Madeleine McCann

[caz]

These type of offenders tend to be spontaneous or in the moment. I am minded of the horrific murder of Aleisha McPhail in Scotland. I have mentioned this before. Initial motive was robbery, crime was the murder of a six year old girl.

'Alesha, from Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, was three days into a stay with her grandparents on the Isle of Bute when Campbell entered their unlocked home at approximately 02:00 am. The teenager had previously bought cannabis from Alesha's father Robert, who lived in the house, and initially went to steal the drug.'

'Intending to steal cannabis, Campbell left his house at 01:54 armed with a kitchen knife.He entered the MacPhail property, roughly a five-minute walk away, where MacPhail's room was closest to the front door. When he found the sleeping girl, Campbell saw a "moment of opportunity", later claiming, "All I thought about was killing her once I saw her." He lifted a drowsy MacPhail from her bed, left the house without anyone noticing, and walked with her along the ocean shore. The child awoke in his arms during this walk and asked who he was; Campbell replied that he knew her father and was taking her home. He carried MacPhail to a secluded location then raped and murdered her. He threw his clothes into the sea, went home for a shower, then returned to the murder site to retrieve his phone.'

My own 'theory' is that someone intent on burglary saw an opportunity and like Campbell in the Aleisha McPhail case was so disturbed and evil that this was an opportunity he could not pass. It to my mind is probably that the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine just as Campbell had carried poor Aleisha McPhail. I think this may play into your point in regards a crying child as well. Could an awakened Madeleine have been pacified by someone saying I am taking you to mummy or daddy. Kate did state that Madeleine was totally shattered after being collected from the Creche and looked so drained and tired. As I say children on holidays particularly after 3-4 days get to a stage of exhaustion where they haven't stopped all week and then just sleep like logs. A very tired and sleepy 4 year old being told she is being taken to her mummy may not put up much of a struggle?

Hi Sunny,

One difference in the case of Madeleine, if she was abducted by an opportunist child abuser, whose original intention had been burglary until he found the three sleeping children, is that he couldn't know that this one had been so tired that she would remain asleep, or be easy to pacify if she woke in his arms, while he was carrying her through the streets at an hour when holiday makers were still very much up and about. He couldn't know if one of those holiday makers might recognise the child, while seeing him as a stranger. There was even a risk of bumping into a friend or family member returning to their apartment, and he could hardly run with a child, as he could with stolen money or other valuables, if the occupants were on their way back and could arrive at any moment. I just think a vehicle would better explain how a child abductor was able to get away and leave no trace of how he did it, where he went and what he did with Madeleine. It's like they both disappeared into thin air, so let's hope the German suspect will finally provide some answers.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No two crimes are the same. What the Aleisha McPhail case showed however was that this type of offender is spontaneous and may have a completely different reason for entering a property. But they are opportunists. It showed that this type of crime is possible. I would not expect every facet of the Campbell case to correspond with the McCann case but those who dismiss the burglar turned abductor based on it being too audacious or risky, requiring sedation of the child or nothing being stolen need only look at that case to see how it can occur.

I would also suggestsuggest much more likely an abductor knew Luz very well. I would certainly be much more convinced that someone in the locality who lived there would be much more capable of hiding a body than Gerry McCann who was in the country less than a week.

If the abductor knew the location very well, as a popular family holiday resort, then surely he must have had snatching a child up there at the top of his wish list. Isn't it rather unlikely that he went to that apartment with only petty theft in mind, and was taken by surprise to find a winning lottery ticket instead?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

- An intruder uses the same MO as previous burglaries. In through the window and out the front door.

- An intruder enters via the patio doors and uses the window to pass Madeleine to an accomplice.

- An intruder enters via the patio doors and uses the window to check the coast is clear.

- Kate opens the window to stage an abduction.

For me the most likely by far is the first option. It also links with the idea of an opportunist abduction. Unaware of the open patio doors the intruder uses the MO they are comfortable and confident with namely to use the window as the entry point.

