Abduction

[Mr Gray]

Thought as much,Rowley has not uttered those words about McCanns not being suspects.
I'll decide what I believe, not you,thanks all the same.

You can believe what you want it's not really important.....but if you are going to quote Rowley then it's a bit hypocritical to accept some things he says as facts and simply reject what you don't like. ...such as the fact he said however she left the a party she was abducted....that clearly shows he ruled out the parents

[Alice Purjorick]

In our case I thought we were looking at Gerry and 3 or 4 local guys living in and around PdL.

Oh I see......... Have we gone UDI then ?

[Alice Purjorick]

While we wait for an expert...
I can't see anything resembling those particular aggravating factors.

2007 Penal Code

CAPÍTULO II
Dos crimes contra a propriedade
Artigo 203.o
Furto
1 - Quem, com ilegítima intenção de apropriação para si ou para outra pessoa, subtrair coisa móvel alheia, é punido com pena de prisão até 3 anos ou com pena de multa.
2 - A tentativa é punível.
3 - O procedimento criminal depende de queixa.
Artigo 204.o Furto qualificado
98
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
1 - Quem furtar coisa móvel alheia:
a) De valor elevado;
b) Colocada ou transportada em veículo ou colocada em lugar destinado ao depósito de objectos ou transportada por passageiros utentes de transporte colectivo, mesmo que a subtracção tenha lugar na estação, gare ou cais;
c) Afecta ao culto religioso ou à veneração da memória dos mortos e que se encontre em lugar destinado ao culto ou em cemitério;
d) Explorando situação de especial debilidade da vítima, de desastre, acidente, calamidade pública ou perigo comum;
e) Fechada em gaveta, cofre ou outro receptáculo equipados com fechadura ou outro dispositivo especialmente destinado à sua segurança;
f) Introduzindo-se ilegitimamente em habitação, ainda que móvel, estabelecimento comercial ou industrial ou espaço fechado, ou aí permanecendo escondido com intenção de furtar;
g) Com usurpação de título, uniforme ou insígnia de empregado público, civil ou militar, ou alegando falsa ordem de autoridade pública;
h) Fazendo da prática de furtos modo de vida; ou
i) Deixando a vítima em difícil situação económica;
é punido com pena de prisão até 5 anos ou com pena de multa até 600 dias. 2 - Quem furtar coisa móvel alheia:
a) De valor consideravelmente elevado;
b) Que possua significado importante para o desenvolvimento tecnológico ou
económico;
c) Que por sua natureza seja altamente perigosa;
d) Que possua importante valor científico, artístico ou histórico e se encontre em colecção ou exposição públicas ou acessíveis ao público;
99
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
e) Penetrando em habitação, ainda que móvel, estabelecimento comercial ou industrial ou outro espaço fechado, por arrombamento, escalamento ou chaves falsas;
f) Trazendo, no momento do crime, arma aparente ou oculta; ou
g) Como membro de bando destinado à prática reiterada de crimes contra o
património, com a colaboração de pelo menos outro membro do bando;
é punido com pena de prisão de 2 a 8 anos.
3 - Se na mesma conduta concorrerem mais do que um dos requisitos referidos nos números anteriores, só é considerado para efeito de determinação da pena aplicável o que tiver efeito agravante mais forte, sendo o outro ou outros valorados na medida da pena.
4 - Não há lugar à qualificação se a coisa furtada for de diminuto valor.

Pure googlish, I'm afraid.

CHAPTER II
Of crimes against property
Article 203
Theft
1 - Who, with illegitimate intention of appropriation for himself or for another person, subtract something alien from others, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to 3 years or with a fine.
2 - The attempt is punishable.
3 - Criminal procedure depends on complaint.

