UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mrs. B on June 29, 2013, 08:17:47 PM
-
I think it was a pre-planned abduction, I don't think the person who abducted her was the same person that took her out of the country. They had to meet somewhere, meeting place & time had been pre-arranged.
-
I think it was a pre-planned abduction, I don't think the person who abducted her was the same person that took her out of the country. They had to meet somewhere, meeting place & time had been pre-arranged.
An interesting thought Mrs B. Certainly worthy of its own thread.
Handing his prize over to others from out with the immediate vicinity would certainly have allowed the abductor to return to the scene but what of his identity? He knew he had been seen!
-
Yet again, this presumption, an abductor.
No proof for, just a couple of sightings of a person(s) carrying a child in their arms, which contradict each other.
So having seen a man tonight carrying a young child in his arms, I therefore must presume logically they are an abductor ?
Have any people ion this forum never see an adult carrying a child in their arms ?
It beggars belief that the cornerstone of the abduction theory comes down to this.
-
I don't think the abductor returned to the scene of the crime afterwards, he'd already been paid by then - job done. I think he quietly slipped away & made sure he was not seen in the area again. If it was the same person as the Smith's saw, he'd been seen not only once, but twice. Far too risky for him to stay around.
ETA Having ONE person identified as carrying a child & not coming forward to identify himself in a major criminal investigation is odd enough, but TWO?
-
I don't think the abductor returned to the scene of the crime afterwards, he'd already been paid by then - job done. I think he quietly slipped away & made sure he was not seen in the area again. If it was the same person as the Smith's saw, he'd been seen not only once, but twice. Far too risky for him to stay around.
ETA Having ONE person identified as carrying a child & not coming forward to identify himself in a major criminal investigation is odd enough, but TWO?
Even if it was the same child, being carried, they still had time to get to the boarder before the GNR, got their ass's in gear.
They obviously knew the area well, so would know all the short cuts.
-
Even if it was the same child, being carried, they still had time to get to the boarder before the GNR, got their ass's in gear.
They obviously knew the area well, so would know all the short cuts.
Any evidence for all this hyperbola ?
Another old cherry, but relevant.
Why didn't the 'abductor' take Madeleine's younger sister, smaller and surely easier to carry.
-
Any evidence for all this hyperbola ?
Another old cherry, but relevant.
Why didn't the 'abductor' take Madeleine's younger sister, smaller and surely easier to carry.
Ask a friend 8-)(--)
-
Even if it was the same child, being carried, they still had time to get to the boarder before the GNR, got their ass's in gear.
They obviously knew the area well, so would know all the short cuts.
The border is only 150 km away, before midnight you'd been in Spain.
-
Ask a friend 8-)(--)
I see you already have. 8((()*/ @)(++(*
-
Ask a friend 8-)(--)
LOL Some day they really do have to realise that Scotland Yard are of the opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Therefore it's perfectly legitimate to discuss the ABDUCTION of Madeleine.
-
I think it was a pre-planned abduction, I don't think the person who abducted her was the same person that took her out of the country. They had to meet somewhere, meeting place & time had been pre-arranged.
Are you alluding to the fact that the 'abductor' was still hanging around PDL almost an hour after having snatched a child in order to connect Jane Tanner's statement to that of the Smith family ?
I don't think it makes much sense
If the abductor had pre-arranged to meet someone ( in order to hand over the child ) then the meeting would surely have taken place some distance away from the resort. The abductor would almost certainly have gone directly to the meeting place immediately after taking the child ( even if it meant he had to wait there for his accomplice to arrive )
Which then begs the question, why would his accomplice not already be waiting there ?
-
LOL Some day they really do have to realise that Scotland Yard are of the opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Therefore it's perfectly legitimate to discuss the ABDUCTION of Madeleine.
An opinion is merely that, not a fact.
Redwood and co., thought they had Barry George banged to rights.
Wrong on that too.
-
Makes perfect sense if the child was taken on order, the people involved would be careful not to have close contact. The abductor could not have known the exact time when the opportunity to enter the apartment & take the child away would present itself. He had to take the opportunity when it arose. A pre-planned meeting at a specific time & place to hand over the child to person/s unknown, receive payment & be on his way. The people responsible for transporting the victim may not have been the people who ordered a child matching Madeleine's age & description be taken.
