Madeleine McCann

[rjpalmer]

I would submit that we don't actually know what the PJ did or did not find in the room. We only know what is being reported.

Yes, this sounds conspiratorial, but in the seven-part Neflix documentary on the case, which I think is balanced and fair-minded, the Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueiras stated that she was "deeply embarrassed" by the role she played in reporting the story. Specifically, Felgueiras said that she came to realize that her contacts inside the PJ were feeding her bogus information. At one point, she cites how they overstated and misrepresented the DNA evidence allegedly found in the rental car. She used the word "lie." "The PJ lied to me."

This is interesting because it was reported clear back in 2008 that the PJ had lied to the McCanns about the strength of this same DNA evidence, hoping it would cause one of them to 'break' and confess.

If Amaral and his men were willing to do this, how do we know what other information might be inaccurate and/or misleading? In the United States, it is common practice for the police to overstate the strength of their case against a suspect--including lying to them outright--and it is not illegal for them to do so. If they can trick a suspect into confessing, so be it.

The Portuguese Police strike me as even more secretive and freewheeling than the Yanks, so how can I trust that Amaral wasn't leaking bogus information, hoping it would put the screws to the McCanns? He could have also deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence, since it would have been in the best interest of his theory/game plan to do so.

This is pure speculation, but if Brueckner is ever charged and put on trial, I wouldn't be particularly shocked to learn that supposedly non-existent evidence of an intruder at the crime scene suddenly materializes.

[Sunny Delight]

Gerry entering via the front door or via the patio doors is a red herring. Either way the main aspect was the open window. There is a continual claim that Police found no evidence of entry via that route. What evidence would one expect to find apart from fingerprints and an experienced burglar would know to wear gloves? Even so if the perp entered via the patio doors and opened the window to check all was clear? We don't know. But someone opened that window and they did it for a reason. I see a connection with other robberies in previous months were entry via a window was the MO. Surely anyone with an ounce of sense can see that is a connection worth looking into.

Jane Tanner was ridiculed for years. The Portuguese Police called her a fantasist. They contended it was all a conspiracy by the party to deflect from the real culprits- the McCanns. So convinced were they by their bonkers theory that they seemingly didn't bother to track down holidaymakers who had used the night creche on that night. It took 5 years until the Met tracked down who they strongly suspected was the man seen by Tanner. In fact they declared that they were almost certain he was the man she had seen. Every detail of the parties statements are dissected and drilled into- inconsistencies leapt upon. But at the end of the day the Tapas 9 had no reason to lie and appeared to attempt to tell the truth as they knew it. They did that in the honest hope that the Police would leave no stone unturned. How wrong they were.

[cobalt]

'So I'm confused, cobalt. Was the patio door locked or unlocked?'

We simply do not know. We have two accounts by Gerry McCann that are contradictory, and I have explained my reasons for preferring his original (4th May) version whereby he entered by using a key on the front door. Only when the shutters/window entry point was dismissed by the police did the unlocked patio door come into play. That leads me to believe that the McCann apartment, like all the other Tapas apartments, was locked.

The Oldfield check at 9.30 also requires the patio door to be unlocked, since Mr. Oldfield had volunteered to make a check on the McCann children en route to check on his own. There must be doubt about whether such a check ever happened, since there is no record so far as I recall of parents checking on other members' children. Oldfield claims he saw the twins but not Madeleine when he peeked through the bedroom door, so not much of a visual check. More likely, I would contend, he listened outside the bedroom window of the locked McCann apartment and heard no crying or movement thus assumed all was fine inside. That is the best gloss I can put to an unconvincing piece of testimony.

The unlocked patio door also makes an appearance in David Payne's statement. His visit, which may have occurred just after Kate McCann had taken a shower, mentions him entering (she does not remember him crossing the threshold) through the unlocked patio door. At 6.30pm I would assume most patio doors in a holiday apartment would be unlocked if there were persons inside, but Payne thinks this an important enough detail to insert into his account.

[Abby Normal]

IMHO any scenario where an intruder either went through the window or opened it for any reason just doesn’t make sense. The doors were left unlocked the whole time they were there. The intruder had probably had been scoping the place out and probably was there the night before which caused maddy to wake up and cry for her mother. Why screw around with the window which would pose numerous unnecessary issues for an intruder when he could just waltz in and out. Their apt was easily accessible from the road and he probably parked nearby but not so close as to get busted. Nobody parks right in front of the place they are going to rob. There was already a legit sighting of a man carrying his child home that night and it was probably a common occurrence which an experienced burglar probably knew. Therefore in my opinion I think the smith sighting was probably legit and Brueckner makes a likely suspect as he was an experienced criminal.

[caz]

So I'm confused, cobalt. Was the patio door locked or unlocked? Even if Gerry misremembered how he had entered during the second interview, surely he wouldn't have recalled the patio door being unlocked if in reality it had been locked? And if it was unlocked, the intruder could have entered that way, found Madeleine, then opened and looked through the window to check the coast was clear before finally carrying her out via the patio door and into his parked vehicle if he had one.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

FrankO,

It's always a problem when evidence and supposition are mixed in together, as happened in my previous post.

Regarding the window, there was no forensic evidence of entry or exit. Given the police awareness of this as a possible burglary method and the tests they conducted on the outside of the window, the window itself and the interior bedding which lay directly underneath the window then I think it is fair to say the PJ discounted this possibility. If anyone entered and then left the apartment, it was not via the window.

We have no evidence of how Gerry McCann entered the apartment on his 9.05 check save his own accounts, which are at variance. In his first PJ interview he remembers entering by using a key in the front door. In his second interview he recalls entering via an unlocked patio door. This is all we know.

The importance of his first statement, made the day after the disappearance, is that, given what was later established about the window, it required any intruder to have entered the property by means of a key since there were no signs of forced entry. This does not of itself implicate the MCanns: any employee such as cleaner could have obtained a duplicate key or a pass key to their apartment.

However his first statement (4th May) was my focus. First of all, this was the last occasion on which he saw his daughter so one would expect his memory of that visit to have been very clear, especially the day after. In his statement of 4th May he said he entered by means of a key. Secondly, despite their bizarre checking system, no other members of the Tapas group reported leaving their doors unlocked so it is not clear why the McCanns did this. Thirdly, McCann himself did not offer this information about unlocked patio doors during his first interview, and it only emerged (10th May) after the PJ discounted the window as a means of entry/exit. So on balance, I put more weight on Gerry McCann's first statement.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.'

This is true RJ . Sounds more like a personal call. Probably the police put more credence on the phone call putting him in the area. But there could be a chance that there might have been some ongoing argument over money owed or drugs maybe ?

Regards Darryl

[FrankO]

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.

Could you rephrase this, Cobalt?

As I'm understanding/reading it now, you first talk about there being no evidence that anyone went in or out through the window. That's clear enough. But then you say that there was no evidence that Gerry McCann on the night of May 3rd had entered through the front door by use of a key and that this is why he realized after May 4th that he had to change his story to having entered via the unlocked patio door at the back of the apartment.

What I don't get is: what has the window got to do with how he entered the apartment? And on the basis of what (kind of) evidence, according to you, would it have been possible to determine whether he entered through the front door on that particular occasion, or not? What am I missing?

Just trying to understand...

Cheers,
Frank

[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.'

[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.

[caz]

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

Love,

Caz
X

[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

[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

[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.

[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