Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[aa9511]

I agree with you. Yet the man that Tanner saw, along with his wife, thought all along that it may have been he and his daughter that night, and HE did not come forward for 6 years. Maybe they didn't want to get involved with the media circus. I just don't know why.

bbm

IMO, "he" still hasn't come forward. Because there was never this man. There is no "he."

SY figured out Jane was lying, whether that was just by going on their information or whether they secretly interviewed her again...IDK.

 

[haden]

So that is saying they cannot confirm that it is or is not Madeleine's because it's a mixture of several people's DNA.

Exactly, and these all people are alive.

Plus the other places they indicated at found the DNA of the Portuguese forensics team guys who are also alive.

And on the car key they found the DNA of Gerry who is also alive.

 

[aa9511]

Britain's domestic intelligence service. Like their equivalent to Homeland Security, I spose. Or maybe the CIA.

Oh Lord....if something like the CIA can be duped by Kate and Gerry McCann....:scared::scared: MOO

 

[aa9511]

I caught that show "Cold Justice" that everyone is raving about.

The woman who is prosecutor said clearly, over and over, that circumstantial evidence is what solves cases.

We have an enormous mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case which has always pointed one way, and one way only.

Yet somehow we are discussing some unknown deceased African.

The McCanns publicised every single efit except the one we now know is considered the important one.

The efit resembles Gerry.

The witnesses responsible for the efit say they believed they saw Gerry.

It is fact that the efit was suppressed by the parents who allegedly were leaving "no stone unturned" in their multi million dollar search.

This fact alone needs explaining before I can entertain thoughts of gypsies, cleaners, abducting women.

:scared:

So the excuse for suppressing the efit information is.....?

It looked too much like Gerry? Or not enough like an egg?

SS, I agree. I know, I know, "innocent until proven guilty," but you know what, this is JMO and not a court of law, and me personally, I'm not gonna believe they're innocent until I see proof of their innocence. I know, I know. :truce:

It doesn't make sense to me to look all around the world and go on wild goose-hunts when the information they need to find out what happened to Madeleine is within a circle of 9 people.

 

[haden]

The particular report that was mentioned in the Times was not done by the MI5 but by the Oakley International

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id285.html

 

[aa9511]

When parents left for the dinner they closed the door of the children's bedroom.
Gerry returning to check on children would find the doors open at 9.05.
That would indicated that someone was in the room before 9.05 who opened these doors.
Gerry closed the doors.
When Matthew Oldfield came to check at 9.25-9.30 he found the doors open and there was light in the room, Matthew suggested the light was coming from outside, suggesting that the shutters were open.
That would mean that someone was in the room between Gerry's check and Matt's check.
That would suggest that someone was in the room between 9pm and 9.30pm but since Gerry saw Madeleine at 9.05 that means that the person was in the apartment all the time.

MOO....there was no window opened that night by any abuctor. Matthew Oldfield's story is a lie to support the faked abduction...MOO.

If the window was supposedly opened by the abductor and it was open since possibly as early as 9 or so....the entire apartment would have been very chilly by 9:25, Matthew Oldfield's supposed "check." It would have been obvious there was a window or door open somewhere.

 

[CHERIE.T]

I am thinking along the same lines. A woman possibly known to Madeleine but WHO? Someone whose DNA would be normal to be found in the apartment?
And then Madeleine walking the bare feet? Was she given the new shoes?
Was this someone not very mentally stable who heard her crying the night before?
The phone records would help in here, as if it was two people, it is more possible that at least one of them had the phone.
In this case it would have been a woman known to Madeleine, passing her to someone who was waiting in the car. And then that person selling her to someone who wanted to buy her. Or maybe the couple who wanted to keep her.
The woman then would be able to go back to her being around during the searches and she would not be suspected. Although this woman could be a man as well..
But then who opened the door of the children's bedroom wider when Gerry was there at 9.05?
And why was the window open?
Is it possible that whoever took Madeleine did not know that the patio door were left unlocked?

This is a really good post Haden. I agree about a woman possibly known to Maddie being suspect......... possibly.

 

[Inana]

So what was the stuff about the 15 markers out of 19?