It's called human trafficking, & interestingly enough, Alison Saunders of CPS who travelled to Portugal, has been dealing with these types of crimes before.
-
It's called human trafficking, & interestingly enough, Alison Saunders of CPS who travelled to Portugal, has been dealing with these types of crimes before.
Have you a link ?
-
Are you alluding to the fact that the 'abductor' was still hanging around PDL almost an hour after having snatched a child in order to connect Jane Tanner's statement to that of the Smith family ?
I don't think it makes much sense
If the abductor had pre-arranged to meet someone ( in order to hand over the child ) then the meeting would surely have taken place some distance away from the resort. The abductor would almost certainly have gone directly to the meeting place immediately after taking the child ( even if it meant he had to wait there for his accomplice to arrive )
Which then begs the question, why would his accomplice not already be waiting there ?
The exit from PDL is up north on Primeiro de Maio, at the junction with west extremity of Agostinho da Silva, very close to the G5. JTabductor walked east and not west and MSabductor walked south and not north. How can this be explained and what likely happened in the 50 minutes between the two sightings ?
-
The exit from PDL is up north on Primeiro de Maio, at the junction with west extremity of Agostinho da Silva, very close to the G5. JTabductor walked east and not west and MSabductor walked south and not north. How can this be explained and what likely happened in the 50 minutes between the two sightings ?
We have gone thru this before
Over and over
The fact ius that nobody knows for certain, but it seems that bundleman might have gone to The Staff quarters to meet up with his lifter, after his pick up failed because Jane Tanner and Gerry were in the way with Jane Tanner actually witnessing bundleman carrying Madekeine
The pick updriver panicked and drove of leaving Bundleman in the lurch
Only my opinion, but it fits
-
Only my opinion, but it fits
Fits pre-planned abduction hypothesis of this thread ?
-
Fits pre-planned abduction hypothesis of this thread ?
Yes because having made a most thorough analysis ... and repeatedly asked [ censored word] to give me a sensible alternative ... but none forthcoming,
Yes, That is the conclusion that I have come to. It was a preplanned stranger abduction. Many others have also come to this conclusion including it seems SY
We are on a forum which means all viewpoints can be put.
Do you have any objections to that?
Please post your theory for us all. Please convince us otherwise. Bet you haven't got a valid theory
-
The exit from PDL is up north on Primeiro de Maio, at the junction with west extremity of Agostinho da Silva, very close to the G5. JTabductor walked east and not west and MSabductor walked south and not north. How can this be explained and what likely happened in the 50 minutes between the two sightings ?
But not necessarily applicable Anne, if the intention was to remove her by boat.
I feel sure that if the abductor had been walking around PdL for 50 minutes then more people than the Smiths would have noticed him - simply because he was carrying a child. Weren't the shops/bars/restaurants still open at that time of night? The fact that there were no other sightings at all, makes me think he was 'holed up' somewhere out of public view for a while. He could have been in a car perhaps waiting for instructions, or in an empty building.
It could also be that if she was not drugged in the apartment, then that would be something the abductor(s) would want to do as soon as possible after she was taken. They would need somewhere to do that. It seems unlikely that a child of her age would still be 'naturally' asleep - after 50 mins of being carried around in what was a cold night.
-
But not necessarily applicable Anne, if the intention was to remove her by boat.
I feel sure that if the abductor had been walking around PdL for 50 minutes then more people than the Smiths would have noticed him - simply because he was carrying a child. Weren't the shops/bars/restaurants still open at that time of night? The fact that there were no other sightings at all, makes me think he was 'holed up' somewhere out of public view for a while. He could have been in a car perhaps waiting for instructions, or in an empty building.
It could also be that if she was not drugged in the apartment, then that would be something the abductor(s) would want to do as soon as possible after she was taken. They would need somewhere to do that. It seems unlikely that a child of her age would still be 'naturally' asleep - after 50 mins of being carried around in what was a cold night.
Ah yes, the mystery abductor, for which no evidence exists art all.
Brief reminder and simple logic.
Someone holding a child in their arms does not equal an abductor, or do you think it does,
i.e. in the Mccanns case only ?
