UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Admin on December 26, 2016, 04:40:19 PM
-
Nearly 10 years on, are we any closer to discovering the truth about Madeleine McCann?
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parents holiday apartment located in the sleepy Portuguese town of Luz on the 3rd May 2007. Despite two investigations by the Portuguese and the English police costing many £ millions and several teams of private investigators having been engaged by the McCanns, no sign of the youngster has ever been found.
So what now, are we any closer to discovering the truth about Madeleine McCann?
39
-
We don't know, because we don't know what information is in possession of the second enquiry.
But we do know, beyond all doubt, that that postulated (exclusively on the Portuguese side!) up to the point of Septemmber 2007 has been comprehensively discounted.
That's the only certainty.
-
We don't know, because we don't know what information is in possession of the second enquiry.
But we do know, beyond all doubt, that that postulated (exclusively on the Portuguese side!) up to the point of Septemmber 2007 has been comprehensively discounted.
That's the only certainty.
From where I'm sitting I can't see any scenario being discounted based on what we already know.
-
I think only a confession is going to resolve this, and not a deathbed one with a single witness.
-
From where I'm sitting I can't see any scenario being discounted based on what we already know.
In my opinion we can discount parental involvement based largely on the fact that despite 10 years of trying to make one work there is not one single plausible theory of their involvement, and any attempts at such a theory fail because they always involve a long series of implausible events. I know this post will provoke a stamping of indignant feet but please stop to really think about it before giving the usual knee jerk response.
-
In my opinion we can discount parental involvement based largely on the fact that despite 10 years of trying to make one work there is not one single plausible theory of their involvement, and any attempts at such a theory fail because they always involve a long series of implausible events. I know this post will provoke a stamping of indignant feet but please stop to really think about it before giving the usual knee jerk response.
If we gauge the implausibility of a theory by the number of improbable events which make it up then an abduction scenario a--la-McCann is even less probable.
-
If we gauge the implausibility of a theory by the number of improbable events which make it up then an abduction scenario a--la-McCann is even less probable.
Abduction is by far the most simple, uncomplicated explanation, full stop.
-
Abduction is by far the most simple, uncomplicated explanation, full stop.
No it isn't. Abduction requires the involvement of a third party and the evidence gathered so far precludes it. Far more simple is the theory that Maddie got out on her own and got lost. The problem with this though is that it puts the parents squarely back in the sights.
-
No it isn't. Abduction requires the involvement of a third party and the evidence gathered so far precludes it. Far more simple is the theory that Maddie got out on her own and got lost. The problem with this though is that it puts the parents squarely back in the sights.
What nonsense. What evidence gathered to date PRECLUDES abduction?
-
Nearly 10 years on, are we any closer to discovering the truth about Madeleine McCann?
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parents holiday apartment located in the sleepy Portuguese town of Luz on the 3rd May 2007. Despite two investigations by the Portuguese and the English police costing many £ millions and several teams of private investigators having been engaged by the McCanns, no sign of the youngster has ever been found.
So what now, are we any closer to discovering the truth about Madeleine McCann?
Actually no, we are no closer to realising the truth about what really happened to Madeleine but we are a lot wiser as to much of the goings-on post disappearance.
-
No it isn't. Abduction requires the involvement of a third party and the evidence gathered so far precludes it. Far more simple is the theory that Maddie got out on her own and got lost. The problem with this though is that it puts the parents squarely back in the sights.
The shelved enquiry precluded 'woke and wandered'.
Why do we constantly want to re-invent the wheel?
-
Abduction is by far the most simple, uncomplicated explanation, full stop.
it sounds simple but you have ignored all the complication of knowing why it was Madeleine that has been abducted in the first place.
-
The shelved enquiry precluded 'woke and wandered'.
Why do we constantly want to re-invent the wheel?
...and that is what you do every time you type the word abduction. 8)-)))
-
What nonsense. What evidence gathered to date PRECLUDES abduction?
The contradictions in the witness statements. If there was an outsider responsible there would be a lot more openness and clarity in the witness statements. You might question whether this is actual evidence but I tend to think it is.
Like did Jez and Gerry see Jane?
What time did the Paynes arrive?
Did Kate ask for her twins to be drug tested?
Just for examples of recently discussed questions.
-
The contradictions in the witness statements. If there was an outsider responsible there would be a lot more openness and clarity in the witness statements. You might question whether this is actual evidence but I tend to think it is.
Like did Jez and Gerry see Jane?
What time did the Paynes arrive?
Did Kate ask for her twins to be drug tested?