Article 204 Qualified theft
98
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
1 - Whoever steals another's mobile thing:
a) Of high value;
(b) placed or carried in a vehicle or placed in a place intended for the storage of objects or carried by passengers using public transport, even if the subtraction takes place at the station, gare or pier;
c) It affects the religious cult or the veneration of the memory of the dead and that is in place destined to the cult or in cemetery;
d) Exploring situations of special weakness of the victim, disaster, accident, public calamity or common danger;
e) Closed in a drawer, safe or other receptacle equipped with a lock or other device specially designed for its safety;
f) Introducing illegitimately in housing, even if mobile, commercial or industrial establishment or closed space, or there hiding with the intention of stealing;
g) With usurpation of title, uniform or insignia of public, civil or military employee, or alleging false order of public authority;
h) Making the practice of stealing a way of life; or
i) Leaving the victim in difficult economic situation;
shall be punished with imprisonment up to 5 years or with a fine of up to 600 days. 2 - Whoever steals another's mobile thing:
(a) of a considerably high value;
(b) which has significant significance for the technological development or
economic;
c) that by its nature is highly dangerous;
d) That it possesses important scientific, artistic or historical value and is in a collection or exhibition public or accessible to the public;
99
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
e) Penetrating into housing, even if mobile, commercial or industrial establishment or other enclosed space, by break-in, escalation or false keys;
f) Bringing, at the time of the crime, an apparent or hidden weapon; or
g) As a member of the gang destined to the repeated practice of crimes against
with the collaboration of at least one other member of the band;
is punished with imprisonment from 2 to 8 years.
3 - If in the same conduct more than one of the requirements referred to in the previous paragraphs, only the one that has the strongest aggravating effect is considered for the purpose of determining the applicable penalty, the other one or others being valued as a penalty.
4 - There is no place to qualify if the thing stolen is of small value.

Best we flag one down I think!
http://portugalresident.com/police-crackdown-on-a-new-trend-in-burglaries
There appears to be a differentiation between robbery and burglary.

I do like Google translate:
"Whoever steals another's mobile thing:"
"subtract something alien from others"
The main thrust of my point "Why take additional risks" is covered in the linked article and nicking kids as a byproduct seems to be wholly absent.

[Carana]

Best we flag one down I think!
http://portugalresident.com/police-crackdown-on-a-new-trend-in-burglaries
There appears to be a differentiation between robbery and burglary.

I do like Google translate:
"Whoever steals another's mobile thing:"
"subtract something alien from others"
The main thrust of my point "Why take additional risks" is covered in the linked article and nicking kids as a byproduct seems to be wholly absent.

Yes, I'll have a look further down the code to see if there's anything specific about burglary. The next article was about swindling, and I didn't look any further. I'll check.

[Carana]

Found it... quite a bit further on for some reason.

Googlish again. It's translating roubo as theft, but when I checked burglary as an individual word, it came up with roubo. I personally find it easier to decipher Portuguese than googlish. lol

It seems to deal more with the use of violence in a robbery. I checked right down to the end of the chapter, and I can't find anything else.

Artigo 210.o
Roubo
1 - Quem, com ilegítima intenção de apropriação para si ou para outra pessoa, subtrair, ou constranger a que lhe seja entregue, coisa móvel alheia, por meio de violência contra uma pessoa, de ameaça com perigo iminente para a vida ou para a integridade física, ou pondo-a na impossibilidade de resistir, é punido com pena de prisão de 1 a 8 anos.
2 - A pena é a de prisão de 3 a 15 anos se:
a) Qualquer dos agentes produzir perigo para a vida da vítima ou lhe infligir, pelo menos por negligência, ofensa à integridade física grave; ou
b) Se verificarem, singular ou cumulativamente, quaisquer requisitos referidos nos n.os 1 e 2 do artigo 204.o, sendo correspondentemente aplicável o disposto no n.o 4 do mesmo artigo.

3 - Se do facto resultar a morte de outra pessoa, o agente é punido com pena de prisão de 8 a 16 anos.
Artigo 211.o
Violência depois da subtracção
As penas previstas no artigo anterior são, conforme os casos, aplicáveis a quem utilizar os meios previstos no mesmo artigo para, quando encontrado em flagrante delito de furto, conservar ou não restituir as coisas subtraídas.

Article 210
Theft
1 - Who, with an illegitimate intention of appropriation for himself or for another person, to subtract, or constrain the one that is handed over to him, a thing that is alien to, through violence against a person, a threat with imminent danger to life or to integrity physical, or putting it in the impossibility of resisting, is punished with imprisonment from 1 to 8 years.
2 - The penalty is imprisonment of 3 to 15 years if:
(a) any of the agents would endanger the life of the victim or inflict, at least negligently, a serious physical offense; or
(b) whether any requirements referred to in Article 204 (1) and (2) are met, individually or cumulatively, and the provisions of paragraph 4 of that Article are applicable.