-
Ah yes, the mystery abductor, for which no evidence exists art all.
Only in your world Stephen
Brief reminder and simple logic.
Someone holding a child in their arms does not equal an abductor, or do you think it does.
You seem to have missed the point. I didn't say it did. But a man walking round carrying an uncovered child with bare feet is something people would remember seeing, whereas a man strolling round on his own would be easier to miss.
-
[/size]
No, wrong as usual.
My intrinsic point is simple.
If there is no abductor, you have to look elsewhere for the culprits in Madeleine's disappearance.
I saw earlier, the classic 'the mccanns behaviour' was perfectly normal.
I have asked for a simple thing, proof of an abductor, so far zip.
-
No, wrong as usual.
My intrinsic point is simple.
If there is no abductor, you have to look elsewhere for the culprits in Madeleine's disappearance.
I saw earlier, the classic 'the mccanns behaviour' was perfectly normal.
I have asked for a simple thing, proof of an abductor, so far zip.
Evidence has been offered Stephen, but you choose to ignore it.
On the other hand I have seen no proof from you that 'there is no evidence of an abduction'. Even Amaral acknowledges that such a badly preserved crime scene meant that any evidence (such as footprints for instance) stood virtually no chance of being recovered. Fortunately both the PJ and the Uk police know that the reason why no evidence was found was most definitely NOT because it never existed - even if you don't understand that simple but vital fact.
Maybe you would like to give us your proof that no evidence ever existed.
IIRC it was the Portuguese AG who gave the 'normal behaviour' of the McCanns - witnessed by many people, both before and after Madeleine had been abducted, as a major reason why he believed they could NOT have been implicated in their daughter's disappearance.
-
Have you a link ?
This is Alison Saunders Anne. Seems she her department deals with compex cases such as trafficking but also homicide, fraud etc .
http://www.cps.gov.uk/london/about_us/alison_saunders_introduces_cps_london/
-
Evidence has been offered Stephen, but you choose to ignore it.
On the other hand I have seen no proof from you that 'there is no evidence of an abduction'. Even Amaral acknowledges that such a badly preserved crime scene meant that any evidence (such as footprints for instance) stood virtually no chance of being recovered. Fortunately both the PJ and the Uk police know that the reason why no evidence was found was most definitely NOT because it never existed - even if you don't understand that simple but vital fact.
Maybe you would like to give us your proof that no evidence ever existed.
IIRC it was the Portuguese AG who gave the 'normal behaviour' of the McCanns - witnessed by many people, both before and after Madeleine had been abducted, as a major reason why he believed they could NOT have been implicated in their daughter's disappearance.
Rubbish, show me evidence of abduction that would stand up in court.
Normal behaviour ?
Not searching for their beloved daughter during the night , whilst many other people did, because it was too dark.
Screaming like 'mad mullahs', prostrating themselves on the bed when the local police arrived.
Within days, jogging and playing tennis, as if nothing had happened.
Touring abroad leaving behind their other children to meet celebrities.
Setting up a fund whilst they couldn't be bother to physically search themselves after the stroll on the beach the following morning.
Leaving the children alone after Madeleine had asked why they did that before ?
Leaving children alone whilst boozing and dining, unprotected and in an unlocked/locked apartment in a foreign country is perfectly normal ?
My R'se it is.
The setting up of a fund
-
Yes, I do - (though I'm waiting for you to provide a link to the dogs in PDL having received cadaver AVOIDANCE training, but never mind, eh.)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/london/about_us/our_structure/
Many thanks, I'm not forgetting my promise... It's terribly hot here, and I do have some 300 paper pages of articles to reread.
-
It seems unlikely that a child of her age would still be 'naturally' asleep - after 50 mins of being carried around in what was a cold night.
That's for sure, I bet 2 minutes of this treatment would have been enough, however delicate and caring the abductor surely was. Remember her body wasn't against his to keep her warm.
You raise the sedation issue. What do you think ?
-
Rubbish, show me evidence of abduction that would stand up in court.
Normal behaviour ?
Not searching for their beloved daughter during the night , whilst many other people did, because it was too dark.
Screaming like 'mad mullahs', prostrating themselves on the bed when the local police arrived.