Just for examples of recently discussed questions.
Or is it just blame avoidance?
-
No it isn't. Abduction requires the involvement of a third party and the evidence gathered so far precludes it. Far more simple is the theory that Maddie got out on her own and got lost. The problem with this though is that it puts the parents squarely back in the sights.
I am looking more along the lines "the theory is that Maddie got out on her own and got lost and then was abducted."
Has lots of problems though when you add in cadaver odour, possible drugged siblings, opened windows and raised shutters. I don't think Madeleine can be blamed for those.
Or is it just blame avoidance?
Blame avoidance! But if they were not to blame what are they avoiding. I would like to know how that works. Maybe we need start a thread discussing that aspect.
-
it sounds simple but you have ignored all the complication of knowing why it was Madeleine that has been abducted in the first place.
Why is any child abducted? Madeleine wasn't the first child to be taken from her home, and she won't be the last I don't suppose. It's not a hugely complicated conundrum.
-
I am looking more along the lines "the theory is that Maddie got out on her own and got lost and then was abducted."
Has lots of problems though when you add in cadaver odour, possible drugged siblings, opened windows and raised shutters. I don't think Madeleine can be blamed for those.
Blame avoidance! But if they were not to blame what are they avoiding. I would like to know how that works. Maybe we need start a thread discussing that aspect.
They were responsible for leaving their children open to a variety of dangers.
-
The contradictions in the witness statements. If there was an outsider responsible there would be a lot more openness and clarity in the witness statements. You might question whether this is actual evidence but I tend to think it is.
Like did Jez and Gerry see Jane?
What time did the Paynes arrive?
Did Kate ask for her twins to be drug tested?
Just for examples of recently discussed questions.
None of these things are evidence to rule out abduction.
-
None of these things are evidence to rule out abduction.
But does your abduction start with the final abductor actually going into the kids bedroom and drugging the kids and taking Madeleine out of her bed etc.
Can you ever think that there are several events layered on top of each other? I go for abduction but there is a separate reason why Madeleine is out of her bed. So it is more complicated but I can include all of the weirdness, the cadaver odour, the possible drugged siblings, the opened windows and the raised shutters.
Gerry turning on the light to check that Madeleine was alright, is a major finding I believe, for at that point there was something happening more important than worrying about whether the kids would be woken by the suddenness of light switching on.
-
The bottom line.
She walked out, as Angelo favours, or she was removed.
I doubt anyone will ever know the truth, bar a confession.
-
But does your abduction start with the final abductor actually going into the kids bedroom and drugging the kids and taking Madeleine out of her bed etc.
Can you ever think that there are several events layered on top of each other? I go for abduction but there is a separate reason why Madeleine is out of her bed. So it is more complicated but I can include all of the weirdness, the cadaver odour, the possible drugged siblings, the opened windows and the raised shutters.
Gerry turning on the light to check that Madeleine was alright, is a major finding I believe, for at that point there was something happening more important than worrying about whether the kids would be woken by the suddenness of light switching on.
Nope, I think one or two people were involved, the apartment was watched, Madeleine chosen because she was in the apartment with the easiest access, he or they entered during a short window of opportunity of 5-10 minites, took a sleeping Madeleine, and were gone.
-
The bottom line.
She walked out, as Angelo favours, or she was removed.
I doubt anyone will ever know the truth, bar a confession.
What opened and closed the gates and patio doors behind her. Very clever 3 year old girl.
Nope, I think one or two people were involved, the apartment was watched, Madeleine chosen because she was in the apartment with the easiest access, he or they entered during a short window of opportunity of 5-10 minites, took a sleeping Madeleine, and were gone.
How would they know when the window of opportunity would pop up or are you thinking they just went for it and got lucky. For it seemed the checks were spaced quite random when you consider the three ground floor apartments. A walk past one is a check on the all in a way.
I agree the McCann apartment was the most exposed and hence had the easiest access.
Wouldn't she be chosen for her cuteness?
Would they have forced entry if the doors were locked? Or do you think there had to be insecure apartment plus a cute child combination? IMO if they are serious abductors they would be willing to jemmy the door as well.
-
What opened and closed the gates and patio doors behind her. Very clever 3 year old girl.
How would they know when the window of opportunity would pop up or are you thinking they just went for it and got lucky. For it seemed the checks were spaced quite random when you consider the three ground floor apartments. A walk past one is a check on the all in a way.
I agree the McCann apartment was the most exposed and hence had the easiest access.
Wouldn't she be chosen for her cuteness?
