Madeleine McCann

[louisa]

The reason why I don't accept the huge risk explanation for why they didn't jimmie the window is because this is nothing compared to the really huge risk of hiding and disposing a body. On the one hand they can make a small human being completely vanish but can't even jimmie a window? Therein is where the staging hypothesis makes no sense at all. One moment they are Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction. The next they are Forrest Gump.

As for why was the window open. One explanation is for a quicker exit. If someone comes in, its a quick way to get out. In fact that's exactly what happened in the apartment above when a stranger was found in there. They leaped from the window to get away.

She didn't 'vanish'. I believe that the McCanns found Maddie a bit sooner than they made us believe. She had died of a slight miscalculation in the dosage of the drug the couple gave her (to keep her asleep while they went out).

A plan was hatched between the McCanns and their friends. One of them had a speedboat and Maddie was taken to this other couple's apartment where it was transferred to their car and then their boat (all under cover of darkness. The alarm had not yet been raised) where Maddie's body was taken far out to sea and dumped (either that night or the following day).

Then came the alarm - Kate shouting from the balcony "She's been taken!"

Their other doctor friends may have had sympathy and gone along with the plan because they themselves were used to dosing their kids with drugs during that holiday. They may have thought it could have happened to any of them.

[Abby Normal]

The reason why I don't accept the huge risk explanation for why they didn't jimmie the window is because this is nothing compared to the really huge risk of hiding and disposing a body. On the one hand they can make a small human being completely vanish but can't even jimmie a window? Therein is where the staging hypothesis makes no sense at all. One moment they are Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction. The next they are Forrest Gump.

As for why was the window open. One explanation is for a quicker exit. If someone comes in, its a quick way to get out. In fact that's exactly what happened in the apartment above when a stranger was found in there. They leaped from the window to get away.

Hi Batman

The reason why I don't accept the huge risk explanation for why they didn't jimmie the window is because this is nothing compared to the really huge risk of hiding and disposing a body. On the one hand they can make a small human being completely vanish but can't even jimmie a window? Therein is where the staging hypothesis makes no sense at all. One moment they are Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction. The next they are Forrest Gump.

criminals make "small" mistakes all the time in their stories. and it often these small mistakes that end up unraveling their web of lies. I also think your making to big of a thing about disposing the body.think about it- how hard could it be-shes a small three year old female ? put her body in a common trash bag and throw her in a dumpster somewhere. or in a suitcase.
wrap her in a beach towel and throw her in the ocean.

As for why was the window open. One explanation is for a quicker exit. If someone comes in, its a quick way to get out. In fact that's exactly what happened in the apartment above when a stranger was found in there. They leaped from the window to get away.

[/QUOTE]

well, if your an intruder and trapped (because of someone else entering the apartment)-the window is your best choice in that particular scenario. maybe your only choice. But if your implying that kate, Gerry or oldfeild was the one who caused the abductor to go out the window I find that hard to believe. first of all. theres probably not enough time to get a child and yourself out the window without being caught red handed, and secondly none of those people saw or heard a thing, which surely would have happened at the very least if the sound of them entering the apartment was what would supposedly cause the intruder to flee that way.

I would also point out that the most common reason why investigators don't find signs of forced entry, any forensic evidence of an intruder, witnesses that see them entering,or any evidence outside the home (like a dropped glove, knife eTc.) is not because the criminal was really good and didn't leave any evidence-its because it usually turns out they knew the victim and therefore had knowledge and access to the home and victim without forcing entry. IE-family member.

there is no evidence of an intruder in this case. NONE. zilch. zero. Probably because there was none IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

It does seem strange that the window was open, if an abductor could not realistically have entered or left that way. It was apparently a fairly cold night too, so presumably Kate or Gerry would have wanted the window to be closed when they went for dinner so the kids would keep warm, if not for security reasons. If Kate was expecting to find it closed on her return, but found it open and Maddie gone, she evidently put two and two together and blamed the open window on the abductor, even though this was highly unlikely. Why would an abductor even try to get in through that window when they could walk in through the door? Why would an abductor walk in through the door then need to open the window?

