So how did the abductor enter and leave the apartment?

[Benice]

No its not. That's because under that scenario they have no alibis nor independent witnesses able to show that they were not there at the time of the crime.

If it is presented as an abduction whilst they are elsewhere they can say they were not at the scene when the crime took place.

What alibis/witnesses would they need?  They would claim they were fast asleep in bed while this crime happened.
 

[Carana]

I understand that in the Uk people can hardly differentiate the difference between yards and meters.
I'm fed up with reading that the restaurant was 50 m, 100 m.. away. Either you all live in dolls houses or your vision of distances has suffered a twist.

The back of the apartment to the restaurant is at the minimum 200 m. From that to the front door is more than 500 m.

"Within earshot" when you are in a noisy restaurant and your children are more than 500 m away inside an apartment, in a room whose window is in the opposite direction?

There is no lamp street close to the back stairs that lead to the sitting room; There is no deposition that the sitting room lights were on (which would be ridiculous when they argued, when trying to impinge that they left the patio doors open was because the children had a light sleep and opening the front door with the key could awake them - a poor excuse since G.McC said to have used the front door and the key); there is no document that attests that the curtains were attempted to be closed.

Geeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz

....you people are too creative, aren't you?

A response from you:
Re: THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductor
« Reply #11 on: Today at 10:33:19 AM »
I've only allowed myself to exaggerate the distance between OC and the front door of 5A, just to make you reflect that there was no way  the children could be within hearing distance from where their parents allegedly were dining.

You could have said that you didn't believe that the children would have been within hearing distance from the restaurant without stating  that the children were left 500m away when the actual distance to the open patio door was 77.38m

That is not a mild exaggeration of a few metres, is it?

[Luz]

They could have disposed of the body in the middle of the night - in the same unfindable place which they apparently knew about.    Then they could go to bed and in the morning call the police and say they woke up to find the front door ajar and their daughter missing.     What could be simpler?

Really?!
I reckon you have not seen as many TV crime series as they have. Waiting for the morning would make them prime suspects immediately, they desperately needed witnesses...and it worked for some time, didn't it?

[Albertini]

What alibis/witnesses would they need?  They would claim they were fast asleep in bed while this crime happened.
 

They would need alibis/witnessess to remove them from the crime scene at the point of the crime happening.

The police would quickly point the finger in their direction as there was no one else to verify their version of events.

The abduction scenario gives greater distance from the scene at the time of the crime.

[Luz]

A response from you:
Re: THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductor
« Reply #11 on: Today at 10:33:19 AM »
I've only allowed myself to exaggerate the distance between OC and the front door of 5A, just to make you reflect that there was no way  the children could be within hearing distance from where their parents allegedly were dining.

You could have said that you didn't believe that the children would have been within hearing distance from the restaurant without stating  that the children were left 500m away when the actual distance to the open patio door was 77.38m

That is not a mild exaggeration of a few metres, is it?

I have already admitted I exaggerated in the distance between the Tapas and the front room (where the children were staying) at 5A. But it is not 77.83 m, it's 270m and there is a building with walls between the room and the patio with the pool and all the shrubs where the Tapas was located. Insisting that the children could be heard, even if they came to the back room that was at least 150 m away (through the reception and up the stairs), is throwing sand into everyone's eyes. But that is your appointed job, I guess.

Your Lady Kate didn't feel she could be heard from the balcony of the back room to the Tapas, what makes you think little children in distress could?!

[Benice]

The definition of tamper is:

interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations

Gerry interfered with the shutters to case damage to the crime scene.

Let me quote a piece on it:

That's the significance of tampering with crime scenes.

I covered your claim about simpler ways in a previous post.

So what actual damage did Gerry cause to the shutters?

If they were going to claim the shutters had been smashed/jemmied/forced as a vital part of their plan, then don't you think he would have made sure they were actually broken or smashed in readiness for the police to see them?   Or do you think they were so stupid they thought the police wouldn't notice.

[Albertini]

So what actual damage did Gerry cause to the shutters?

If they were going to claim the shutters had been smashed/jemmied/forced as a vital part of their plan, then don't you think he would have made sure they were actually broken or smashed in readiness for the police to see them?   Or do you think they were so stupid they thought the police wouldn't notice.

I didn't say he damaged the shutters. I said he damaged the crime scene, and the lengthy piece i quoted explained why.

It is possible that Gerry's tampering was to try and break the shutters but it failed. I don't think he could do it in the time he had before the police showed up.

That of course did not stop Gerry telling his friends and family they were broken (who duly and dutifully reported that to the UK media) when he knew full well it had not happened.

It was, one must surmise, an attempt to set a narrative for the UK media that supported their version of events because it bore no relation to the truth at the time he gave his friends and family that information. 

