Why Madeleine ?

[DevilsAdvocate]

This is all of course pure speculation, where the alledged abduxtor stood, watched, where cars were or were not parked and waiting as there is no evidence of an abduction, not in any amber alert way or any other, no hard evidence of an abduction, no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

Correct and right Redblossom, but that is probably why we are here discussing the subject ! Not one person here, irregardles of how they put their point across can prove exactly what happened 6 years ago tomorrow evening !
We are all entitled to our opinion and we are all entitled to express that opinion as long as we do not slander or suggest wrongdoing on behalf of the principle persons in this sad case.

Mature and logical discussion / debate is always welcome and enlightening, it is a shame when that mature debate descends into petty name calling and personal insults.

I am aware that there are so called Pro & Anti fora that trawl the dregs of perceived righteousness, I prefer to liken them to sad lifeless souls who have no other interests in their lives than to sit at a keyboard hurling insults across the battlefields !

Sadly there are some of their ilk amongst us here in this forum who go scuttling back to their respective cess pits looking for plaudits from their peers for disrupting debate.

I as a member of this forum can categorically state that I am not a member of any pro or anti site and masquerading here under a pseudonym than that which I am known. I just wonder can the same be said for my fellow members ?

[ferryman]

 no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

[Redblossom]

no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

No there are not, no one saw Madeleine being taken despite certain people saying she was seen being taken

DA will answer you later I have to dash for an hour

[DevilsAdvocate]

no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !

[AnneGuedes]

Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !

Yes, and, unless the carrier was living in PDL, the unique exit from PDL was rua D
AdS and up Primeiro de Maio.

[ferryman]

no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !

There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine. 

Aofe Smith.

[DevilsAdvocate]

no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !

There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine. 

Aofe Smith.

Ferryman, you are an educated individual, that is obvious from your posts !
'could have been' is  million miles apart from 'definitely was' ! Surely you will concede this point ?

[DCI]

Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !

The car park is not that big by 5a, window.
If he did have the family under surveillance then, he would have known checks were being done. Starting a car engine up, could have been heard, by anyone.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !

The car park is not that big by 5a, window.
If he did have the family under surveillance then, he would have known checks were being done. Starting a car engine up, could have been heard, by anyone.

Hi DCI, there is another part to that car park (directly opposite and to the right of the vehicles in the photo), there is in total parking for at least 6 cars in that car park, there is also ample room to reverse a car in between the car spaces for quick loading / unloading of luggage etc. and may I dare say in the instances of an abduction, a child !

[ferryman]

no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !

There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine. 

Aofe Smith.

Ferryman, you are an educated individual, that is obvious from your posts !
'could have been' is  million miles apart from 'definitely was' ! Surely you will concede this point ?

Afoe Smith was/is a witness to a little girl being carried who, she says,could have been Madeleine.

Of course, it might not have been.

But Red Blossom's categoric statement that there are no witnesses is wrong, precisely because it is categoric, not conditional.

If the person Aofe Smith saw had come forward and made plain that he was the father of a little girl, not Madeleine, whom he was carrying home that night, Red Blossom would be correct.

But with that sighting unconfirmed, the possibility that a known witness did see Madeleine being carried remains.

[DCI]

Why park in another car park when there was a car park at the front door of 5A ?
Anybody carrying out a criminal act adopts the KISS principle, the MO of a criminal is not to complicate the crime. If has been suggested that the abductor had the family under surveillance then he would not have factored in a necessary walk of a few hundred yards to a waiting car, he would have had the getaway vehicle parked as close to point of exit AND that would have been the car park at 5A !

The car park is not that big by 5a, window.
If he did have the family under surveillance then, he would have known checks were being done. Starting a car engine up, could have been heard, by anyone.

Hi DCI, there is another part to that car park (directly opposite and to the right of the vehicles in the photo), there is in total parking for at least 6 cars in that car park, there is also ample room to reverse a car in between the car spaces for quick loading / unloading of luggage etc. and may I dare say in the instances of an abduction, a child !

Hi DevilsAdvocate, Yes I know, but he would have to walk nearly half way up the corridor, to where the entrance is. There is only one entrance. 

[DevilsAdvocate]

no witnesses to Madeleine being taken

           ???????

That is a valid statement from Redblosdom Ferryman !
Not one person can prove categorically to have seen Madeleine being 'taken' !

There is at least witness who claims a child, definitely seen, could have been Madeleine. 

Aofe Smith.

Ferryman, you are an educated individual, that is obvious from your posts !
'could have been' is  million miles apart from 'definitely was' ! Surely you will concede this point ?

Afoe Smith was/is a witness to a little girl being carried who, she says,could have been Madeleine.

Of course, it might not have been.

But Red Blossom's categoric statement that there are no witnesses is wrong, precisely because it is categoric, not conditional.

If the person Aofe Smith saw had come forward and made plain that he was the father of a little girl, not Madeleine, whom he was carrying home that night, Red Blossom would be correct.

But with that sighting unconfirmed, the possibility that a known witness did see Madeleine being carried remains.

Ferryman, with respect, Redblossom stated that there were no witnesses to the abduction of Madeleine, which is a true statement ! There literally are no witnesses to the actual abduction of Madeleine from her bed !

In relation to Aoife Smith claiming that the child she saw 'could' have been Madeleine you must then concede  that the man her father, Martin, saw carrying the child 'could' have been Gerry McCann, as Martin Smith was 80 - 90% certain !

You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the hare Ferryman !

[Chinagirl]

Devil'sAdvocate - Martin Smith was 60 - 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann - not 60 - 90% as you have stated.

And apropos of a point you made in your opening comment, I am a "pro,"  I am a member of a pro forum, and I use the same username name here as I do in the other forum.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Devil'sAdvocate - Martin Smith was 60 - 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann - not 60 - 90% as you have stated.

And apropos of a point you made in your opening comment, I am a "pro,"  I am a member of a pro forum, and I use the same username name here as I do in the other forum.

Hello Chinagirl, thank you for the clarification on the percentages, you are quite correct and I stand corrected. Also thank you for stating that you post here under the same name as you do on other fora !

Nice to make your acquaintance...

[Lace]

Going back to why Madeleine was targeted and not one of the twins.

I have always thought it could be because she could be told a tale.    Such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you'
'Mummy and Daddy asked if I can look after you they have to go somewhere'    or even 'Theres been an accident Mummy and Daddy are in hospital'   or whatever.     It would be very difficult to try and fob the twins off with a tale,  they would just scream for their Mummy and Daddy.

Another reason could be that the person had lost a child of the same age and sex.