questions that they would like asking, they will have submitted them to PT. If PT agree, they will ask, unless they have already asked the questions.
PT will not give SY free reign as it could jepodise any future trial due to incorrect process.
If SY have good reason they can clearly state it and there shouldn't be an issue.
that's what worries me...it is purely at someones discretion
That's right - the judiciary. Who would you prefer to make the choice - the police?
if SY want to ask questions I think they should be able to and not stopped by PT red tapeWithin PT, SY is bound by the laws of Portugal, whatever any forum poster on here might think.
that's what worries me...it is purely at someones discretion
i have seen a case in portugal where a suspect was held in custody for a year without charge
If SY have valid questions that they would like asking, they will have submitted them to PT. If PT agree, they will ask, unless they have already asked the questions.
PT will not give SY free reign as it could jepodise any future trial due to incorrect process.
If SY have good reason they can clearly state it and there shouldn't be an issue.
Exactly! This has been written and pointed out before SLarty.
How would sceptics feel if the PJ announced it wanted to question the McCanns again but were blocked by the UK authorities on the basis that there was no new evidence?
Speaking purely for myself I would firstly take the story with a wagon load of salt if it was in The Sun. If it seemed to be true I would assume any request had failed to pass the tests such requests are subjected to. Having read in the files how it works, advice is given on how to make the requests more acceptable. They can then be changed and re-submitted.Who said anything about the Sun? So you definitely wouldn't think the UK authorities were standing in the way of justice or protecting the McCanns then?
Who said anything about the Sun? So you definitely wouldn't think the UK authorities were standing in the way of justice or protecting the McCanns then?-
-Then you were answering a question I didn't ask.
I said something about The Sun because if the story was in that rag I probably wouldn't believe it. OK?
If the UK authorities refused a request to interview the McCanns I would accept that decision. That's because I accept the rule of law.
When the judge ruled in favour of the McCanns in the defamation trial I didn't criticise Portugal's defamation laws, I accepted the decision. I was puzzled by the grounds, (with good reason, it seems), but I didn't call for them to change their laws.
Some people seem to support the rule of law only if it's findings match their own opinions.
How would sceptics feel if the PJ announced it wanted to question the McCanns again but were blocked by the UK authorities on the basis that there was no new evidence?
Then you were answering a question I didn't ask.
So you'd be puzzled then, if the UK Authorities refused to grant the PJ permission to re-question the McCanns? You'd think it odd and strange no doubt, well guess what? That's how I feel about the PJ dragging their feet with regard to the Met's request to re-question the arguidos. I have NEVER called for them to change their laws however.
Lucky you. If you decide to ask the question you don't need to bother because you have the answer. @)(++(*I feel like this is the Two Ronnies sketch with you answering questions before they've been asked. Not that I would have dreamt of objecting to anything you write anymore, now that I know how very sensitive you are to any perceived criticism.
You're telling me how you feel but you don't even know if it's true that 'the PJ dragging their feet with regard to the Met's request to re-question the arguidos'. Not only is the source questionable, but we don't even know if any such request reached the PJ from the Portuguese authorities. It could have been refused by those who receive these requests.
You may not have suggested that the Portuguese change their laws, but some have. Before you tell me you object to being tarred with the same brush perhaps you could stop doing it to others.
I feel like this is the Two Ronnies sketch with you answering questions before they've been asked. Not that I would have dreamt of objecting to anything you write anymore, now that I know how very sensitive you are to any perceived criticism.
Seeing this story doesnt appear to be anywhere else, or endorsed by SY, maybe we should stop giving the Sun any serious time and energy and mental speculative gymnastics,just a thoughtPerhaps we're the muppets for expending 106 pages of posts on the article... @)(++(* @)(++(*
We know for a fact that the Sun's antics in this affair have gone from the bizarre to the ridiculous, to the seemingly total fabrication of evidence and more. Not forgetting their cartoonising of the missing child being dragged dwn the streets. What a bunch of utter muppets.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2875942/A-2000-page-file-provides-stark-evidence-of-shocking-Portuguese-failings-in-the-hunt-for-Madeleine-McCann.html#ixzz0h60UZNC7
Perhaps we're the muppets for expending 106 pages of posts on the article... @)(++(* @)(++(*
Exactly. The only reason we have is because some muppets think The Sun tells the truth.Who is that directed at?
