The 'Abductor' & the Sliding Door

[Sherlock Holmes]

Properties, by Portuguese law and as elsewhere, must be insured against fire and water damages. No Insurance Cie however sells contracts limited to both risks, they sell multicontracts including burglary.
Therefore if a burglary occurs in a flat rented by the OC, the OC contacts the owner who will contact the Insurance Cie.
Of course they will hardly compensate the losses if one door was left open.
Of course the Insurance Cie will not react if the burglary wasn't reported to the police (PSP).

Thanks once again for all the local info, Anne.

I just want to clarify something. If the property owner wants compensation from the insurance company following a burglary, that burglary has to have been reported to the police (same everywhere).

But in the case of a property leased to a resort, is it more complicated?  On the one hand the owner would surely want to seek police help and insurance money. On the other hand, repeated official reports of burglary devalue the property and the commercial value of the resort to whom the property is being leased.

Is it a dilemma for the property owners?

[Angelo222]

Unfortunately, when the victims are people who will only be in the country for one or two weeks, it's quite easy for both the resort and the police to simply ignore the problem. Which is what I believe EH was driving at. He sounded frankly disgusted with the local authorities in the Algarve. Having visited the region a few times myself, I know where he's coming from.

This is very true Victoria.  Imagine the nightmare if all these victims had to return on several occasions to testify in court merely because a few quids worth of stuff got nicked.  That's why the police simply take a report and give you a copy for your insurance.  The crimes are seldom investigated and the petty thief's know it and carry on but in a different hotel next time.

[AnneGuedes]

Thanks once again for all the local info, Anne.

I just want to clarify something. If the property owner wants compensation from the insurance company following a burglary, that burglary has to have been reported to the police (same everywhere).

But in the case of a property leased to a resort, is it more complicated?  On the one hand the owner would surely want to seek police help and insurance money. On the other hand, repeated official reports of burglary devalue the property and the commercial value of the resort to whom the property is being leased.

Is it a dilemma for the property owners?

Insurance Cies don't discriminate whether what was stolen belonged to the owner or to the tenant. They compensate on the basis of a certain maximum amount /m2. Therefore if you have precious things, you better insure them separately.
They obviously need a proof of breaking-in and trust the police (normally).
I suppose they'd recommend some alarm system if you are regularly burgled. An alarm must be declared to the police and it's not free of charge.

[AnneGuedes]

Imagine the nightmare if all these victims had to return on several occasions to testify in court merely because a few quids worth of stuff got nicked. 

My car (an old Mini Cooper) was (easily) stolen 4 times. Last time I got it back after 3 months, just because the burglar was arrested in my car, he was a dealer. To get my car back I had to hear all this guy's story. He had been freed by the judge after a day or two... but all the same I had to say whether I wanted to sue him or not. Who would say "yes" ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Insurance Cies don't discriminate whether what was stolen belonged to the owner or to the tenant. They compensate on the basis of a certain maximum amount /m2. Therefore if you have precious things, you better insure them separately.
They obviously need a proof of breaking-in and trust the police (normally).
I suppose they'd recommend some alarm system if you are regularly burgled. An alarm must be declared to the police and it's not free of charge.

The fact remains however that whether or not these burglaries were reported to police, either by owner or paying guest, the Ocean Club must have known about them and would only want to release information about them if pressed.

[AnneGuedes]

 the Ocean Club must have known about them and would only want to release information about them if pressed.

I doubt it. Out of civic spirit you have to report. There's a modality (main courante in French), just a notification of a relevant fact that eventually and indirectly could be used later but has no judicial consequences by itself.

[sadie]

The mccanns were facing the opposite direction.

It was nighttime.

and they could see the patio door...........................

The tapas group could see and they were all looking out for each other.

There was the street light illuminating the patio area for flat 5A.  You know that Stephen.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I doubt it. Out of civic spirit you have to report. There's a modality (main courante in French), just a notification of a relevant fact that eventually and indirectly could be used later but has no judicial consequences by itself.

Thanks again for the clarification, Anne. Nothing trumps local knowledge.

[stephen25000]

The tapas group could see and they were all looking out for each other.

There was the street light illuminating the patio area for flat 5A.  You know that Stephen.

Looking out for each other ???

What piffle.

So if there was street lighting, why didn't they see anything ?

Mmm.

[sadie]

Looking out for each other ???

What piffle.

So if there was street lighting, why didn't they see anything ?

Mmm.

Of course they would be looking out for each other.  They were friends ... and that's what friends do.
They wouldn't expect anything but being intelligent people would likely notice strangers around the apartments.  Amaral said that nobody would go in by the patio door because it was too close at 50 metres .... and overlooked by the tapas group.

Are you saying that Amaral was wrong?



There was street lighting immediately across the road from the patio.  The light from this was streaming through the arched window at the side of the patio area.  The tapas group saw nothing because no-one tried to enter ot leave via the patio. 

All the action was at the front of the building, where the trees substantially reduced the street lights effectiveness, maybe blocking any light at all.  The deeply recessed front door was in virtually pitch blackness.

Only my opinion Stephen but all the facts point to the front door being used, both in and out.  That would require a key and points to an OC associated persons involvement

[stephen25000]

Of course they would be looking out for each other.  They were friends ... and that's what friends do.
They wouldn't expect anything but being intelligent people would likely notice strangers around the apartments.  Amaral said that nobody would go in by the patio door because it was too close at 50 metres .... and overlooked by the tapas group.

Are you saying that Amaral was wrong?



There was street lighting immediately across the road from the patio.  The light from this was streaming through the arched window at the side of the patio area.  The tapas group saw nothing because no-one tried to enter ot leave via the patio. 

All the action was at the front of the building, where the trees substantially reduced the street lights effectiveness, maybe blocking any light at all.  The deeply recessed front door was in virtually pitch blackness.

Only my opinion Stephen but all the facts point to the front door being used, both in and out.  That would require a key and points to an OC associated persons involvement

The bottom line is precisely that.


It's your opinion that there was an abductor, as it is my opinion there wasn't.

You do not know another party or parties entered the apartment. A belief is not a fact.

[sadie]

The bottom line is precisely that.


It's your opinion that there was an abductor, as it is my opinion there wasn't.

You do not know another party or parties entered the apartment. A belief is not a fact.

Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have  nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up.  All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.

Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit.  You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.

The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise. 

Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.

[stephen25000]

Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have  nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up.  All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.

Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit.  You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.

The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise. 

Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.

Sp proof of abduction, where is that precisely ?

[colombosstogey]

Looking out for each other ???

What piffle.

So if there was street lighting, why didn't they see anything ?

Mmm.

Thats why i dont get why an abductor would walk through streets lit up like a christmas tree.

The best way to go surely would be away from PDL with a child, not straight into it with all the cafes, etc....

[Wonderfulspam]

Of course I dont KNOW it, but all that Authorities seem to agree that they have  nothing against Kate and Gerry ... and several others peoples statements have backed them up.  All you have is a suspicious and, if I may say it, a nasty accusing mind.

Repeatedly over 8 months, we the pros / sceptics have asked you to suggest a way that the Mccanns could have been involved ... or could have dunit.  You haven't made one sensible suggestion in all that time.

The Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of the Law and in the eyes of reasonable people, until such time as they may be shown to be otherwise. 

Imo, that is most unlikely ... especially as I believe I know who was behind the abduction.

I believe I know who was behind the abduction.


Do please tell us sadie. It could be vital information. Have you thought about sharing your knowledge with SY.