15 out of 19 alleles from a total of 37 components, from a mixture of 3 and up to 5 individuals. That's less than half. It could be anyone's.

A mixture of dna from different people can not be attributed to a single person. Some of the alleles would drop off the chart, others elevated to an unrealistic spike during the manipulation of the sample to even get a reading. FSS John Lowe wrote that he also matched. As did many people in the lab. A mixture of 2 people could provide millions of matches.

McCann DNA evidence 'exaggerated' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7541810.stm

LCN DNA Low copy number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeline has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/conclusion." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi1
<o</o

 

[SapphireSteel]

The DNA was consistent with Madeleine's and was located at the cadaver alert sites.

The presence of Cadaver needs explaining, so does the presence of the DNA.

Neither should have been found at all. The fact that they were both found together, is not something that can be explained away.

Hence the refrain the dogs are wrong/the DNA is wrong.

Open minds consider the possibility and implications of them both being right.

 

[CHERIE.T]

SS, I agree. I know, I know, "innocent until proven guilty," but you know what, this is JMO and not a court of law, and me personally, I'm not gonna believe they're innocent until I see proof of their innocence. I know, I know. :truce:

It doesn't make sense to me to look all around the world and go on wild goose-hunts when the information they need to find out what happened to Madeleine is within a circle of 9 people .

color by me
in YOUR OPINION.
there is no such thing as a wild goose chase when a child is missing.

 

[goldengirl57]

When parents left for the dinner they closed the door of the children's bedroom.
Gerry returning to check on children would find the doors open at 9.05.
That would indicated that someone was in the room before 9.05 who opened these doors.
Gerry closed the doors.
When Matthew Oldfield came to check at 9.25-9.30 he found the doors open and there was light in the room, Matthew suggested the light was coming from outside, suggesting that the shutters were open.
That would mean that someone was in the room between Gerry's check and Matt's check.
That would suggest that someone was in the room between 9pm and 9.30pm but since Gerry saw Madeleine at 9.05 that means that the person was in the apartment all the time.

He thought the light was coming from the master bedroom:

That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

So is that the mccanns room? Wasnt there a problem with the shutters of this room and they had to get maintenance men out to fix it?

Was it this room that the shutters were open not the childrens....

 

[goldengirl57]

I cant figure out how the wind whooshed through the curtains.

Usually a sheltered open window will only create a draught like that when the door is first opened - the vacuum effect.

But Kate had whooshing curtains and slamming doors (that didn't wake the twins) while she was just standing there, door already open.

I just cannot see how this can be correct.

. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.

If the door slammed on your sleeping children, the very first thing you would do would be to close the window. Kate did not do this choosing instead to peer at the children without the light on in case it "woke them" - slamming doors didn't Kate so I doubt a measly light would.

:dunno:

thats the rub for me. An abductor goes into the apartment how does he know which bed the child is sleeping in? I take it there were no lights in the main room otherwise she would have seen surely the beds quite clearly it would not be dark...

So how did the abuducter know he was taking a girl child out of the apartment IF even her mother couldnt discern if there was something or someone in the bed?

 

[haden]

thats the rub for me. An abductor goes into the apartment how does he know which bed the child is sleeping in? I take it there were no lights in the main room otherwise she would have seen surely the beds quite clearly it would not be dark...

So how did the abuducter know he was taking a girl child out of the apartment IF even her mother couldnt discern if there was something or someone in the bed?

This is a very good point. How did the abductor know which one is Madeleine? Or did he not know? And has just chosen her there and then?

 

[haden]

The DNA was consistent with Madeleine's and was located at the cadaver alert sites.

The presence of Cadaver needs explaining, so does the presence of the DNA.

Neither should have been found at all. The fact that they were both found together, is not something that can be explained away.

Hence the refrain the dogs are wrong/the DNA is wrong.

Open minds consider the possibility and implications of them both being right.

[modsnip]..

BTW no Madeleine's DNA or close to Madeleine's DNA was found at any of the dogs alert. The closest was at the car boot but it was proven this was from more than 3 people. If you read the reports posted on this forum just few pages back.