So what do we make of Kate's claim that she found the window open and the curtains "whooshing"? Either she or Gerry must have left it open by mistake when they went for dinner and completely forgot they had done so, or one of them opened it deliberately for as yet unexplained reasons.

Love,

Caz
X

yes exactly. I believe they opened it to stage the abduction. the whole overly detailed whooshing story by kate is classic guilty "narrative building". story telling in other words.

[Batman]

But if your implying that kate, Gerry or oldfeild was the one who caused the abductor to go out the window I find that hard to believe.

there is no evidence of an intruder in this case. NONE. zilch. zero. Probably because there was none IMHO.

All I implied was that thieves open windows for quick getaway access the moment they go into a place. So IF something happens, someone coming in the way they came, they have an additional exit.

There is no evidence of an intruder but there is no evidence of a staging either. However there is evidence for intruders in the apartment grounds and that lends weight to the hypothesis that eventually one of these many intrusions turned to abduction. The other hypothesis would be a Ben Needham type accident.

To Jimmie a window and disposal of a small human being in a foreign land while on holiday are two completely different tasks, one can be done in the comfort of their lodgings, the other takes much more time, effort and risk. How hard can it be to mess with a window so it looks like someone broke the lock from the outside? Come on. You can even do it while inside. There are totally two different scales of complexity.

BTW, someone mentioned the drug overdose claim. This was the old Calpol claim. Calpol isn't a sedative and the overdosing from it requires more than just mistaking a few ml. More like taking the whole bottle.

[Abby Normal]

All I implied was that thieves open windows for quick getaway access the moment they go into a place. So IF something happens, someone coming in the way they came, they have an additional exit.

There is no evidence of an intruder but there is no evidence of a staging either. However there is evidence for intruders in the apartment grounds and that lends weight to the hypothesis that eventually one of these many intrusions turned to abduction. The other hypothesis would be a Ben Needham type accident.

To Jimmie a window and disposal of a small human being in a foreign land while on holiday are two completely different tasks, one can be done in the comfort of their lodgings, the other takes much more time, effort and risk. How hard can it be to mess with a window so it looks like someone broke the lock from the outside? Come on. You can even do it while inside. There are totally two different scales of complexity.

BTW, someone mentioned the drug overdose claim. This was the old Calpol claim. Calpol isn't a sedative and the overdosing from it requires more than just mistaking a few ml. More like taking the whole bottle.

Hi Batman
your responses are a little nebulous for me. can you please be a little more specific as to what your scenario is for an intruder and subsequent McCann story/actions?

you say this:

All I implied was that thieves open windows for quick getaway access the moment they go into a place. So IF something happens, someone coming in the way they came, they have an additional exit.

so are you saying it was thieve/s who were looking to steal from the apartment and came across Maddie sleeping and decided to abduct her? so they entered through unlocked door, walk into the room, see the kids sleeping, decide to abduct her, open the window. then what?

whats your specific scenario here? hows your abductor scenario go down? is it one person or two etc? how did they get in? how did they take her out? etc?

[Batman]

Hi Batman
your responses are a little nebulous for me. can you please be a little more specific as to what your scenario is for an intruder and subsequent McCann story/actions?

I think the most simplest explanation is that someone was watching the apartment and knew they left the place unlocked and when to go in. I think the McCann's story/actions are consistent with bad parenting that evening and the UK embassy's legal front managing their crisis.

I don't think the scenario matters much in demonstrating that if they can make a small human vanish then they can jimmie a window but didn't, so why not stage the jimmied window, something so simple, in their staging? It points to them not staging anything. If they were going to stage an abduction, then stage one. There is nothing staged.

[Abby Normal]

I think the most simplest explanation is that someone was watching the apartment and knew they left the place unlocked and when to go in. I think the McCann's story/actions are consistent with bad parenting that evening and the UK embassy's legal front managing their crisis.

I don't think the scenario matters much in demonstrating that if they can make a small human vanish then they can jimmie a window but didn't, so why not stage the jimmied window, something so simple, in their staging? It points to them not staging anything. If they were going to stage an abduction, then stage one. There is nothing staged.

hi Batman

I think the most simplest explanation is that someone was watching the apartment and knew they left the place unlocked and when to go in.