Within days, jogging and playing tennis, as if nothing had happened.
Touring abroad leaving behind their other children to meet celebrities.
Setting up a fund whilst they couldn't be bother to physically search themselves after the stroll on the beach the following morning.
Leaving the children alone after Madeleine had asked why they did that before ?
Leaving children alone whilst boozing and dining, unprotected and in an unlocked/locked apartment in a foreign country is perfectly normal ?
My R'se it is.
The setting up of a fund
Instead of posting a load of myths and misinformation Stephen - why don't you give us your proof that no evidence was left by an abductor in apartment 5A.
I see once again you claim to know better than the experts who had all the evidence at their disposal to examine in order to come to a conclusion. In this instance its the Portuguese Attorney General who you are inferring does not know as much about the case as you do and has got it all wrong. Pardon me if I prefer his expertise and experience in this field, to your very obvious total lack of it.
-
That's for sure, I bet 2 minutes of this treatment would have been enough, however delicate and caring the abductor surely was. Remember her body wasn't against his to keep her warm.
You raise the sedation issue. What do you think ?
I think she was either sedated in the apartment - or as soon as possible after she had been taken.
(must go now and prepare lunch)
-
Instead of posting a load of myths and misinformation Stephen - why don't you give us your proof that no evidence was left by an abductor in apartment 5A.
I see once again you claim to know better than the experts who had all the evidence at their disposal to examine in order to come to a conclusion. In this instance its the Portuguese Attorney General who you are inferring does not know as much about the case as you do and has got it all wrong. Pardon me if I prefer his expertise and experience in this field, to your very obvious total lack of it.
No myths, no misinformation, no abductor. NO CHANGE.
Would you have gone jogging and play tennis within days, if a young child of yours had disappeared, or would you be more concerned in finding your child ?
Tough choice on that one.
-
Ah yes, the mystery abductor, for which no evidence exists art all.
Brief reminder and simple logic.
Someone holding a child in their arms does not equal an abductor, or do you think it does,
i.e. in the Mccanns case only ?
Sorry Stephen but you are completely wrong in that logic.
You forgot to add someone suspiciously holding a child in their arms walking away from an apartment from which some minutes later a child was found to have disappeared is indeed evidence and evidence of an abduction. Evidence which you continually refuse to accept for some bizarre reason.
-
Sorry Stephen but you are completely wrong in that logic.
You forgot to add someone suspiciously holding a child in their arms walking away from an apartment from which some minutes later a child was found to have disappeared is indeed evidence and evidence of an abduction. Evidence which you continually refuse to accept for some bizarre reason.
John.
Now on that precept, how do you know the child sighted was not a parent taking the child home ?
The two sightings are not in accordance.
There is no forensic proof Madeleine was taken from the apartment. Note on that, you dispute the dogs indications, so you can't have your cake and eat it on that score.
As regards what may or may not have happened in the apartment, the absence of confirming D.N.A. evidence does not mean the dogs were wrong, now as you claim you are an ex-policeman, you should know that, should you not ?
Remember the old saying, absence of evidence does not mean a crime did not take place.
So if you want to have the abduction theory, you cannot discount the other, can you ?
Meanwhile, why do you think there has been no trace of Madeleine in over 6 years, given all the publicity to the case and of course the reward on offer ?
-
With respect, John, you completely omit that the man seen carrying a child out of the G5 wasn't behaving like an abductor, but as a fireman having extracted a victim from rubble or ruins.
In tales abductors put their victim in a big bag and carry it on their back (that's how the Lindbergh baby was carried, it seems now the abduction was staged). In Tintin times, a chloroform pad on the nose and right away in a speedy car towards a private plane or yacht.
-
An opinion is merely that, not a fact.
Redwood and co., thought they had Barry George banged to rights.
Wrong on that too.
On this I do agree with you Stephen. My own view is that detectives who fit up suspects and especially ones with learning difficulties like Barry should face serious sanctions.
-
Sorry Stephen but you are completely wrong in that logic.
You forgot to add someone suspiciously holding a child in their arms walking away from an apartment from which some minutes later a child was found to have disappeared is indeed evidence and evidence of an abduction. Evidence which you continually refuse to accept for some bizarre reason.