 

[goldengirl57]

Thinking logically if you were going to abduct a child and plan it, what would you do and what would you take?

I know I am crazy but the windows and stuff is really bugging me, and last night I sat and really thought about it all almost doing a reconstruction in my head.

So how would I start to prepare if I was going to take a child I would wear dark clothing. I would carry a holdall big enough to carry a child in. Chloroform, a rag to use it, and a plastic bag to put it in when finished and a torch and surgical gloves as they are easier to wear and usually nude in colour. I would park my car away from the complex in the dark.

Getting Chloroform would be difficult but not impossible. Medical practitioners can prescribe it and I believe dentists use it, but i did a bit of research and you can buy forms of it in supermarkets and on line. You would have to take something to quieten the child. Using it is dangerous and you have to know what your doing. Hummm its a worry would I want to risk the childs life.

Any thoughts? Would you risk the child not waking up? I know my grandson who was her age at the time, there is no way I could have picked him up without waking him. He had a sleeping disorder basically never slept lol.

OK casing the joint.

I would do a walk by of the apartment assuming somehow I had found out about children being left on their own for long periods of time.

Logically I think I would prefer to go in from the front door.

Now I thought it might be difficult, but would the front door still have a lock which was hard to get a key, no I dont think it would, so possibly just a normal Yale OR an inside job and help from someone working there. Much easier to have that then having to find out what sort of lock the door had and get a key.

The area by 5A had a wall which I am sure the abductor could easily hunker down and not been seen....There is a photo of forensics doing the shutter and you can cant see her legs, so a person could hunker down out of site.

The abductor then went in, it was darkish so he turns his torch on.

Passes the kitchen on the left and into the main apartment and off this on the right was the Master bedroom, bathroom, and childrens bedroom.

Now first question was there lights on in the apartment?

I would imagine there would be a light on which would not wake the children up, but would allow the parents to see in from the patio door. HOWEVER, the bedrooms would be in the dark.

Second confusion. How did the doors open? Outwards or inwards? I would think there was no room to open inwards with bed and wardrobe on other side, so was it outwards? Anyone know?

Now which door? If traveling through the front door the abductor would come across 3 doors on the right. Where ALL the doors closed or open. (Including bathroom). What are the chances they found the right one straight away?

IF the doors were closed unless the person knew where the children were they would have to open each door to find them.

So door closed perhaps. Opens the door of the parents. Can see two empty beds in the torch light then pushes the door into the bathroom, then opens the last door.

What would he see? It would be quite dark as the shutters were down.

So torch on he would just see two large travel cots, and possible behind them a bed.

Then he would look to to the left and see another bed with possibly a child in it but it would not be that clear it could just be another empty bed.

Now first off. How would he know which bed Maddy was in?

Did the abductor just take Maddy because it was the easier option? Its hard work taking children out of travel cots, actually even putting them in a travel cot is back breaking.
So go for the easier option perhaps? HOw did they know the child in the bed was a girl? The travel cots had little view, so they wouldnt even know which one held a boy or girl.

Anyway, locates a child in the bed any child will do perhaps.

Places holdall onto floor. Puts torch down, gets chloroform bottle opens it, puts a bit of chloroform on cloth which was carried in a small plastic bag, pass over face. Puts cloth back into bag, and pocket, picks torch up, puts in pocket. Opening holdall check the child is sedated, put in bag which is big enough, zips back. Picks up, and goes back the way he came.

Opens the front door which was left ajar and quietly shuts behind him. Presses himself against the wall and listens hears nothing, no footsteps etc sounds travels at night. Hunkers down, and moves to the car park, quickly through and turns LEFT to Lagos road, and the car parked.

Time taken I reckon about 8 minutes.

So if if he went in at say 9.35 he would be out BEFORE 9.50.

Now why would the abductor have opened the window/shutter?

It makes no sense.

If you look at the official crime scene, two LARGE travel cots in the middle, then a bed under the window. It would have been POINTLESS to do so.

It makes no sense to complicate things.

So I would expect the family would have found perhaps all 3 doors open.