Would they have forced entry if the doors were locked? Or do you think there had to be insecure apartment plus a cute child combination? IMO if they are serious abductors they would be willing to jemmy the door as well.
If the visits were being watched then taking the child immediately after the last check would maximise the amount of time available to the abductor. Entry need not have been forced - unless you class raising the window shutter as forced, but other means are the unlcoked patio door and the front door which could have been open with a spare /skeleton key.
-
If the visits were being watched then taking the child immediately after the last check would maximise the amount of time available to the abductor. Entry need not have been forced - unless you class raising the window shitter as forced, but other means are the unlcoked patio door and the front door which could have been open with a spare /skeleton key.
Which should be considered as the last check? Technically, Kate's was the last check of the evening.
If Matt's at 9.30, that would clearly exclude Tannerman.
-
What nonsense. What evidence gathered to date PRECLUDES abduction?
Oh just the simple fact that there is none to support abduction. No forced entry, no evidence of an intruder entering via the bedroom window, cots undisturbed, no valuables stolen, no witnesses, no forensics whatsoever to support abduction by an intruder. Did I miss anything?? &%+((£
-
Sometimes I think the abductors were targeting a certain girl but got confused somehow and took the wrong daughter. Even some plot with a political or semi terrorist theme to it. Jez had some connection to a Jewish organisation looking after young children (like the YMCA but for Jews not Christians). Did the Palestinians have some plot to capture his daughter instead?
The daughter with the Hebrew name that translates in English to Orly or in Hebrew אורלי
If the visits were being watched then taking the child immediately after the last check would maximise the amount of time available to the abductor. Entry need not have been forced - unless you class raising the window shutter as forced, but other means are the unlocked patio door and the front door which could have been open with a spare /skeleton key.
Yes a bit of preparation - skeleton key, they were those special keys the round ones with notches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(lock)#Abloy Can they be skeletonised? It would require a certain skill level, that might be available to international kidnappers.
Last = previous for we don't know when the party would end.
-
What opened and closed the gates and patio doors behind her. Very clever 3 year old girl.
How would they know when the window of opportunity would pop up or are you thinking they just went for it and got lucky. For it seemed the checks were spaced quite random when you consider the three ground floor apartments. A walk past one is a check on the all in a way.
I agree the McCann apartment was the most exposed and hence had the easiest access.
Wouldn't she be chosen for her cuteness?
Would they have forced entry if the doors were locked? Or do you think there had to be insecure apartment plus a cute child combination? IMO if they are serious abductors they would be willing to jemmy the door as well.
Haven't we been told she was a very bright girl.
Besides, how hard is it to open a door or two ?
-
What opened and closed the gates and patio doors behind her. Very clever 3 year old girl.
Nobody knows for sure which gates were left open and why. Leaving the patio door unlocked while closing the child safety gate makes no sense unless Maddie was expected to get out to the patio and shout mummy?
-
Haven't we been told she was a very bright girl.
Besides, how hard is it to open a door or two ?
That would depend on the design and how much practice she had.
-
Nobody knows for sure which gates were left open and why. Leaving the patio door unlocked while closing the child safety gate makes no sense unless Maddie was expected to get out to the patio and shout mummy?
No, they expected her to get out onto the patio and climb the balustrade then wave her arms and call out.
That bit about her simply being able to open the sliding door herself seems a bit of a oversight. For Madeleine was a bit young to read the warning sticker about how dangerous the balustrades were.
-
Which should be considered as the last check? Technically, Kate's was the last check of the evening.
If Matt's at 9.30, that would clearly exclude Tannerman.
I meant taking the child immediately after A check would maximise the amount of time available, not after THE last check (obviously). Tannerman has already been excluded.
-
Oh just the simple fact that there is none to support abduction. No forced entry, no evidence of an intruder entering via the bedroom window, cots undisturbed, no valuables stolen, no witnesses, no forensics whatsoever to support abduction by an intruder. Did I miss anything?? &%+((£
Pathetic response. You know full well that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence which precludes abduction. None.
-
Pathetic response. You know full well that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence which precludes abduction. None.
Pleased you said that for an abduction could be done so professionally that there is just no evidence left behind.
But in this case there are the messy bits that need some explanation.
Lists of the messy bit brought up so far:
The contradictions in the witness statements.
If there was an outsider responsible there would be a lot more openness and clarity in the witness statements.
Like did Jez and Gerry see Jane?
What time did the Paynes arrive?
Did Kate ask for her twins to be drug tested?
add in cadaver odour,
possible drugged siblings,
opened windows and raised shutters.