3 - If this results in the death of another person, the agent shall be punished with imprisonment from 8 to 16 years.
Article 211
Violence after subtraction
The penalties foreseen in the previous article are applicable, as applicable, to those who use the means provided for in the same article, in order to preserve or not to restitute the subtracted things when found in flagrante delicto.

[Robittybob1]

Oh I see......... Have we gone UDI then ?

Typical reply.
What does UDI mean?
"
UDI   Unified Display Interface   
UDI   United Defense Industries, Inc. (stock symbol)   
UDI   Unrestricted Digital Information   
UDI   Under the Direct Influence   
UDI   Utility Data Institute   
UDI   Unidentified Drinking Injury   
UDI   Usuário de Drogas Injetáveis (Portuguese)   
UDI   Uniform Device Interface (Intel/Unix)   
UDI   United Dairymen of Idaho   
UDI   U-Drive-It   
UDI   Unità di Documentazione e Informazione per la Ricerca Agraria   
UDI   Unidad de Información (Spanish: Information Unit)   
UDI   Unit Drill Instructor   

UDI   Unique Data Item   
UDI   Universal Digital Interface (television)   
UDI   User-Defined Interface   
UDI   Urban Development Institute of Canada   
UDI   User-Driven Innovation (product creation)   
UDI   Urban Development Initiatives (various locations)   
UDI   Union des Démocrates et Indépendants (French: Union of Democrats and Independents)   
UDI   Unione Donne in Italia (Italian: Union of Italian Women)

[Mr Gray]

What some posters seem to be trying to show is taht the abduction of a child is unlikely....but we already know that...but in these circumstances , given all the facts,...stranger abduction is highly likely...imo

[Carana]

There may be new laws now, but don't forget I'm looking at the 2007 version as that's what we're discussing.

Those are the only two that I can find that seem pertinent (others are damage to property, swindling, car theft, defrauding, etc.)

[Robittybob1]

What some posters seem to be trying to show is taht the abduction of a child is unlikely....but we already know that...but in these circumstances , given all the facts,...stranger abduction is highly likely...imo

This one occasion you will have to check your spelling?

[Mr Gray]

This one occasion you will have to check your spelling?

why

[pathfinder73]

You can believe what you want it's not really important.....but if you are going to quote Rowley then it's a bit hypocritical to accept some things he says as facts and simply reject what you don't like. ...such as the fact he said however she left the a party she was abducted....that clearly shows he ruled out the parents

If Madeleine was removed from the apartment then whoever did it is the abductor.

No theory is ruled out as Rowley confirms here.

[Robittybob1]

why

I read a post where you were asking whether abduction was different from abduction.  Can't even find it now.

[Carana]

@ Alice

I haven't fully read your OP yet, so I'll get back to the rest when I have.

Although Article 203 deals more with theft, one or two seem to include the idea of burglary:

e) Penetrando em habitacão, ainda que móvel, estabelecimento comercial ou industrial ou outro espaço fechado, por arrombamento, escalamento ou chaves falsas;

And Article 210 is about violent robberies. (One of the charges Cristovão was up for, incidentally.).

So, no, I can't see anything about night-time being an aggravating factor. There are several in 210 about using or threatening violence; putting someone's life in danger, even by negligence; violating the victim's personal integrity (I presume that covers sexual assault); and if the victim dies as a result.

So... yes, I can see that breaking in and threatening or harming someone in the process evidently is worse than when the abode is empty, but I can see several possibilities.

a) the would-be burglar(s) didn't realise anyone was at home.

b) did know, but assumed young children would either be asleep or at least wouldn't resist. On the other hand, anyone lucid would worry that they could scream the place down, and there could be a concern that Madeleine might have been able to identify him / them. By the same token, someone intelligent might assume that little credence would be given to testimony by an under-4-yearold.

c) smellyman or equivalent, who knew the kids were home, but who may have been so out of it as to not realise or care about the length of a sentence if caught. In at least some of the accounts, smellyman didn't seem to care that the parents were at home asleep.

d) either a would-be burglar or a relatively lucid smellyman (or a combination of the two) harmed or killed her, which could be a reason for removing her from the flat.