I favour the one where the intruder uses the window to check the coast is clear. Very risky taking a child out through an exit at the front or back, which is visible to anyone passing or approaching the apartment. The abductor couldn't know how soon the occupants might return, either to check on their children or retire for the night. Seems reasonable that he would open the window and lean out a bit to check that nobody was around, before taking the chance to leave unseen with the child.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

However, the reason for Payne's visit remains unclear and a number of oddities arise from the two accounts. Kate McCann claims to have just got out of the shower when she heard Payne call from the patio door- I have commented earlier on the likelihood of a mother taking a shower while three young children are awake in the living room. She wrapped a towel around herself before speaking to him. Payne does not mention this in his statements, but in other areas of his testimony seems quite relaxed about verbal innuendo and Brian Rix type farcical misunderstandings.

Kate McCann times his visit as lasting no later than 6.40pm. Yet by her own account she decides to dry her hair after 7.15, which is over half an hour later and after she has read to her children. She thinks Gerry McCann probably took a bath after he returned from the tennis at 7pm.

Gerry McCann agrees that he took a bath but actually says they both took a bath after the children settled, which would be between 7.30pm and 8pm. So between 6.30pm and 8pm, Kate McCann has taken a shower, walked around with damp hair for half an hour at least, then taken a bath shortly afterwards.

Well someone is misremembering at best. Kate only thinks Gerry 'probably' took a bath on his return at 7pm, which is fine, but Gerry says they both took a bath? I can't see why Kate would have done so after taking a shower earlier. Was there perhaps some reason she didn't want Gerry to know she had already showered while he had been playing tennis? Did this detail only come out later, when she and Gerry and David Payne were called upon to give detailed accounts of their movements? Did Kate tell Gerry about David's visit at the time, or explain why he did so? Did David expect to see Gerry there too, or did he know he was playing tennis until 7pm?

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Payne never mentioned the 6.30pm visit to the PJ in his initial statement although the questioning was not directed in that area. His rogatory interview with UK police offers no concrete reason for him making the visit. We know that he was returning to his apartment to collect his tennis gear, not much more. A taped transcript can make anyone appear a touch Pinteresque, but Payne's account is very hesitant.

'..but I remember then you know I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts, just to see you know what was happening, and err decided that we'd, you know I'd come, come back to play tennis and err Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate or you know again I can't remember the exact reason whether he was just making sure it was alright that he could stay there and you know more time but you know he'd asked me to pop in.'

[Sunny Delight]

If the abductor knew the location very well, as a popular family holiday resort, then surely he must have had snatching a child up there at the top of his wish list. Isn't it rather unlikely that he went to that apartment with only petty theft in mind, and was taken by surprise to find a winning lottery ticket instead?

Love,

Caz
X

It is impossible to tell what any such person would be thinking. There was a perp operating in the area who was breaking into Villas in the middle of the night and sexually abusing young girls in their bed. I am not saying there is a connection but it was of interest to the Met. I would say it is rather unlikely that any perp went with petty burglary in mind only to abduct a child. But then the case is rather unique.

[cobalt]

Gerry McCann does not touch on the Payne visit in either his 4th May or 10th May statements. He does when answering as an arguido on 7th September, but his account is not in line with that provided by Payne.

McCann claims that beginning at 6.30pm Payne made two trips from the tennis courts and returned twice. The first trip was specifically to ask whether Kate McCann needed help to bring the children down to the play area near the tennis courts. Payne returned within minutes with the news that no help was required, presumably adding that Kate did not intend to bring them down since they had been bathed, and that Gerry was free to play a little longer. According to Gerry McCann, Payne then leaves once more to visit his own apartment to change into his tennis gear and returns around 30 minutes later.