Gerry turning on the light to check that Madeleine was alright,
Who opened and closed the gates and patio doors?
Two occasions where the door is not in the right place. (Assuming Matt hadn't altered the door angle.)
But IMO the following suggest professional abductor (but could occur in other situations):
No forced entry, no evidence of an intruder entering via the bedroom window, cots undisturbed, no valuables stolen, no witnesses, no forensics whatsoever to support abduction by an intruder.
-
No it isn't. Abduction requires the involvement of a third party and the evidence gathered so far precludes it. Far more simple is the theory that Maddie got out on her own and got lost. The problem with this though is that it puts the parents squarely back in the sights.
It doesn't require the involvement of a third party. One person could (just about) have done it on his own ...
BUT there are a number of pointers to a precisely planned abduction with others being involved. At least two, but more likely three.
Madeleine didn't get out and lost on her own. That is absurd IMHO.
Someone had a key and went in via the front door, taking care not to touch anywhere IMO. The window was opened for other reasons well discussed before
-
It doesn't require the involvement of a third party. One person could (just about) have done it on his own ...
BUT there are a number of pointers to a precisely planned abduction with others being involved. At least two, but more likely three.
Madeleine didn't get out and lost on her own. That is absurd IMHO.
Someone had a key and went in via the front door, taking care not to touch anywhere IMO. The window was opened for other reasons well discussed before
If there are one two or even three abductors they are all "the third party".
First party = Madeleine
Second party = T9
Third party = the abductors
-
Actually no, we are no closer to realising the truth about what really happened to Madeleine but we are a lot wiser as to much of the goings-on post disappearance.
it is not important what WE know.
What is important is what SY and the Porto PJ know.
Seems that with the extra money allocated, they must KNOW some happening/s pretty well.
-
If there are one two or even three abductors they are all "the third party".
First party = Madeleine
Second party = T9
Third party = the abductors
Soz Rob, I dont include any of the T9 in my thoughts and reasonings
-
This case is easy but a lack of witnesses not easy to prove. Knowing this they won't give up on Madeleine. No evidence of an abductor and the LOUD crying Madeleine didn't wander with Fenn, Moyes, Balu/Berry etc. all present so what is left? Oh yes Smithman who thinks he hasn't been found *&*%£ The saviour was found a long time ago. SY don't spend millions and search wasteland and pipes close to that sighting for something to do.
-
It doesn't require the involvement of a third party. One person could (just about) have done it on his own ...
BUT there are a number of pointers to a precisely planned abduction with others being involved. At least two, but more likely three.
Madeleine didn't get out and lost on her own. That is absurd IMHO.
Someone had a key and went in via the front door, taking care not to touch anywhere IMO. The window was opened for other reasons well discussed before
In this case a third party is anyone outside of Madeleine and her parents.
In many ways the various investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have raised more questions than have provided answers. The truth of what happened to Madeleine that fateful night is as elusive as ever. Nobody has come up with any tangible evidence as to what befell the child despite the huge sums of money which have been thrown at the case.
What we do now know however is that post disappearance, the conduct of several of the participants in this particular mystery has been less than honourable.
-
Oh just the simple fact that there is none to support abduction. No forced entry, no evidence of an intruder entering via the bedroom window, cots undisturbed, no valuables stolen, no witnesses, no forensics whatsoever to support abduction by an intruder. Did I miss anything?? &%+((£
The abductor could well have left forensic evideve but the poor PJ forensic team failed to find it
Maddie bed sheets sent to the laundry
Pathetic
-
The abductor could well have left forensic evideve but the poor PJ forensic team failed to find it
Maddie bed sheets sent to the laundry
Pathetic
Is that for real?
-
These first observations are not the only ones that lead us to consider a set-up. The way the bed sheets were arranged but also the child’s soft toy equally raise doubts.
– Do you see how the sheets are lying? You’d think the child got out by herself….or that she didn’t sleep there.
– Someone could have unintentionally touched the curtains while looking for the little girl inside the apartment.
– And the soft toy she slept with? That’s not in a natural position either. How would she have found it, along the pillow like that?
– The mother says that the soft toy was beside the pillow when she noticed the disappearance, which, according to her, was its usual place.
– Which means that the little girl slept without holding it? Children normally clutch their security object to fall asleep. But if that’s not the case, the way it’s placed doesn’t seem natural. She would inevitably have moved it turning over in her sleep.
– The pink blanket is also really tidy, almost folded.
Where cases of missing children involve the close family, modification of the crime scene is common. But the comings and goings and searches inside the apartment might be the source of these changes. We have to be absolutely sure that it’s not a deliberate attempt to put up a smokescreen.