OK-who was it? what was there motivation? a Thief? a human trafficking ring? a pedophile? was Maddy the target?

they go in-open the window as you say for another way out. then what?

I don't think the scenario matters much in demonstrating that if they can make a small human vanish then they can jimmie a window but didn't, so why not stage the jimmied window, something so simple, in their staging? It points to them not staging anything. If they were going to stage an abduction, then stage one. There is nothing staged.[/

first of all-why do you keep equating the two?one can be successful with one part of a crime but mess up on another? no?

secondly-let me ask you something. you keep saying that the window not being jimmied (forced) is a point in favor of the McCanns innocence, because they could have easily staged that. what if there was evidence of it being jimmied? would you therefore think that was evidence of staging?

[Batman]

hi Batman



OK-who was it? what was there motivation? a Thief? a human trafficking ring? a pedophile? was Maddy the target?

Who knows? The investigators messed up the case which is clear from Operation Grange's findings.

they go in-open the window as you say for another way out. then what?

I never said how they got in. I don't know what they did getting in or out. My point is that the window not being jimmied means the McCann claims it was jimmied aren't consistent with staging events.

first of all-why do you keep equating the two?one can be successful with one part of a crime but mess up on another? no?

How am I equating them? I am saying one is much more risky and much more complex than the other. They are Mr. Wolf one moment. Forrest Gump the next in the staging hypothesis.

secondly-let me ask you something. you keep saying that the window not being jimmied (forced) is a point in favor of the McCanns innocence, because they could have easily staged that. what if there was evidence of it being jimmied? would you therefore think that was evidence of staging?

If it was jimmied then that would be consitant with BOTH staging and abduction, but since it wasn't, and they claimed it was, then staging seems highly unlikely.

[louisa]

BTW, someone mentioned the drug overdose claim. This was the old Calpol claim. Calpol isn't a sedative and the overdosing from it requires more than just mistaking a few ml. More like taking the whole bottle.

I wasn't suggesting Calpol. Both the McCanns were GPs and would have known about ALL drugs and probably never had to buy over-the counter medicines. You can mix and match sleeping drugs if you know what you're doing and have access to the ones you require.

The McCanns may have been smug enough to do this. Maybe one of their other doctor friends gave them some pointers on what to use as he had success in sedating his own children with it? Just a thought.

[Abby Normal]

Who knows? The investigators messed up the case which is clear from Operation Grange's findings.



I never said how they got in. I don't know what they did getting in or out. My point is that the window not being jimmied means the McCann claims it was jimmied aren't consistent with staging events.




How am I equating them? I am saying one is much more risky and much more complex than the other. They are Mr. Wolf one moment. Forrest Gump the next in the staging hypothesis.



If it was jimmied then that would be consitant with BOTH staging and abduction, but since it wasn't, and they claimed it was, then staging seems highly unlikely.

Hi Batman
No. them saying it was jimmied and it wasn't isnt evidence of no staging. its evidence of lying. nothing else. they screwed up their story-simple as that. they staged an abduction by opening the window.They successfully got rid of the body but then screwed up their story-did they lock the doors?
Mccanns-Yes! no! maybe?oops. was the window jimmied? yes. no? oops.


have you ever heard the saying "Always tell the truth, its the easiest thing to remember."
they couldn't remember their lies. Nor could they anticipate every discrepancy that came up.

[Batman]

Hi Batman
No. them saying it was jimmied and it wasn't isnt evidence of no staging. its evidence of lying. nothing else. they screwed up their story-simple as that. they staged an abduction by opening the window.They successfully got rid of the body but then screwed up their story-did they lock the doors?
Mccanns-Yes! no! maybe?oops. was the window jimmied? yes. no? oops.


have you ever heard the saying "Always tell the truth, its the easiest thing to remember."
they couldn't remember their lies. Nor could they anticipate every discrepancy that came up.

Here is why none of that makes sense. They left the patio door unlocked so their friends could also check on the family. They go in and they go out that way. So there is already and entry an exit point and its even unlocked. There is no need for an open window.

