Madeleine McCann

[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.

[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]

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]

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.'

[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

[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]

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]

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

[cobalt]

'More likely an entry point with the front door used as the escape route. Of course that is not to say the perp didn't climb out the window just that I find it more inconceivable than entering the apartment via the window(particularly if this was someone with a history of break ins- and unaware of the open patio doors).'

The window entry/exit has been dismissed by the PJ for a number of reasons already stated. The police would have investigated previous burglaries in the vicinity and established without much difficulty if a thief had entered via the window of an apartment since a trace is inevitably left. In the case of the McCann residence no trace was found to support that possibility. Therefore it was quite properly dismissed, and little wonder since none of the previous burglaries had involved wriggling out of a window with a four year old child.

Originally the window being forced lay at the heart of the abduction claim, but when that was proved to have been impossible then the McCann version changed to the patio door being unlocked. So the very originators of the abduction theory have long abandoned that notion. It tends to resurface every time some private investigator or retired police detective has identified a 'strong suspect' and is looking for a story to sell to the media. There have been around half a dozen of these over they years and they have led nowhere.

It is very unlikely that the McCanns' patio door was unlocked at all. No other Tapas member ever claimed they were so reckless and when Gerry McCann made his 'check' around 9pm he said he entered by the front door courtesy of a key. This was around the time he struck up a conversation with Jez Wilkins which would be in that area. The only other confirmation we have of their patio door being unlocked was the Oldfield visit at around 9.30 but there has to be doubt whether that visit ever took place.

[rjpalmer]

But I think your pictures clearly show the shutters could be opened and that the window was not very high.

The picture comes from a 15-second video on YouTube, showing the shutters being opened. They make a bit of a racket, but I suppose if the burglar went slowly...

(1) Peter Mac raising shutters McCann's apartment 5a PDL - YouTube

[Sunny Delight]

Abby-- I think you have the wrong window. I've read it's only about 1 meter off the ground. The red X is the door, the window is to the right of it. There is a low wall that separates the back of the building from the street.





The problem of exiting this window, according to a UK detective, is that it is not wide enough for a grown man to do it without going through sideways. If he has to throw his leg up and over while holding a small child with both hands, he might fall on his face. Maybe.

It would be a very difficult exit whilst carrying a 4 year old. More likely an entry point with the front door used as the escape route. Of course that is not to say the perp didn't climb out the window just that I find it more inconceivable than entering the apartment via the window(particularly if this was someone with a history of break ins- and unaware of the open patio doors). But I think your pictures clearly show the shutters could be opened and that the window was not very high. Thanks for those.

[Abby Normal]

Abby-- I think you have the wrong window. I've read it's only about 1 meter off the ground. The red X is the door, the window is to the right of it. There is a low wall that separates the back of the building from the street.





The problem of exiting this window, according to a UK detective, is that it is not wide enough for a grown man to do it without going through sideways. If he has to throw his leg up and over while holding a small child with both hands, he might fall on his face. Maybe.

hi rj
thanks! I was always under the impression the window in question was around the corner from the one in your photo, closer to where the green arrow is. if you are correct, then i stand corrected, and its actually an ideal spot for an intruder to try and get in, in terms of location as its close to the ground and also the low wall in front would partially hide the person.
however, i still doubt anyone went through it because of the security blinds, the police found no evidence it was, and that there were unlocked doors. but thanks again for correction.

[Sunny Delight]

hi sunny
if you look at pictures of the window from tje outside it looks like it is at least 8 feet from the ground, and thats the bottom of the window. for someone to get into that window they would need a ladder or something to stand on. and of course with the metal security blind, it makes outside access even more difficult to get into. plus that side of the building is right next to a public road, mere feet, and ajacent to another more busy looking street...the apartment and the window are actually on a corner. so someone would have to contend with trying to get into a high up window from what looks like a very public street location. I highly doubt anyone went through that window.

Hi Abby, are you referring to the McCanns apartment or the apartment which was the target of a robbery directly above the McCanns a few weeks before their stay? The McCanns apartment as rj's photos show was very much ground level.

[rjpalmer]

hi sunny
if you look at pictures of the window from tje outside it looks like it is at least 8 feet from the ground, and thats the bottom of the window. for someone to get into that window they would need a ladder or something to stand on.

Abby-- I think you have the wrong window. I've read it's only about 1 meter off the ground. The red X is the door, the window is to the right of it. There is a low wall that separates the back of the building from the street.





The problem of exiting this window, according to a UK detective, is that it is not wide enough for a grown man to do it without going through sideways. If he has to throw his leg up and over while holding a small child with both hands, he might fall on his face. Maybe.

[cobalt]

'The continual parroting of the PJ line from their initial investigation that the window did not open from outside is patently wrong and been proven so since.'

By whom? And the issue is not whether the window could open in any case; it is not even whether a person could enter through it: it is whether a person entered through this particular window on this particular evening. And the answer is resoundingly clear: no one did.

In reply to rjpalmer who wrote: Are you certain that you are remembering this correctly? Is there a source for Payne saying this visit lasted 30 minutes?

I am wrong and happy to be corrected. I don't think Payne said anything to the PJ about the length of his visit, but when questioned by the UK police Payne judged his visit to have lasted between 3 and 5 minutes. This is close enough to Kate McCann's memory of 30 seconds to make no difference, as are whether he entered the apartment or stayed at the patio door.

The 30 minute estimation came not from Payne, but from Gerry McCann in a statement to the PJ.

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.