Exactly. The only reason we have is because some muppets think The Sun tells the truth.
After all the 'sun' is the bastion of the truth, justice and having paid the mccanns serialization rights for a certain book.
Very nice.
Well you love the comments section.
Well you love the comments section.
After all the 'sun' is the bastion of the truth, justice and having paid the mccanns serialization rights for a certain book.
Very nice.
And yet very recently you posted a link to the Sun as evidence to back up a claim.
Double standards?
Perhaps there should be a new forum rule that, as with blogs by anonymous authors, all newspaper articles should be banned, seeing as how only muppets would take anything they say as being worthy of discussion. Which leaves us only with - what? The Files and....?
Perhaps there should be a new forum rule that, as with blogs by anonymous authors, all newspaper articles should be banned, seeing as how only muppets would take anything they say as being worthy of discussion. Which leaves us only with - what? The Files and....?
Remind me of the purpose of the link.
Live interviews ?Haha, you mean like when Andy Redwood said live on TV that neither the McCanns nor any of their friends were suspects or persons of interest which really meant that they were? 8(0(*
Here is your post - you even emphasize that the link had been posted before. Why would you post that link if you didn't think it was a credible cite from a reliable source?
Quote
Do keep up.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7115564/Revealed-The-reason-Kate-and-Gerry-werent-charged-over-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
AND TAKE NOTE.
This link and others have been provided before.
End quote
Now you appear to be sneering at the very idea that the Sun is a credible source.
Therefore - double standards IMO.
Need I remind you Benice, that the article was run in MOST of the UK papers, or has that escaped your attention.
So you were saying..................
Besides the comments pages in all those papers that ran the story speak volumes about the lack of support for the Mccanns.
I'm sure you will agree on that.
..and just for you Benice.
As a reminder of course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3565461/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-not-prosecuted-Portuguese-police-believed-leaving-children-meal-English-custom.html
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/511619/Portuguese-minister-reveals-charge-Maddie-McCann-parents-compassion-abandonment-prosecutor
Haha, you mean like when Andy Redwood said live on TV that neither the McCanns nor any of their friends were suspects or persons of interest which really meant that they were? 8(0(*
LOL - Nothing whatsoever to do with my comment that you have clearly displayed double standards when it comes to the veracity of articles in the Sun IMO
Anyway carry on deflecting - I have to go out now.
Yes exactly like that and like Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa saying exactly the same thing.So basically you've just shot down your own suggestion that we should pay any notice to live TV interviews haven't you? Which leaves us with what...?
So basically you've just shot down your own suggestion that we should pay any notice to live TV interviews haven't you? Which leaves us with what...?
Here is your post - you even emphasize that the link had been posted before. Why would you post that link if you didn't think it was a credible cite from a reliable source?
Quote
Do keep up.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7115564/Revealed-The-reason-Kate-and-Gerry-werent-charged-over-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
AND TAKE NOTE.
This link and others have been provided before.
End quote
Now you appear to be sneering at the very idea that the Sun is a credible source.
Therefore - double standards IMO.
Perhaps there should be a new forum rule that, as with blogs by anonymous authors, all newspaper articles should be banned, seeing as how only muppets would take anything they say as being worthy of discussion. Which leaves us only with - what? The Files and....?
In what way ?What do you mean "in what way"? Is there any quote that has appeared in any paper of from the horse's mouth concerning the fact that the Met are not investigating parental involvement that you accept as being the straight forward honest truth?
What do you mean "in what way"? Is there any quote that has appeared in any paper of from the horse's mouth concerning the fact that the Met are not investigating parental involvement that you accept as being the straight forward honest truth?