There is no way an abductor would bother to close doors behind them, it is just another chance to wake the other children up. You had to do it quietly and without too much light. To negotiate two cots and then a bed to open the window and shutter is madness it would have woken the children up and served no purpose unless to get rid of the smell of chloroform.

OK some people reckon the abductor went through the patio door.

Now lets go up the stairs and through the patio. The scenario and timing would be the same.

HOWEVER, i dont like the patio steps, stair gate, and lights from the tapas ocean club, and people walking RIGHT PAST the gate etc, far easier to be seen.

So the question is how did they open the front door?

Also the argument is the abductor KNEW THE PATIO DOOR WAS KEPT UNLOCKED, how did they know that?

Unless they followed one of the group how did they know that? They could have been using a key. No as far as I am concerned the abductor had NO REASON to know the patio door was unlocked.....unless they knew the family.

The child could have been taken very quickly it was a small flat. The abductor using a timing when everyone was eating and had done first checks and would have had more wine etc....so would have had to have knowledge of their routine so about 9.35.

So someone inside job/or privvy to families routine...

Who?
Creche Worker
Complaint by Mrs Fenn
Restaurant worker
Maid
Maintenance Man
ANYONE ELSE?
People were seen hanging about during the DAY....The routine of abduction was at night. Did anyone see someone hanging about at night?
I dont think i have heard of anyone. So someone must have known that routine at NIGHT. Who knew the routine?
Restaurant worker
Mrs Fenn complaint
ANYONE ELSE?

I know its just guess work but I think it has to be logical.

Again I am dismissing the dogs scenting etc, as the pj and SY have at the MOMENT. I am merely trying to work out if it was an abduction then how did they do it.

Personally the more I think about it the more I realise someone working there would have to be implicated if the front door was used.

Also the open door etc Gerry McCann well perhaps maddy did get up for the toilet we cant dismiss that or she got up to see where her parents were and then scared went back to bed.....

Also i found this article. This couple state there was no one hanging about at 9.15.

And who was the mytery couple was it them?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/40...on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared
Any thoughts?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

thats the rub for me. An abductor goes into the apartment how does he know which bed the child is sleeping in? I take it there were no lights in the main room otherwise she would have seen surely the beds quite clearly it would not be dark...

So how did the abuducter know he was taking a girl child out of the apartment IF even her mother couldnt discern if there was something or someone in the bed?

We have no idea how dark it was in there and since it was dark outside it would not be hard for the eyes to adjust to the darkness of the room.

 

[Hexe]

Also the argument is the abductor KNEW THE PATIO DOOR WAS KEPT UNLOCKED, how did they know that?

Unless they followed one of the group how did they know that? They could have been using a key. No as far as I am concerned the abductor had NO REASON to know the patio door was unlocked.....unless they knew the family.

Not really. It was completely enough if the abductor knew, that the patio door cannot be locked from the outside. McCanns left the apartment through the patio door, so if the perp observed them, he knew the door was unlocked.

 

[haden]

Thinking logically if you were going to abduct a child and plan it, what would you do and what would you take?

I know I am crazy but the windows and stuff is really bugging me, and last night I sat and really thought about it all almost doing a reconstruction in my head.

So how would I start to prepare if I was going to take a child I would wear dark clothing. I would carry a holdall big enough to carry a child in. Chloroform, a rag to use it, and a plastic bag to put it in when finished and a torch and surgical gloves as they are easier to wear and usually nude in colour. I would park my car away from the complex in the dark.

Getting Chloroform would be difficult but not impossible. Medical practitioners can prescribe it and I believe dentists use it, but i did a bit of research and you can buy forms of it in supermarkets and on line. You would have to take something to quieten the child. Using it is dangerous and you have to know what your doing. Hummm its a worry would I want to risk the childs life.

Any thoughts? Would you risk the child not waking up? I know my grandson who was her age at the time, there is no way I could have picked him up without waking him. He had a sleeping disorder basically never slept lol.

OK casing the joint.

I would do a walk by of the apartment assuming somehow I had found out about children being left on their own for long periods of time.

Logically I think I would prefer to go in from the front door.

Now I thought it might be difficult, but would the front door still have a lock which was hard to get a key, no I dont think it would, so possibly just a normal Yale OR an inside job and help from someone working there. Much easier to have that then having to find out what sort of lock the door had and get a key.