[ShiningInLuz]

You would appear to be the only one wishing to explore the beginning and some peripheral details which are of relevance.
I can understand your view of "over elaborate" when compared with the paucity of detail and joining of non existent dots in some theories which appear to have currency. If it was a planned snatch as some suggest then the "how" is somewhat relevant would you not say ?..... then logically extend the "how".
I would prefer more people were shooting holes in my text. ............

I am excluding the McCanns, because involvement on their part does not fit with my understanding of abduction.

This leaves 3 possibilities.

Burglary gone wrong.  The snatch was not intentional.  The 'how' is working out how the burglars got entry to the house.  There are umpty possibilities here, which I won't explore.  You have to work out 'why' the burglars felt the need to snatch Madeleine.

Short-term pre-planned abduction.  In other words, the operation began after Madeleine arrived in Luz.  I have worried away at that one.  There are lots of people who came into Madeleine's acquaintance after her arrival.  The Millennium crew.  The Tapas crew.  Anyone in Luz who saw her in those 6 days.  The nannies.  Multiple other guests.  All one has to do now is work out how she was tracked to 5A.  Plus how the operation was carried out.  Plus motivation.

Long-term pre-planned abduction.  This gives you intel prior to the arrival of Madeleine.  Your intel is that 7 girls and 1 boy, all under 4, will arrive on 28 Apr 2007.  A lot of people had access to that intel.  You know roughly where the children are to be located.  Fewer people had access to that intel, but it is more than one.  You know when, how and where the children will arrive.  Again, more than one person had access to that intel.  You take photos on arrival.  (Some of the T9 could have had access to photos before arrival, of course).  You circulate said photos, and at that point one or two of the children are deemed to be suitable targets.

The snatch squad goes into motion, casing the crime scene.  Perhaps they notice during this that the McCanns are leaving the patio doors unlocked at night.  They enter by that route, open the window and raise the shutter, simply to add confusion.  They leave with Madeleine, either by the patio doors or by the front door.  Amongst other things, this obscures the possibility of intel, thereby protecting the source of the intel.

There are two culprits here, who should have received cash for the snatch.  First, the booking trail.  If it actually occurred this way, none of the Luz suspects seems to have benefited financially, AFAIK.  Second, the snatch squad.  Unless someone was checking vast numbers of bank accounts I don't see how this could be done.

[Alice Purjorick]

@ Alice

I haven't fully read your OP yet, so I'll get back to the rest when I have.

Although Article 203 deals more with theft, one or two seem to include the idea of burglary:

e) Penetrando em habitacão, ainda que móvel, estabelecimento comercial ou industrial ou outro espaço fechado, por arrombamento, escalamento ou chaves falsas;

And Article 210 is about violent robberies. (One of the charges Cristovão was up for, incidentally.).

So, no, I can't see anything about night-time being an aggravating factor. There are several in 210 about using or threatening violence; putting someone's life in danger, even by negligence; violating the victim's personal integrity (I presume that covers sexual assault); and if the victim dies as a result.

So... yes, I can see that breaking in and threatening or harming someone in the process evidently is worse than when the abode is empty, but I can see several possibilities.

a) the would-be burglar(s) didn't realise anyone was at home.

b) did know, but assumed young children would either be asleep or at least wouldn't resist. On the other hand, anyone lucid would worry that they could scream the place down, and there could be a concern that Madeleine might have been able to identify him / them. By the same token, someone intelligent might assume that little credence would be given to testimony by an under-4-yearold.

c) smellyman or equivalent, who knew the kids were home, but who may have been so out of it as to not realise or care about the length of a sentence if caught. In at least some of the accounts, smellyman didn't seem to care that the parents were at home asleep.

d) either a would-be burglar or a relatively lucid smellyman (or a combination of the two) harmed or killed her, which could be a reason for removing her from the flat.

a) Are these the burglars who have been casing the joint for a few days or another set ?
b) I concur with your last sentence. Any brief who could not drive a coach and pair through the ID of a suspect by a four year old should not be paid in washers. My favourite option would be coldcocking the kid and legging it or similar( tongue in cheek only partway)
c) Smelly bin man is an irrelevance. Right now its the how not the who and the how is yet to be established.
d) See second sentence of c) above.
As usual we wind up debating the middle without considering the beginning.