Why would we need a quote? We have it from the horses's mouth. Then again we also heard the same thing from Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa and we all know what happened there.You believe the McCanns are still suspects as far as the police are concerned don't you? Despite the wealth of sources both in the news media and live TV broadcasts that state the contrary? So, your belief is based on what a Portuguese cop didn't say 9 years ago, is that it?
You believe the McCanns are still suspects as far as the police are concerned don't you? Despite the wealth of sources both in the news media and live TV broadcasts that state the contrary? So, your belief is based on what a Portuguese cop didn't say 9 years ago, is that it?
I'm saying as the history of this case shows it's a possibility that's all.Anything's possible, but do you think it's probable? Is it what your gut is telling you?
Why would we need a quote? We have it from the horses's mouth. Then again we also heard the same thing from Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa and we all know what happened there.the horses mouth in this case was being interviewed about the 48 persons of interest at the time and when asked answered truthfully that neither the mccanns or their friends were suspects...!
You believe the McCanns are still suspects as far as the police are concerned don't you? Despite the wealth of sources both in the news media and live TV broadcasts that state the contrary? So, your belief is based on what a Portuguese cop didn't say 9 years ago, is that it?
You believe the McCanns are still suspects as far as the police are concerned don't you? Despite the wealth of sources both in the news media and live TV broadcasts that state the contrary? So, your belief is based on what a Portuguese cop didn't say 9 years ago, is that it?
The fact that the true experts on child abduction - (i.e the parents of other abducted children - especially those who have spent time with the McCanns) believe them and support them - is the most compelling evidence of all IMO.
If anyone could spot a 'fake' - then it would be those people IMO.
Fascinating. The story has disappeared so I can't answer your accusation but my guess is that there was a direct quote by the Portuguese authorities.
Ah yes, found it in the Daily Star! I wonder why The Sun wiped it?
It was a direct quote by Rui Pereira, the Portuguese equivalent of our Home Secretary at the time saying they made a mistake by not making the McCanns arguidos for the crime of abandonment.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/511619/Portuguese-minister-reveals-charge-Maddie-McCann-parents-compassion-abandonment-prosecutor
The fact that the true experts on child abduction - (i.e the parents of other abducted children - especially those who have spent time with the McCanns) believe them and support them - is the most compelling evidence of all IMO.
If anyone could spot a 'fake' - then it would be those people IMO.
believe them and support them - is the most compelling evidence of all IMO.
well how you can call that compelling evidence ...i just don't know ....for a start ..you don't know what they think of the mccs
and i would imagine ...the grief they have they won't really care about supporting [why should there loss be any less than the mccs] the mccs...who seem to tag on every tragic story
lets face it ....what is said in private ....can not be said in public ...about that pair
and if that is your most compelling evidence ....... 8**8:/:
When have the McCann's 'tag on every tragic story'?
well for a start .what are you doing messing with my post ...ehIs that at their behest?
and .........as if you.havent noticed ...what happens ..when any child goes missing/dies ...etc...etc
who gets mentioned ...........yesssss.the mccs
Is that at their behest?
Is that at their behest?
Who knows?So you seriously are entertaining the idea that every time a child goes missing or is murdered the McCanns ask the papers to link their name to the story and the media obliges?
well for a start .what are you doing messing with my post ...eh
and .........as if you.havent noticed ...what happens ..when any child goes missing/dies ...etc...etc
who gets mentioned ...........yesssss.the mccs
I don't know how that happened to your post I was just scrolling down making sure my reply was after the end of yours.
So you think it's the McCann's fault that papers mention them when they write an article about another missing child or a child that dies. How is that their fault? Do you think the McCann's ring up the paper and say 'hey I hear you're writing an article about so and so today, put our story at the end of it will you, thanks'. No it doesn't happen. The McCann's it seems get blamed for everything and it's ridiculous.
Well of course it is ludicrous to say the McCanns would phone the Papers to say that- they paid thousands to have their profile kept in the papers darling so some paid serf would do that.Tsk how common to think such a thing. OR their 'dossier gang' or their 'family friend' would climb onto that band wagon.