The area by 5A had a wall which I am sure the abductor could easily hunker down and not been seen....There is a photo of forensics doing the shutter and you can cant see her legs, so a person could hunker down out of site.

The abductor then went in, it was darkish so he turns his torch on.

Passes the kitchen on the left and into the main apartment and off this on the right was the Master bedroom, bathroom, and childrens bedroom.

Now first question was there lights on in the apartment?

I would imagine there would be a light on which would not wake the children up, but would allow the parents to see in from the patio door. HOWEVER, the bedrooms would be in the dark.

Second confusion. How did the doors open? Outwards or inwards? I would think there was no room to open inwards with bed and wardrobe on other side, so was it outwards? Anyone know?

Now which door? If traveling through the front door the abductor would come across 3 doors on the right. Where ALL the doors closed or open. (Including bathroom). What are the chances they found the right one straight away?

IF the doors were closed unless the person knew where the children were they would have to open each door to find them.

So door closed perhaps. Opens the door of the parents. Can see two empty beds in the torch light then pushes the door into the bathroom, then opens the last door.

What would he see? It would be quite dark as the shutters were down.

So torch on he would just see two large travel cots, and possible behind them a bed.

Then he would look to to the left and see another bed with possibly a child in it but it would not be that clear it could just be another empty bed.

Now first off. How would he know which bed Maddy was in?

Did the abductor just take Maddy because it was the easier option? Its hard work taking children out of travel cots, actually even putting them in a travel cot is back breaking.
So go for the easier option perhaps? HOw did they know the child in the bed was a girl? The travel cots had little view, so they wouldnt even know which one held a boy or girl.

Anyway, locates a child in the bed any child will do perhaps.

Places holdall onto floor. Puts torch down, gets chloroform bottle opens it, puts a bit of chloroform on cloth which was carried in a small plastic bag, pass over face. Puts cloth back into bag, and pocket, picks torch up, puts in pocket. Opening holdall check the child is sedated, put in bag which is big enough, zips back. Picks up, and goes back the way he came.

Opens the front door which was left ajar and quietly shuts behind him. Presses himself against the wall and listens hears nothing, no footsteps etc sounds travels at night. Hunkers down, and moves to the car park, quickly through and turns LEFT to Lagos road, and the car parked.

Time taken I reckon about 8 minutes.

So if if he went in at say 9.35 he would be out BEFORE 9.50.

Now why would the abductor have opened the window/shutter?

It makes no sense.

If you look at the official crime scene, two LARGE travel cots in the middle, then a bed under the window. It would have been POINTLESS to do so.

It makes no sense to complicate things.

So I would expect the family would have found perhaps all 3 doors open.

There is no way an abductor would bother to close doors behind them, it is just another chance to wake the other children up. You had to do it quietly and without too much light. To negotiate two cots and then a bed to open the window and shutter is madness it would have woken the children up and served no purpose unless to get rid of the smell of chloroform.

OK some people reckon the abductor went through the patio door.

Now lets go up the stairs and through the patio. The scenario and timing would be the same.

HOWEVER, i dont like the patio steps, stair gate, and lights from the tapas ocean club, and people walking RIGHT PAST the gate etc, far easier to be seen.

So the question is how did they open the front door?

Also the argument is the abductor KNEW THE PATIO DOOR WAS KEPT UNLOCKED, how did they know that?

Unless they followed one of the group how did they know that? They could have been using a key. No as far as I am concerned the abductor had NO REASON to know the patio door was unlocked.....unless they knew the family.

The child could have been taken very quickly it was a small flat. The abductor using a timing when everyone was eating and had done first checks and would have had more wine etc....so would have had to have knowledge of their routine so about 9.35.

So someone inside job/or privvy to families routine...

Who?
Creche Worker
Complaint by Mrs Fenn
Restaurant worker
Maid
Maintenance Man
ANYONE ELSE?
People were seen hanging about during the DAY....The routine of abduction was at night. Did anyone see someone hanging about at night?
I dont think i have heard of anyone. So someone must have known that routine at NIGHT. Who knew the routine?
Restaurant worker
Mrs Fenn complaint
ANYONE ELSE?