What you want me to believe is that despite this simple plan of the unlocked door, that the parents then opened the window and messed up their stories by claiming it had been jimmied while saying nothing about the planned unlocked patio door, because the plan slipped their mind and one them decided an open window is much more convincing on the spot.

Your explanation is not the easiest. It's not the most parsimonious. It is the most complex. It requires in addition to the complexity of getting rid of a body, they try to stage an abduction and then manage to get out of getting caught despite making errors.

The intruder explanation is the easiest. Someone with knowledge of how to make a quick exit, opened the window while in there but never had to use it. You can also hear people coming. It also has precedence at that resort.

[caz]

The reason why I don't accept the huge risk explanation for why they didn't jimmie the window is because this is nothing compared to the really huge risk of hiding and disposing a body. On the one hand they can make a small human being completely vanish but can't even jimmie a window? Therein is where the staging hypothesis makes no sense at all. One moment they are Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction. The next they are Forrest Gump.

It all depends on how long before the alarm was raised that this small human being could have vanished. If the last 100% verifiable sighting of her could have been even 24 hours previously, and nobody outside the family had any reason to think she was not somewhere in the resort enjoying her holiday, there would have been more than enough time to get her well away from the apartment before setting up the sudden 'discovery' of her absence.

The fact is, whoever took this small human being from the apartment, and whenever they did so, took the same risk of having to hide or dispose of her body, or the even bigger risk of taking her somewhere alive, never to be found or identified as the missing girl.

As for why was the window open. One explanation is for a quicker exit. If someone comes in, its a quick way to get out. In fact that's exactly what happened in the apartment above when a stranger was found in there. They leaped from the window to get away.

The evidence for this stranger being disturbed and leaping from the window is shaky to say the least. The window in question was high enough to have caused injury to anyone leaving that way, and there were serious question marks over the reliability of the witness. The window in the McCanns apartment did not lend itself to a grown human being entering or leaving that way, never mind with a small, presumably sleeping human being in their arms.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

If you KNEW the following three things..

1. You had three sleeping children within your apartment

2. No adults were with the children whilst they slept.

3. One of your children was prone to waking up during the night and calling for her mother.

Would you leave your door unlocked?

------------------------------------------------

And in light of the above, if you came back from your drinking and carousing session with your friends and found one of your children missing - SURELY you would naturally presume that she had woken (as she had the previous night) and gone wandering off outside looking for her parents?

I mean - come on - that would be the natural assumption wouldn't it?

How many parents would go straight to the window and scream over the balcony "SHE'S BEEN TAKEN!"?

.

[Batman]

Lurker standing watching apartment. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm -

Both burglaries - one in the apartment directly above the McCann's flat -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html#ixzz4Y0L8cXPo

In 2008, when the Portuguese police officially stopped pursuing the case, their files revealed that in the three years preceding Madeleine’s disappearance, three intruders had been disturbed in children’s bedrooms within an hour’s drive of Praia de Luz and five children had been abused in their beds while on holiday in the Algarve. Evidence had not been collected, let alone collated or publicised. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...lieve-her.html

I don't see how people can accept witnesses living above/nearby heard Maddie crying but don't accept them when it comes to the area being high in criminal activity associated with people watching/entering holiday homes.

[caz]

I wasn't suggesting Calpol. Both the McCanns were GPs and would have known about ALL drugs and probably never had to buy over-the counter medicines. You can mix and match sleeping drugs if you know what you're doing and have access to the ones you require.

The McCanns may have been smug enough to do this. Maybe one of their other doctor friends gave them some pointers on what to use as he had success in sedating his own children with it? Just a thought.

I think I'm right in saying that their doctor friends wouldn't have needed to sedate their kids because they sensibly took advantage of the resort's baby monitoring services. Only the McCanns decided not to do so, and it's very hard to understand why, unless Maddie was such a difficult child that she would have played up, or unless she was already gone and the damage limitation process was underway. The McCanns also had lunch in their own apartment after the first day, while their friends met up for lunch together each day with all their children in another apartment.

Love,

Caz
X