So how did the abductor enter and leave the apartment?

[Luz]

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.

She is just using the McCann confabulation to try to pass on their excuse that the child was taken by a paedophile(s). These poor followers went as far as inventing that there was a network organized to grab poor little madeleine, as if there weren't more beautiful abandoned and vulnerable children. Their lack of regard for the true victims of these crimes disgust me.

[Luz]

They had full view of the patio and steps up to the patio doors.  They were only 50 metres away.  They were within earshot.  Had any of the children yelled them they would have heard.

It was illuminated by the nearby street lamp which was in line with the steps and patio.   The sitting room light was left on.  The patio doors were closed and an attempt was made to close the curtains over these doors.  Now I have tried very very hard and I am unable to close the curtains inside the room when I slide my patio doors closed from the outside.  Can you fully close your curtains from outside when you close your patio doors Faith?

So here we have a situation where the curtains are partially open with a light on in the room.   Anyone trying to get in would be silhouetted in that gap by the lights inside.  No abductor would risk that in full view.  So the Mccanns would feel completely safe.    Think about it Faith.

In the sleepy little place that PdL was it felt safe.

Amaral himself, when he was trying to prove his theory that no abductor went into the apartment, said that no abductor would dare to go in via the patio doors cos Kate and Gerry were too close and overlooked the patio doors

There was no abductor.

[sadie]

Very true Chinagirl.  The distance has been measured and confirmed several times over by others on the ground.

The distance from the patio to the tapas bar is 50 metres as the crow flies ie in a straight line across the pool. The actual distance walking it by the shortest route is 70 metres.

There is indeed a streetlight directly across the public road from the pedestrian gate which leads to the 5a patio.  However, photographic evidence shows that the angle is such that the light from this lamp only illuminates the gate and a couple of steps nearest the street.  This streetlight does NOT shed any light on the patio itself.

It does John, maybe not onto the flooring itself, but via the arched unglazed patio window, anyone walking across that patio would illuminated.  And everything being so brightly painted white, my bet is that even the patio floor would get some reflected light

[Albertini]

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.

Apologies for the confusion. I did not mean "key" in the literal sense. I meant the key issue in terms of why a simpler story of them being in the apartment at night when Madeleine was taken would not work.

That key issues revolves around the fact that a simpler statement of them being there at the crime scene at the time of the crime taking place increases the suspicion of them as they have no third party independent witnessese or alibis to put distance between them and the crime/crime scene.

In relation to the key itself, of course it was a possibility. However there was no evidence of how, when and where a key was taken and no evidence of how a copy was cut.

In relation to the issues you raise:

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

Motive - due to neglectful reason their daughter had an accident and die for which they could be blamed.
No car - Body could have been hidden or moved on foot
No body - people are convicted all the time without a body being found.

And the statistics show that parental / family / friends are by far the biggest perpatrators of such crimes.

[sadie]

Apologies for the confusion. I did not mean "key" in the literal sense. I meant the key issue in terms of why a simpler story of them being in the apartment at night when Madeleine was taken would not work.

That key issues revolves around the fact that a simpler statement of them being there at the crime scene at the time of the crime taking place increases the suspicion of them as they have no third party independent witnessese or alibis to put distance between them and the crime/crime scene.

In relation to the key itself, of course it was a possibility. However there was no evidence of how, when and where a key was taken and no evidence of how a copy was cut.

In relation to the issues you raise:

Motive - due to neglectful reason their daughter had an accident and die for which they could be blamed.
No car - Body could have been hidden or moved on foot
No body - people are convicted all the time without a body being found.

Yep, the Ciprianos were weren't they.  NO EVIDENCE at all in that case .  NONE

[Albertini]

Yep, the Ciprianos were weren't they.  NO EVIDENCE at all in that case .  NONE

But it does happen doesn't it?

[stephen25000]

Yep, the Ciprianos were weren't they.  NO EVIDENCE at all in that case .  NONE

In your mind no.

In the court's eyes YES.

You do believe in the rule of law don't you ?

[Carana]

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?!

Well, could you please provide some kind of support for that?

Google Earth doesn't seem to share your view.

[Benice]

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.

No I'm not Anne.   The police were called.   (You seem to be missing a lot of  posts.)

I'm not suggesting abuse took place in 5a - the point being made was that there were no signs of a break-in in those other cases and so it's not unreasonable to assume a key was used to gain entrance.  Therefore the idea that there was no possibility of a key being used to get into 5A is incorrect. IMO

Amaral also thought a key could have been used to get into 5A. 

Why do you and others keep ignoring that fact?



 

[Benice]

In relation to the issues you raise:

Motive - due to neglectful reason their daughter had an accident and die for which they could be blamed.
No car - Body could have been hidden or moved on foot
No body - people are convicted all the time without a body being found.

And the statistics show that parental / family / friends are by far the biggest perpatrators of such crimes.

But we already know that no evidence that Madeleine had had an accident was found.  So that would remain the same with this simpler cover story.

I did say that in the simpler version the body could be hidden in the same unfindable place which they apparently took her too much earler.   So no change there.

The statistics also show that stranger abduction does happen.  Ask Ben Needham's mum.

The massive difference in the simple version of events is that it doesn't include shutters/windows, or Jane Tanner having to be coached into remembering what she apparently didn't witness including having to remember a description of an imaginary man carrying a child.   
.
They wouldn't have to talk their friends into covering for them and then spend the rest of their lives worrying in case someone let something slip - or had an attack of conscience. 

They could dispose of the body when no-one was around - instead of at 10.00 oclock at night when all kinds of people/traffic could be expected - like the Smiths for example.   

Madeleine would have been taken in the night after they got home -  so no need to even discuss what happened with checks etc during the meal.    They could even say that Madeleine had told them she had nasty dream the night before about a man being in her room.

Why on earth would they embark on such a messy concoction of a story involving so many terrible risks, complicated lies and other people when none of that was remotely necessary.     That makes no sense to me whatsoever.


 

[AnneGuedes]

The police were called.   (You seem to be missing a lot of  posts.)

Possibly. Will you kindly tell which police, when and where (if not who called them) ?

[Carana]

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.

Which letter was a hoax? And could you provide some kind of link as to which one you're talking about?

[AnneGuedes]

But we already know that no evidence that Madeleine had had an accident was found. 

Perfectly. As well we know that no evidence that Madeleine was abducted was found.
So 15 love.

[Carana]

Not in Portugal.

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

What exactly do you mean?

[Benice]

Perfectly. As well we know that no evidence that Madeleine was abducted was found.
So 15 love.

Sorry I didn't realise this was point scoring exercise.  I thought we were discussing why the McCanns (if they disposed of their daughter's dead body),  would come up with such a massively complex, complicated, convoluted 'brimming with risks' cover story involving loads of other folk -  and taking ages to organise and which incidentally commenced at the ridiculous time of 10 o'clock at night.... -  when people of their intelligence and education could have quite easily come up with a cover story a million times more simple.   

The whole idea is ludicrous - and apart from anything else, is one of the main reasons why I don't believe for a second that they found their daughter dead and decided to dispose of her body.