I know its just guess work but I think it has to be logical.

Again I am dismissing the dogs scenting etc, as the pj and SY have at the MOMENT. I am merely trying to work out if it was an abduction then how did they do it.

Personally the more I think about it the more I realise someone working there would have to be implicated if the front door was used.

Also the open door etc Gerry McCann well perhaps maddy did get up for the toilet we cant dismiss that or she got up to see where her parents were and then scared went back to bed.....

Also i found this article. This couple state there was no one hanging about at 9.15.

And who was the mytery couple was it them?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/40...on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared
Any thoughts?

IMO if this is an opportunist snatcher then forget all of the preparations. And this is PDL, a village in Portugal, IMO they never heard of Chloroform, even they think Calpol is a sedative..

If this is organised, then it is different story, the organiser might employ a local petty thief who knows the area well and who knows the apartment well, I think PJ is thinking along the same line as they are now investigating this Monteiro guy.

This is if she was snatched for sale.

But if she was snatched by a loner, this would be much harder to break through. Maybe until he strikes again?

There is a third possibility, as much as it could be sad, that she is a victim of an accidental break in process, where the burglar killed her occidentally by trying to make her quiet. In this case he'd probably get rid of the body, but since the body was not found during the extensive searches, we hope something like this is not a case.

 

[aa9511]

Thinking logically if you were going to abduct a child and plan it, what would you do and what would you take?

I know I am crazy but the windows and stuff is really bugging me, and last night I sat and really thought about it all almost doing a reconstruction in my head.

So how would I start to prepare if I was going to take a child I would wear dark clothing. I would carry a holdall big enough to carry a child in. Chloroform, a rag to use it, and a plastic bag to put it in when finished and a torch and surgical gloves as they are easier to wear and usually nude in colour. I would park my car away from the complex in the dark.

Getting Chloroform would be difficult but not impossible. Medical practitioners can prescribe it and I believe dentists use it, but i did a bit of research and you can buy forms of it in supermarkets and on line. You would have to take something to quieten the child. Using it is dangerous and you have to know what your doing. Hummm its a worry would I want to risk the childs life.

Any thoughts? Would you risk the child not waking up? I know my grandson who was her age at the time, there is no way I could have picked him up without waking him. He had a sleeping disorder basically never slept lol.

OK casing the joint.

I would do a walk by of the apartment assuming somehow I had found out about children being left on their own for long periods of time.

Logically I think I would prefer to go in from the front door.

Now I thought it might be difficult, but would the front door still have a lock which was hard to get a key, no I dont think it would, so possibly just a normal Yale OR an inside job and help from someone working there. Much easier to have that then having to find out what sort of lock the door had and get a key.

The area by 5A had a wall which I am sure the abductor could easily hunker down and not been seen....There is a photo of forensics doing the shutter and you can cant see her legs, so a person could hunker down out of site.

The abductor then went in, it was darkish so he turns his torch on.

Passes the kitchen on the left and into the main apartment and off this on the right was the Master bedroom, bathroom, and childrens bedroom.

Now first question was there lights on in the apartment?

I would imagine there would be a light on which would not wake the children up, but would allow the parents to see in from the patio door. HOWEVER, the bedrooms would be in the dark.

Second confusion. How did the doors open? Outwards or inwards? I would think there was no room to open inwards with bed and wardrobe on other side, so was it outwards? Anyone know?

Now which door? If traveling through the front door the abductor would come across 3 doors on the right. Where ALL the doors closed or open. (Including bathroom). What are the chances they found the right one straight away?

IF the doors were closed unless the person knew where the children were they would have to open each door to find them.

So door closed perhaps. Opens the door of the parents. Can see two empty beds in the torch light then pushes the door into the bathroom, then opens the last door.

What would he see? It would be quite dark as the shutters were down.

So torch on he would just see two large travel cots, and possible behind them a bed.

Then he would look to to the left and see another bed with possibly a child in it but it would not be that clear it could just be another empty bed.

Now first off. How would he know which bed Maddy was in?