[AnneGuedes]

Rigor mortis required quick intervention.
The body had to be disposed of before the emptying of the place.
The front door ajar story wouldn't have resisted total lack of intrusion evidence.
Their chance was Ms Tanner's sighting. Without it they would certainly have been squeezed, media, celebrities, authorities and pope would have thought thrice before supporting them.

[Benice]

Really?!
I reckon you have not seen as many TV crime series as they have. Waiting for the morning would make them prime suspects immediately, they desperately needed witnesses...and it worked for some time, didn't it?

It would not be unusual for the parents to have been asleep all night.    It's a perfectly feasible alibi for a crime which could be committed in less than a couple of minutes in the middle of the night - whilst the parents were fast asleep in their own bedroom.

Isn't this what had happened elsewhere in this area in the previous 3 years - where offenders got into apartments during the night and sexually assaulted children. 

[Luz]

It would not be unusual for the parents to have been asleep all night.    It's a perfectly feasible alibi for a crime which could be committed in less than a couple of minutes in the middle of the night - whilst the parents were fast asleep in their own bedroom.

Isn't this what had happened elsewhere in this area in the previous 3 years - where offenders got into apartments during the night and sexually assaulted children.

Not in Portugal.

No Elizabeth or Edward Smarts here...Gerry might have learnt a thing or two with him.

[Albertini]

It would not be unusual for the parents to have been asleep all night.    It's a perfectly feasible alibi for a crime which could be committed in less than a couple of minutes in the middle of the night - whilst the parents were fast asleep in their own bedroom.

No you keep ignoring the key issue. There would have been no independent witness verification of them, or their movements on or around the crime scene at the time of the crime happening.

This would instantly put them in the frame with investigating police.

After all in most child disappearances statistically speaking family members or friends are more likely to have carried out such crimes than random strangers.

So under your scenario the only evidence to support the parents would be their own statements which could not be verified by third party witnesses.

It would throw up a huge red flag right away with investigators.

Isn't this what had happened elsewhere in this area in the previous 3 years - where offenders got into apartments during the night and sexually assaulted children.

Is there a source for these attacks?

[Benice]

Not in Portugal.

The GNR records would prove you wrong.  The crimes were reported to the police.

This is an extract from a letter of complaint written by one of the parents to the GNR.
 
Quote:
 
It is difficult to see with this lack of investigation or interest how a profile of this man can be built up.  It did not appear to us that there was any great incentive or determination to find the offender and bring him to justice................Furthermore, it could all have been so much worse......indeed this man could go on to do much worse to another child if he's not stopped.
Unquote
 
That letter was sent to the GNR six months before Madeleine was abducted - and will be in their files.
 

[Luz]

The GNR records would prove you wrong.  The crimes were reported to the police.

This is an extract from a letter of complaint written by one of the parents to the GNR.
 
Quote:
 
It is difficult to see with this lack of investigation or interest how a profile of this man can be built up.  It did not appear to us that there was any great incentive or determination to find the offender and bring him to justice................Furthermore, it could all have been so much worse......indeed this man could go on to do much worse to another child if he's not stopped.
Unquote
 
That letter was sent to the GNR six months before Madeleine was abducted - and will be in their files.

As you must know that letter was an hoax immediately exposed by the competent authorities.
Only the readers of the British trash journos keep believing that ridiculous attempt to denigrate the Algarve as the safe place that it is for families and children.
So far the only increase in crime that we have here is from the British youngsters that haven't learned to hold their alcohol consumption under control.

Don't take me wrong, I don't wish more Brits here. I have many friends that I cherish and welcome but I do not wish that more Britons come to this place. I love to feel safe in my home and not having McCanns coming over with their circuses to wash their mistakes.

[AnneGuedes]

Isn't this what had happened elsewhere in this area in the previous 3 years - where offenders got into apartments during the night and sexually assaulted children.

Are you by chance one of the victims ? If so, as you're anonymous here, can you tell how those offenders got inside ? And can you also explain why the police wasn't called ?
There was no forensic evidence of abuse in the 5A.

[Benice]

No you keep ignoring the key issue. There would have been no independent witness verification of them, or their movements on or around the crime scene at the time of the crime happening.  This would instantly put them in the frame with investigating police.

After all in most child disappearances statistically speaking family members or friends are more likely to have carried out such crimes than random strangers.

So under your scenario the only evidence to support the parents would be their own statements which could not be verified by third party witnesses.

It would throw up a huge red flag right away with investigators.
Is there a source for these attacks?

Nonsense - even Amaral said an intruder could have entered the apartment with a  key.

Of course they would be investigated, but with no body, no motive, no car and no knowledge of the area - and a history which showed how wanted and adored their beloved daughter was -  then -  coupled of course with their apparently amazing Oscar winning acting skills  - what could be proved against them?

The only involvement the Tapas 7 would have would be to confirm that the McCanns behaved perfectly normally on the 3rd.   They would not need to be involved in any other way - especially Jane Tanner.

Statistics show that stranger abduction happens.  And that is all we need to know.