Payne's account does not include this double journey but conflates it into a brief visit to the McCann apartment then to his own to get changed. However, as indicated previously, he seems very uncertain about why he actually made the visit at all. On the surface this seems much more plausible; after all why shuttle back to tell Gerry McCann his domestic services were NOT needed? This would only have been necessary if they were.
But if Gerry McCann's estimate of Payne returning to play tennis at around 7pm is correct- I assume it is corroborated by others playing tennis- then he has taken almost half an hour to get changed. I assume Payne is a keen player- he was semi-professional level at squash- so that seems rather dilatory.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny,

One difference in the case of Madeleine, if she was abducted by an opportunist child abuser, whose original intention had been burglary until he found the three sleeping children, is that he couldn't know that this one had been so tired that she would remain asleep, or be easy to pacify if she woke in his arms, while he was carrying her through the streets at an hour when holiday makers were still very much up and about. He couldn't know if one of those holiday makers might recognise the child, while seeing him as a stranger. There was even a risk of bumping into a friend or family member returning to their apartment, and he could hardly run with a child, as he could with stolen money or other valuables, if the occupants were on their way back and could arrive at any moment. I just think a vehicle would better explain how a child abductor was able to get away and leave no trace of how he did it, where he went and what he did with Madeleine. It's like they both disappeared into thin air, so let's hope the German suspect will finally provide some answers.

Love,

Caz
X

I don't really see much of a difference. Campbell could not have known that Aleisha McPhail would not wake up(she actually did but he pacified her by saying he was a friend of her dad's and was taking her home). The streets of Luz at that time were very quiet. It was out of season being start of May. For Campbell someone could have woken up and challenged him in the flat so his was a greater risk.

I think what I was trying to get at with the Aleisha McPhail case is that these offenders are very spontaneous. They may not think everything through like we do as theirs is a spur of the moment event. Whilst we think oh maybe I might run into someone or this would be awful risky they don't. They become obsessed with the idea in that moment and just do.

[caz]

That is what would make the unidentified abductor in Madeleine's case so lucky to get away with it, if he had no off-switch to deter him, but also no choice but to walk his victim through the streets and hope for the best.

An opportunist acting spontaneously is more likely to make a mistake, leave evidence behind or come unstuck in some other way, than a man with a plan.

This is why I think there was some planning, on the part of someone who knew what he was doing and how to do it right.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sunny Delight]

That is what would make the unidentified abductor in Madeleine's case so lucky to get away with it, if he had no off-switch to deter him, but also no choice but to walk his victim through the streets and hope for the best.

An opportunist acting spontaneously is more likely to make a mistake, leave evidence behind or come unstuck in some other way, than a man with a plan.

This is why I think there was some planning, on the part of someone who knew what he was doing and how to do it right.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree in regards someone with a plan less likely to leave behind evidence or come unstuck in another way. However someone intent on burglary will have done a degree of planning and scoping out of the area. I have always seen a planned abduction by someone as unlikely for a variety of reasons. The main one being that such a degree of planning and the use of more than one person often leads to someone, somewhere letting something slip. This is always the way. Police get wind of it either on the dark Web or through rumour. Neither has ever been forthcoming. That suggests to me someone who acted alone. A gang abducting a child from her bed to traffik would also be highly unusual. Abducting British or European child on holiday would extremely risky. These horrific gangs target vulnerable children, often homeless who are very difficult to track and don't raise much concern if they disappear. It seems totally at odds with how these gangs operate. Someone who planned the abduction on their own would also mean that in the 4-5 days the McCanns were there Madeleine was specifically targeted by someone. Not impossible but unlikely. To plan something like that would take more than a day or two.

All scenarios are unlikely to me. Even my own theory on a burglar opportunist who abducted Madeleine from her bed. But then as I said earlier it is a unique case.

[Darryl Kenyon]

For what it's worth I believe the early group booking at the Tapas restaurant is key to this case. Anyone working at the restaurant or possibly the ocean complex itself could know about this. I do believe there was someone on the inside who passed on info for drugs or money to an accomplice who was a known burglar, drug dealer or both, regarding the timing of the meals etc

Possibly the German police may think along those lines as well regarding the Brueckner phone call.

The Police interviewed all the ocean club staff and didn't turn anything up , but that does not mean there was nothing there.

If I was part of the Tapas nine I would try and rack my brain on who they might have spoke to about the group booking , even if it was just in passing [ friends , fellow holidaymakers as well as staff].

i am not saying this is right but maybe if the police had offered an amnesty to someone, similar to the Victorian police's offer after poor Mary's death. IE Someone who directly didn't take Madeline but was involved somehow, it may have turned something up.