Did the abductor just take Maddy because it was the easier option? Its hard work taking children out of travel cots, actually even putting them in a travel cot is back breaking.
So go for the easier option perhaps? HOw did they know the child in the bed was a girl? The travel cots had little view, so they wouldnt even know which one held a boy or girl.

Anyway, locates a child in the bed any child will do perhaps.

Places holdall onto floor. Puts torch down, gets chloroform bottle opens it, puts a bit of chloroform on cloth which was carried in a small plastic bag, pass over face. Puts cloth back into bag, and pocket, picks torch up, puts in pocket. Opening holdall check the child is sedated, put in bag which is big enough, zips back. Picks up, and goes back the way he came.

Opens the front door which was left ajar and quietly shuts behind him. Presses himself against the wall and listens hears nothing, no footsteps etc sounds travels at night. Hunkers down, and moves to the car park, quickly through and turns LEFT to Lagos road, and the car parked.

Time taken I reckon about 8 minutes.

So if if he went in at say 9.35 he would be out BEFORE 9.50.

Now why would the abductor have opened the window/shutter?

It makes no sense.

If you look at the official crime scene, two LARGE travel cots in the middle, then a bed under the window. It would have been POINTLESS to do so.

It makes no sense to complicate things.

So I would expect the family would have found perhaps all 3 doors open.

There is no way an abductor would bother to close doors behind them, it is just another chance to wake the other children up. You had to do it quietly and without too much light. To negotiate two cots and then a bed to open the window and shutter is madness it would have woken the children up and served no purpose unless to get rid of the smell of chloroform.

OK some people reckon the abductor went through the patio door.

Now lets go up the stairs and through the patio. The scenario and timing would be the same.

HOWEVER, i dont like the patio steps, stair gate, and lights from the tapas ocean club, and people walking RIGHT PAST the gate etc, far easier to be seen.

So the question is how did they open the front door?

Also the argument is the abductor KNEW THE PATIO DOOR WAS KEPT UNLOCKED, how did they know that?

Unless they followed one of the group how did they know that? They could have been using a key. No as far as I am concerned the abductor had NO REASON to know the patio door was unlocked.....unless they knew the family.

The child could have been taken very quickly it was a small flat. The abductor using a timing when everyone was eating and had done first checks and would have had more wine etc....so would have had to have knowledge of their routine so about 9.35.

So someone inside job/or privvy to families routine...

Who?
Creche Worker
Complaint by Mrs Fenn
Restaurant worker
Maid
Maintenance Man
ANYONE ELSE?
People were seen hanging about during the DAY....The routine of abduction was at night. Did anyone see someone hanging about at night?
I dont think i have heard of anyone. So someone must have known that routine at NIGHT. Who knew the routine?
Restaurant worker
Mrs Fenn complaint
ANYONE ELSE?

I know its just guess work but I think it has to be logical.

Again I am dismissing the dogs scenting etc, as the pj and SY have at the MOMENT. I am merely trying to work out if it was an abduction then how did they do it.

Personally the more I think about it the more I realise someone working there would have to be implicated if the front door was used.

Also the open door etc Gerry McCann well perhaps maddy did get up for the toilet we cant dismiss that or she got up to see where her parents were and then scared went back to bed.....

Also i found this article. This couple state there was no one hanging about at 9.15.

And who was the mytery couple was it them?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/40...on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared
Any thoughts?

bbm

Thanks Goldengirls....very logical. Also complicating things further would be the fact that we cannot take ANYTHING any of the Tapas9 to say as the certain truth. Just because they say it, doesn't mean it's true. So for example, the Tapas group is saying they left the patio door unlocked. And so it would have been easy for an abductor to come in. Well, that does not mean that the patio door was actually unlocked. It could have indeed been locked. Making the abduction scenario even less feasible.

I find that it is much easier to make sense of things when you come in with the idea that all of the Tapas group are lying.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think the problem with Logic and criminals is that they are often NOT logical. They are going for the END goal, How they get there is not always logical or practical.

Sneaking in windows, Stealing children from their beds.. Not logical at all..

So to say there is something logical in a criminal's actions to me is just not pertinent to the actual crime.