They paid the money in the beginning to keep Madeleine in the limelight to help the search for her, I really don't think that is going on now nine years later 'darling'.
Oh I'm sure your right.. oh tsk searching back through the threads something here about Kelvin McKenzie and Sharon whats her name...Osborne, having the sheer gall to talk about 'missing' children.. and upsetting the McCanns like that.
and the torrent of abuse levelled at SO by supporters for speaking about a missing child..OMG did you miss all that?
Might I respectfully suggest that members endeavour to keep to the topic of the thread ...the SUN and botched burglaries. thank youIf a burglar did open that shutter it would wake the child who would run to another room IMO.
If a burglar did open that shutter it would wake the child who would run to another room IMO.So, in your opinion, it woke Madeleine
So, in your opinion, it woke Madeleine
Why didn't it waken the twins, who were closer to the sound ?
If a burglar did open that shutter it would wake the child who would run to another room IMO.
active children on these sort of holidays sleep very deeply as shown by the twinsThe twins sleep habits are not afaiw a benchmark for all sleeping kids on hlday, moving on
active children on these sort of holidays sleep very deeply as shown by the twins"Part of the reason we ended coming through the back, was the noise coming through the front door, you don't want to disturb them"
"Part of the reason we ended coming through the back, was the noise coming through the front door, you don't want to disturb them"That would imply the other two couples checking via the front door were being very inconsiderate to their children.
http://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=5m18s
active children on these sort of holidays sleep very deeply as shown by the twins
So deeply that their mother had to check they were breathing. Strange really as one cried on Tuesday and the other cried on Wednesday when all was peaceful and quiet.You've had children so you will surely know that sometimes children wake and cry in the night, and sometimes New Year's eve fireworks right outside their bedroom window won't cause them to stir. Do you find this strange? I don't.
You've had children so you will surely know that sometimes children wake and cry in the night, and sometimes New Year's eve fireworks right outside their bedroom window won't cause them to stir. Do you find this strange? I don't.
But Kate McCann obviously did or she wouldn't have checked that they were breathing and, as she recounts in her book, alert the police to their comatose state.
You've had children so you will surely know that sometimes children wake and cry in the night, and sometimes New Year's eve fireworks right outside their bedroom window won't cause them to stir. Do you find this strange? I don't.
It's very strange that they all were alleged to have woken on previous nights but no way did it happen on the night she disappeared. Are you having a laff?
The twins sleep habits are not afaiw a benchmark for all sleeping kids on hlday, moving on
They might do and even if they do there is no evidence when and if any child woke up and if they did whether they went back to sleep so not a very good place for speculation as to what those particular children (or any others unattended) actually did on that night or any other night
Her book is wrong she never alerted police to their comatose state
But Kate McCann obviously did or she wouldn't have checked that they were breathing and, as she recounts in her book, alert the police to their comatose state.The fact that one of her children had just vanished and the window in their bedroom had apparently been opened might have had something to do with her raised anxiety levels about their breathing don't you think?
I know but I was simply rebutting Alfie's post by presenting Kate's own, embroidered, recollections.Which part of my post was incorrect? It is a fact that the same child can both sleep deeply undisturbed by loud noise and also wake in the night for no apparent reason at all. If you think this is untrue please state why.
The fact that one of her children had just vanished and the window in their bedroom had apparently been opened might have had something to do with her raised anxiety levels about their breathing don't you think?
So you don't think it was because they were unresponsive?The children were clearly fast asleep. Had she gone in their room on an ordinary night and tried to wake them up and they hadn't stirred she would probably have had a little chuckle to herself and left them to sleep. As it was, she believed that some malevolent presence had been in close proximity with her children and it is therefore unsurprising that she was concerned. It really doesn't take a genius to understand this but maybe it helps if you have children of your own and understand that they can be both light sleepers and heavy sleepers all in the course of one evening.
Which part of my post was incorrect? It is a fact that the same child can both sleep deeply undisturbed by loud noise and also wake in the night for no apparent reason at all. If you think this is untrue please state why.