I think you are forgetting the impossibility of Tanner's sighting.
-
this whole thread is based on supposition and fantasy and no evidence therefore isnull and void for all intents and purposes
-
this whole thread is based on supposition and fantasy and no evidence therefore isnull and void for all intents and purposes
And who launched it is'nt even defending it !
A red herring.
-
There is no evidence to suggest the abductor handed Maddie over to others but this is what normally happens. Abductee is handed over as is large amount of cash and abductors return home so as not to raise any suspicions.
-
Madeleine went up to Porto
Only my opinion, but lots of pointers including some I cant tell. 8**8:/:
Some day i will do a thread. It's big and it's time consuming.
-
There is no evidence to suggest the abductor handed Maddie over to others but this is what normally happens. Abductee is handed over as is large amount of cash and abductors return home so as not to raise any suspicions.
Normally? Are most stranger abductions of toddlers committed by two or more people?
-
Normally? Are most stranger abductions of toddlers committed by two or more people?
They operate in gangs as the arrests in Portugal some time back revealed. Maybe that is what Sadie is also alluding to when she mentioned Oporto?
-
They operate in gangs as the arrests in Portugal some time back revealed. Maybe that is what Sadie is also alluding to when she mentioned Oporto?
Never heard of Trafficking gangs abducting three yr olds from their beds, or their holiday flats,normally teenagers plus, and NOT from their beds either,but the mccanns insist no evidence of any harm, oh well, must go for today, heard enough rubbish again
-
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/trinta-desaparecimentos-de-criancas-em-investigacao-desde-o-caso-maddie-1544265
It says :
1) More than 99% of the missing children and teens cases investigated by the PJ in the last 5 years (we're in 2012) were resolved.
2) Since Madeleine MC disappeared, 30 children and teens disappeared who weren't found. 3 of them (children up to 12 yrs old) are all parents' neglect cases. The 27 others are teens between 13 and 17 yrs old, who all disappeared in 2011/2012 (no case between 2007 and 2011).
3) During these 5 years, the PJ was alerted 3629 times (345 times for children under 12 and 3284 times for teens 13-17).
If the alarm device was never used, it is, logically, because no abduction occurred.
-
Never heard of Trafficking gangs abducting three yr olds from their beds, or their holiday flats,normally teenagers plus, and NOT from their beds either,but the mccanns insist no evidence of any harm, oh well, must go for today, heard enough rubbish again
Abduction gangs steal children to order from their bed, from the beach and from the street by their homes. Its the rubbish that often turns out to be the truth but then you would say that wouldn't you Red?
-
Abduction gangs steal children to order from their bed, from the beach and from the street by their homes. Its the rubbish that often turns out to be the truth but then you would say that wouldn't you Red?
Abducting children of any age is as big a crime in Europe, especially in countries near the Mediterranean, as drug running is from Mexico to the USA. As for age, it depends on what the child is wanted for. It's a very lucrative trade.
-
What about teenagers ?
-
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/trinta-desaparecimentos-de-criancas-em-investigacao-desde-o-caso-maddie-1544265
It says :
1) More than 99% of the missing children and teens cases investigated by the PJ in the last 5 years (we're in 2012) were resolved.
2) Since Madeleine MC disappeared, 30 children and teens disappeared who weren't found. 3 of them (children up to 12 yrs old) are all parents' neglect cases. The 27 others are teens between 13 and 17 yrs old, who all disappeared in 2011/2012 (no case between 2007 and 2011).
3) During these 5 years, the PJ was alerted 3629 times (345 times for children under 12 and 3284 times for teens 13-17).
If the alarm device was never used, it is, logically, because no abduction occurred.
Yes, we all know what 'resolved' means in terms of Portuguese justice. Just ask Joana and Leonor Capriano.
-
They operate in gangs as the arrests in Portugal some time back revealed. Maybe that is what Sadie is also alluding to when she mentioned Oporto?
Sorry Angelo I seem to have missed those reports of gangs of child abductors. I'd be interested in any links you have.