Regarding the break in itself I am inclined to the idea the perpetrator could have parked on the road outside the shutter blind window. Lifted said blind partially to see if the coast was clear, or to try and get in that way but finding it too difficult [ but spotting the children and changing his plan ]. Gone to the front door which was locked, then round to the patio ones [ if someone saw him they would probably assume it was someone stopping there, and he may have had the knowledge that the patio doors were unlocked, thus disregarding the front door ]. Opened the window on the inside, securing the shutters and climbed out with Madeline , over the small wall in the car and off. A matter of minutes, perhaps five/ten tops. I know the window is a tight squeeze but someone adept, I feel could manage it.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards Darryl

[caz]

I agree in regards someone with a plan less likely to leave behind evidence or come unstuck in another way. However someone intent on burglary will have done a degree of planning and scoping out of the area. I have always seen a planned abduction by someone as unlikely for a variety of reasons. The main one being that such a degree of planning and the use of more than one person often leads to someone, somewhere letting something slip. This is always the way. Police get wind of it either on the dark Web or through rumour. Neither has ever been forthcoming. That suggests to me someone who acted alone. A gang abducting a child from her bed to traffik would also be highly unusual. Abducting British or European child on holiday would extremely risky. These horrific gangs target vulnerable children, often homeless who are very difficult to track and don't raise much concern if they disappear. It seems totally at odds with how these gangs operate. Someone who planned the abduction on their own would also mean that in the 4-5 days the McCanns were there Madeleine was specifically targeted by someone. Not impossible but unlikely. To plan something like that would take more than a day or two.

All scenarios are unlikely to me. Even my own theory on a burglar opportunist who abducted Madeleine from her bed. But then as I said earlier it is a unique case.

Afternoon Sunny - or should that be Sunny Afternoon?

An abductor working alone, with a vehicle parked nearby, only had to casually observe the families in and around the resort during the day and then again in the evening to see when one or more of their children might be alone in their holiday accommodation, ripe for the taking. That is all the planning needed for a child abuser who was ready to make the most of any opportunity offered by the family setting. It's why some of these people become teachers, vicars or scout masters, so they can work among their young victims of choice while hiding in plain sight.

Madeleine turned out to be a horribly easy target for a man like that, didn't she? She was tired out - in part because her sleep had been broken the night before - and her siblings were both sound asleep and evidently nothing would have woken them. A quick look around that apartment and he could have been away on his toes and into his parked vehicle without being seen by anyone.

I don't think a locked apartment would have deterred someone determined enough to commit burglary or abduct a child, and it would also have been dangerous if one of the children had woken up and had an accident, or if a fire had broken out, and there was no escape route for Madeleine to raise the alarm. On the other hand, an unlocked apartment would have brought its own list of dangers, so neither option was a remotely safe and secure one. Most parents instinctively know this when they are at home, so I can only think the heady holiday atmosphere was infecting the whole group with a general complacency that enabled the abductor to do his worst.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Our posts crossed, Darryl, but we seem to have some similar thoughts here.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

No evidence of anyone ever entering or exiting through the window. Gerry McCann had to acknowledge this in his statement of 10th May. On 4th May he had remembered doing his 9.05pm check by entering through the main door by use of a key. By 10th May, aware of the lack of forensic evidence to support this, he changes tack entirely and claims he entered via the unlocked patio door. This was almost certainly a lie rather than a memory lapse, but necessary since his version A had been disproved.

Yet version A still lingers around websites , like a grumbling appendix, although its relevance to the McCann girl's disappearance is zero. If the apartment was locked, as McCann originally stated, and no one had entered or exited through the bedroom window, as the PJ established, then we have a 'locked room' mystery. Except it's not much of a mystery really. It means whoever removed Madeleine McCann, they had access to a key to the property.

[rjpalmer]

Possibly the German police may think along those lines as well regarding the Brueckner phone call.

Hi Darryl. It was reported--I don't know how accurately, but it came from a journalist in Portugal--that Brueckner's phone call lasted fully 30 minutes. If true, that's far more than a 'tip off.'