The children were clearly fast asleep. Had she gone in their room on an ordinary night and tried to wake them up and they hadn't stirred she would probably have had a little chuckle to herself and left them to sleep. As it was, she believed that some malevolent presence had been in close proximity with her children and it is therefore unsurprising that she was concerned. It really doesn't take a genius to understand this but maybe it helps if you have children of your own and understand that they can be both light sleepers and heavy sleepers all in the course of one evening.
The children were clearly fast asleep. Had she gone in their room on an ordinary night and tried to wake them up and they hadn't stirred she would probably have had a little chuckle to herself and left them to sleep. As it was, she believed that some malevolent presence had been in close proximity with her children and it is therefore unsurprising that she was concerned. It really doesn't take a genius to understand this but maybe it helps if you have children of your own and understand that they can be both light sleepers and heavy sleepers all in the course of one evening.
It doesn't take a genius Alfie but in my experience I have never known two children to similtaneously sleep through the noise that must have been made in 5a that night and also to simultaneously stay asleep while they were taken out into the cold night air. One child I could just about believe but two? I'd say the odds were astronomical.......unless, of course, they had been drugged......but then again would burglars do that ?
It doesn't take a genius Alfie but in my experience I have never known two children to similtaneously sleep through the noise that must have been made in 5a that night and also to simultaneously stay asleep while they were taken out into the cold night air. One child I could just about believe but two? I'd say the odds were astronomical.......unless, of course, they had been drugged......but then again would burglars do that ?If I were ALice I'd be asking you to actually calculate the odds and present your calculations for us to examine but 'I'm not that pedantic. Instead, let us consider the fact that the two children in question were twins, and so biologically very similar, had had the exact same experiences ever day that week, went to bed at exactly the same time. Is it really so astronomically improbable that they were both difficult to rouse? If one twin was in a deep sleep at the time, then why not both?
If I were ALice I'd be asking you to actually calculate the odds and present your calculations for us to examine but 'I'm not that pedantic. Instead, let us consider the fact that the two children in question were twins, and so biologically very similar, had had the exact same experiences ever day that week, went to bed at exactly the same time. Is it really so astronomically improbable that they were both difficult to rouse? If one twin was in a deep sleep at the time, then why not both?
Well faith, decent burglars would carry such drugs just in case their punters woke up, I would suspect a medical burglar would need to be involved purley so that the right amount was given- gosh wouldn't want to kill the kids right?... just enough to make them sleep deeply for a long time- well all night to be precise.
You know the bad queen in Snowwhite story,was very careful with her quantities of poison- just to make her sleep(induced coma) until a prince came a passing by.
I have now, officially, heard it all. They didn't wake because they were twins ! @)(++(*Pathetic response. What specifically do you disagree with in what I wrote?
It doesn't take a genius Alfie but in my experience I have never known two children to similtaneously sleep through the noise that must have been made in 5a that night and also to simultaneously stay asleep while they were taken out into the cold night air. One child I could just about believe but two? I'd say the odds were astronomical.......unless, of course, they had been drugged......but then again would burglars do that ?
And yet some sceptics believe that on the 1st May the twins both soundly slept through Madeleine crying loudly for an hour and a quarter - less than a couple of feet away from them.
And yet some sceptics believe that on the 1st May the twins both soundly slept through Madeleine crying loudly for an hour and a quarter - less than a couple of feet away from them.
If they had been sedated that wouldn't be so odd.
That would imply the other two couples checking via the front door were being very inconsiderate to their children.Their patio windows were not illuminated as the Mccanns 5A was . 5A had a street lamp immediately opposite which illuminated the patio area.
Surely they should also have checked via their patio doors. After all, it would have saved them perhaps 30 or 40 seconds on each check.
Their patio windows were not illuminated as the Mccanns 5A was . 5A had a street lamp immediately opposite which illuminated the patio area.
The others backed on to a dark unlit alleyway and would have been a burglars paradise from the back because the patio doors were not lockable .... and they were in shadow along a very little used alleyway