-
Sorry Angelo I seem to have missed those reports of gangs of child abductors. I'd be interested in any links you have.
www.theportugalnews.com/news/major-human-trafficking-ring-dismantled/27005
-
www.theportugalnews.com/news/major-human-trafficking-ring-dismantled/27005
Thank you Angelo but I doubt the minors mentioned in the article were 'abducted' in the same way as Madeleine.
-
Yes, we all know what 'resolved' means in terms of Portuguese justice. Just ask Joana and Leonor Capriano.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
And Michael Cook and Rene Hasses parents and all the rest
-
And who launched it is'nt even defending it !
A red herring.
Excuse me, this was a split thread, I didn't start it. Besides, I'm off on a few days holiday with my family & your views aren't really that interesting that I'm willing to spend holiday time hanging onto your every word. It is a real possibility that children who are abducted are trafficked by gangs who are dedicated to human trafficking.
-
Excuse me, this was a split thread, I didn't start it.
Ah, I didn't know. Fine then !
-
If you'd read the thread you'd have known.
-
If you'd read the thread you'd have known.
I confess I just had a look, it smelt too much red herring.
-
Only in your mind who only has the agenda to accuse the parents of heinous crimes, for normal people human trafficking is a serious problem affecting 21 million victims in the world today.
-
Only in your mind who only has the agenda to accuse the parents of heinous crimes, for normal people human trafficking is a serious problem affecting 21 million victims in the world today.
Seems like its water off a ducks back, to some, doesn't it?
Like abused children being removed from their family's, not the abuser.
-
Seems like its water off a ducks back, to some, doesn't it?
Like abused children being removed from their family's, not the abuser.
Yes, horrendous.
-
Only in your mind who only has the agenda to accuse the parents of heinous crimes, for normal people human trafficking is a serious problem affecting 21 million victims in the world today.
I'm not accusing no one, but you are !
-
Don't kid yourself.
-
Only in your mind who only has the agenda to accuse the parents of heinous crimes, for normal people human trafficking is a serious problem affecting 21 million victims in the world today.
how many of these *trafficked* are toddlers snatched from their hotel beds?, get a grip
-
how many of these *trafficked* are toddlers snatched from their hotel beds?, get a grip
Abductions take many forms, taking a child from her bed is but one of them.
-
Abductions take many forms, taking a child from her bed is but one of them.
Agreed.
-
Abductions take many forms, taking a child from her bed is but one of them.
Any cases off the top of your head where a three year old was snatched from their bed to be trafficked?
-
The "child snatched from bed" figure belongs to collective representations. The two most famous cases were staged abductions : the Lindbergh baby (for eugenic reasons, but death was an accident) and the Road Hill child (Madeleine's age). Both involved "forced" shutters and window.
-
The "child snatched from bed" figure belongs to collective representations. The two most famous cases were staged abductions : the Lindbergh baby (for eugenic reasons, but death was an accident) and the Road Hill child (Madeleine's age). Both involved "forced" shutters and window.
really? Well anne all i am saying is that trafficked people are not babies and toddlers in the main, if the mccanns or their supporters want to offer this as a possibility then they have no business uttering words like, there is no evidence shehas come to any harm, how ridiculous is THAT
i mean are there good and nice traffickers?
-
The Francis Kent case is interesting, not only because an abduction through the window was staged, but because Mr Whicher, who discovered the truth, was discredited and actually had a sad end, though he was one of the first SY inspectors : his crime ? He dared suspect someone of the victim's family.
-
The Francis Kent case is interesting, not only because an abduction through the window was staged, but because Mr Whicher, who discovered the truth, was discredited and actually had a sad end, though he was one of the first SY inspectors : his crime ? He dared suspect someone of the victim's family.
Dejavu
Off to watch some liar politicians on question time now,byeeee, always game for a laugh
-
SY inspectors were assimilated to servants a hundred and fifty years ago..
-
The Francis Kent case is interesting, not only because an abduction through the window was staged, but because Mr Whicher, who discovered the truth, was discredited and actually had a sad end, though he was one of the first SY inspectors : his crime ? He dared suspect someone of the victim's family.
Which turned our to be the case.
-
The killer avoided death thanks to Queen Victoria, went to Australia and lived there up to 100 years. Mr Whicher died a few years after being discredited. He was right though, the killer didn't come from the outside, but here was the rub !