– What does the father say?
– That when he came to see the children, it was all like that, the blanket and the soft toy.
We carry on looking at the photos of the bedroom: the two cots are in the middle of the room and are in the way of an adult moving around.
– Why is there nothing more than mattresses? All the bed linen has been removed. I really wonder why…
– Perhaps a child vomited or soiled the sheets, and they didn’t want to leave them in that state…
– The twins only woke up when they were being transferred to the other apartment. They sleep deeply, those English children…
– OK, no joking!
– Actually, I’m not joking, I’m thinking aloud…All the same, it’s extraordinary. These English little ones are on holiday; in spite of the excitement they must be feeling, they go to sleep every day at the same time. Their sleep is so deep and so calm that they are almost to be envied.
We then examine the photo of the lounge. This room has three openings: two windows and a patio door that opens at the back onto a balcony, from where you can see the area with the swimming pools and restaurants and the road. It is this patio door – and not the front door – that is used when you want to get into the apartment more quickly, coming from the restaurant. We notice that the sofa, situated under one of the windows, has been moved: the back of it is crushing the thick curtains. If these were closed to keep the light out of the room, it’s curious that those at the other window were left open.
– That sofa could have been moved when they searched the apartment looking for the little girl.
– It’s possible, but consider: the window is 3 metres above the road and directly overlooks the pavement. You can bet your life that the parents were not going to leave the sofa pushed against the wall, risking seeing their children climbing onto it and falling.
– Nothing surprises me any more on the part of those parents.
– Yes, but why did they push the sofa back under the window so hastily, judging by the position of the curtains.
– No doubt it was during the searches; that could have been done by a police officer or anyone else who was present in the house.
It’s the father who clarifies this point for us. He, himself, pushed the sofa against the wall because the children would not stop playing behind it. He did not consider the possibility of a fall from the window. The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.
At this stage of the investigation, we have already requested the holiday photos from all of them. On the dining table, we notice a digital camera and we decide that we must acquire its contents.
– We are really going to need the photos. That would allow us to see exactly what happened during dinner, how they were seated round the table, what they drank, what they ate, how they were dressed, everything is important.
– In fact, do you know that the little girl’s father got on his knees imploring the GNR police officers to help him when they arrived?
– That man, usually so cold, apparently lost control?
– ???
– Contamination… deliberately make his trousers dirty to hide compromising marks…
– I think you’re watching too many thrillers. Don’t forget that it’s his daughter who has disappeared!
– There are two beds in the parents’ bedroom, which have been pushed together; there is a wide space on the right, up to the wardrobe. One of the two days has visibly not been occupied.
– I don’t understand the point of leaving so much space on the right.
– Normally, one of the two cots was there.
– So, the couple slept in that bedroom with the twins, and Madeleine in the other? OK… But why, on that night, are the three children sleeping alone in the other bedroom?
– Not necessarily alone. In the photo, you can clearly see that the second bed, under the window, has been occupied.
– So, only one person slept in the parents’ bedroom.
– The mother would have left the father to sleep alone? That could mean there was trouble between them?
– Now, they walk around hand-in-hand. And if something had happened during the holiday?
– So many issues to be clarified…. Is that a little box of…..pills?
– No, no, it’s Band-aids.
– Where is their medication? None has been found, not even a bit of Benuron*. For doctors…
– Perhaps they took it with them when they took the twins from the apartment. Now, it’s a bit late to clear up that detail.
– The little ones weren’t ill, so why were their parents eager to take the medication with them?
– Perhaps it was intentional, perhaps not..
– Or it’s quite simply at the bottom of a bag, and no one thought to ask them about it.
(* Medication for everyday use – paracetamol – for pain and fever)
http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-11/
-
Was Madeleine McCann carried to this place immediately after been abducted? Was this place searched thoroughly? Who were working at this place on May 3, 2007?
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=389079051443168&id=374890906195316 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=389079051443168&id=374890906195316)
-
Is that for real?
It is 100% for real
-
After nearly 10 years no evidence to incriminating the parents
SY say they are not suspects
The open window
Maddie was abducted
-
No independent verification the windows was opened and we know whose fingerprints were on it.
Nothing in the way of evidence , forensic or otherwise to show a third party was in the apartment.
Now where does that leave abduction ?
Up the creek minus a paddle.
-
Actually no, we are no closer to realising the truth about what really happened to Madeleine but we are a lot wiser as to much of the goings-on post disappearance.
I couldn't agree more.