Author Topic: Theory #1  (Read 4386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lace

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2018, 02:48:29 PM »
I know the McCann's and her family think that Madeleine would have screamed the place down if an intruder got in,  but small children can be easily fooled.  Even calling her Madeleine would have put her off guard as it is personal 'he knows my name'.  If the person was saying something like,  I've come to take you to Mummy and Daddy, she may have been fooled into opening the door.  IMO

Offline Brietta

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2018, 06:36:06 PM »
Innominate's post, not mine, Brietta.

As this is a world away from Theory #1, an aborted burglary, it needs its own thread. Such a scenario does not encompass an open window/shutter, the use of only the front door or a random act involving the abduction of a child visible to an abductor at a random moment.

The last paragraph is such a sensible and analytical post, I automatically assumed it was yours Misty ~ old age doesn't come alone for sure.  Apologies to Innominate for not attributing it properly and giving honour where it is due.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13384
  • Total likes: 2080
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • Help to solve the Madeleine McCann case
Re: Theory #1
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2018, 07:51:52 PM »
Didn't someone say they heard 'Madeleine'  being called?   Maybe the person was calling to Madeleine through the window for her to let him in through the front door IMO
If that was so the person would need to know quite a bit about the family to get the name right.  How would you explain calling out the right name?
What are you doing to find Madeleine?
https://www.youcaring.com/madeleinemccann-1080869

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13384
  • Total likes: 2080
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • Help to solve the Madeleine McCann case
Re: Theory #1
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2018, 07:54:46 PM »
I know the McCann's and her family think that Madeleine would have screamed the place down if an intruder got in,  but small children can be easily fooled.  Even calling her Madeleine would have put her off guard as it is personal 'he knows my name'.  If the person was saying something like,  I've come to take you to Mummy and Daddy, she may have been fooled into opening the door.  IMO
The kids names were recorded on the creche sheets.
What are you doing to find Madeleine?
https://www.youcaring.com/madeleinemccann-1080869

Offline misty

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2018, 08:00:08 PM »
Why would any person intent on taking a child call her name so loudly that it was audible over a block away?

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13384
  • Total likes: 2080
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • Help to solve the Madeleine McCann case
Re: Theory #1
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2018, 08:03:26 PM »
Why would any person intent on taking a child call her name so loudly that it was audible over a block away?
Seems very improbable that whoever did this was an abductor.
What are you doing to find Madeleine?
https://www.youcaring.com/madeleinemccann-1080869

Offline Innominate

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2018, 08:04:24 PM »
In the absence of forensics indicating entry/exit via the window, are you working on the premise that Madeleine was lured to the front door & opened it herself? If the potential burglar had a key there would have been no need for disturbance at the window & he could let himself in. What would explain the sudden change of motive, with no forethought?

I do not have time to fully reply at the moment, but I am working on the possibility of making an amendment to the theory of Heri Janosch.

From memory he put forward the possibility that MBM recognised the burglar and that formed the motive.

As you say if the potential burglar had a key there would be no need for the window.

Heri suggests that MBM was abducted through the window.

The alternative, as you suggest, is that MBM was lured to door, which may have been easy if she did recognise the individual.

At this point MBM was walked barefooted along the tracker dog route. The tracker dogs would not have detected any other individual.

I hope this is not too much of a stretch, but it is possible JT saw someone at the point she went to 'relieve' ROB, rather than earlier in the evening. Memory fallibility as discussed elsewhere on the forum could easily have impacted JT. The timings look fairly consistent with this modification, otherwise the JT sighting is probably the innocent holiday maker, suggested by SY.

Offline misty

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2018, 08:05:49 PM »
I know the McCann's and her family think that Madeleine would have screamed the place down if an intruder got in,  but small children can be easily fooled.  Even calling her Madeleine would have put her off guard as it is personal 'he knows my name'.  If the person was saying something like,  I've come to take you to Mummy and Daddy, she may have been fooled into opening the door.  IMO

IMO Madeleine would have fled from the bedroom to look for her parents well before any burglar had the chance to entice her into opening a door. The burglar would also have had to known there was no adult in the apartment.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13384
  • Total likes: 2080
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • Help to solve the Madeleine McCann case
Re: Theory #1
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2018, 08:13:01 PM »
IMO Madeleine would have fled from the bedroom to look for her parents well before any burglar had the chance to entice her into opening a door. The burglar would also have had to known there was no adult in the apartment.
I think that is very important.  If you are right it points to someone being at the patio door to make Madeleine want to escape out through the front door (in this theory).
What are you doing to find Madeleine?
https://www.youcaring.com/madeleinemccann-1080869

Offline misty

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2018, 09:05:14 PM »
I do not have time to fully reply at the moment, but I am working on the possibility of making an amendment to the theory of Heri Janosch.

From memory he put forward the possibility that MBM recognised the burglar and that formed the motive.

As you say if the potential burglar had a key there would be no need for the window.

Heri suggests that MBM was abducted through the window.

The alternative, as you suggest, is that MBM was lured to door, which may have been easy if she did recognise the individual.

At this point MBM was walked barefooted along the tracker dog route. The tracker dogs would not have detected any other individual.

I hope this is not too much of a stretch, but it is possible JT saw someone at the point she went to 'relieve' ROB, rather than earlier in the evening. Memory fallibility as discussed elsewhere on the forum could easily have impacted JT. The timings look fairly consistent with this modification, otherwise the JT sighting is probably the innocent holiday maker, suggested by SY.

I look forward to reading the amended theory, which presumably includes an open window & shutter to enable Madeleine to recognise the potential burglar turned abductor.

Ruling out Tannerman would not constitute enough evidence to warrant the re-opening of the case imo.

Offline misty

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2018, 09:16:32 PM »
I think that is very important.  If you are right it points to someone being at the patio door to make Madeleine want to escape out through the front door (in this theory).

The aborted burglary theory would not involve a villain at both doors imo - double the risk of being seen/caught.
Any potential burglar would have needed to arrive unseen, carry out the job, then leave unseen. To steal large or heavy goods, a vehicle would have been needed close-by. Where was it & why did the person choose to circumvent Block 5 rather than go out the patio door, down the steps & cross the road to the place where the scent was lost? IMO it would be more suspicious to be seen coming out of the alleyway than the side gate of 5A.

Offline John

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2018, 11:02:32 AM »
Posters are warned that this goading and nitpicking must cease otherwise I will suspend accounts.

Please take heed.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Lace

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2018, 02:11:13 PM »
Why would any person intent on taking a child call her name so loudly that it was audible over a block away?

Quite true.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2018, 02:27:34 PM »
IMO Madeleine would have fled from the bedroom to look for her parents well before any burglar had the chance to entice her into opening a door. The burglar would also have had to known there was no adult in the apartment.

I agree.
The face value would be she woke up to find mum and dad missing, being we are to led to believe a strong willed single minded little girl, then went to look for them.
It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Theory #1
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2018, 03:04:43 PM »
I look forward to reading the amended theory, which presumably includes an open window & shutter to enable Madeleine to recognise the potential burglar turned abductor.

Ruling out Tannerman would not constitute enough evidence to warrant the re-opening of the case imo.

I agree with that too[gosh!].
After Mr Cameron dropped The Met in it, ankle deep head first, by insisting they conducted a "review" it is not beyond the realms of possibility that The Met/ UK Judiciary had to go cap in hand to the Portuguese Judiciary requesting they reopen the case. Otherwise there was a distinct  possibility the Met Review would go nowhere fast, them having no jurisdiction in the place where it all happened.
It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works.