"The British officers questioned them on suspicion of being part of a burglary gang that panicked after killing Madeleine during a bungled break-in. They all protested their innocence and were released without charge."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/GA: "What is very serious, alarming even, is their attempt to stage a new thesis – a theory if you prefer – that involves someone, a burglar (who breaks into the apartment) intent on stealing, is frightened by a three-year old child, kills her and then takes the body with him – a rather far-fetching scenario (to say the least).
I remember a colleague, a British colleague who also happened to be from Scotland Yard, proposing exactly the same thesis (by the way, he was the only one from Scotland Yard around at the time).
We analysed this hypothesis at the time; discussed it and eventually dismissed it as implausible.
They talk about drug traffickers, dealers who suddenly (presumably), had the imaginative idea to burglar a house for keeps. The fallacy is, there is no way to prove that apartment was burgled; there are no signs of a forced entry. Nothing was stolen from there."
(MP): There are those bank statements…
(GA): Which bank statements? The ones they found on that path? Rubbish? We are talking here of garbage they have been collecting, none of which is associated with…
The bank statements are not from the McCanns’; they were not removed from their apartment. Nothing was removed from that apartment. Nothing was stolen. The only “thing” that was removed from there – and I say “thing” in brackets for it was not a “thing”, it was a person – the only “thing” missing from there, was Madeleine McCann!
Not a television set, not a camera, not a thing! There were no traces of a break-in either! Therefore there was no burglary. Not theft took place in there.
Now we are asked to assume that these burglars were extremely intelligent and decided to take a dead child with them (dead because they killed her or because she died of fright). That they might have thought: “Let’s take the child away with us, because the consequences of an homicide are much worst than those a theft”.
And to make it all more plausible, they are supposed to have simulated a kidnapping – which is where that story of the window found open with the slats of the blind jimmied and the curtains blown by a draft, comes in as if to suggest the child was taken through it, and so on.
Fine thinking! The problem is, there are no signs of a theft (or a break-into the apartment for that matter)…
It seems these burglars must have been very intelligent indeed! Unfortunately, soon afterwards, they run out of common sense and leave the body not far from the crime scene. That was not so clever, was it? It was as if, suddenly, their intelligence had gone.
Another thing that does not seem to match reality is this – they were supposed to be three of them and have arrived at the apartment by feet and yet, if you recall, only one of them was seen carrying the child towards those fields (the British police are searching).
But fair enough! It could have happened as they imagine it did. There were several mobile phone pings in that area (whatever that means) the problem is, I don’t see anything, garbage or otherwise, capable of giving any substance to Scotland Yard’s new thesis.
https://zizipresscuts.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/dr-goncalo-amaral-on-scotland-yards-staging-in-praia-da-luz/
