Madeleine McCann-Chronicles of an announced predicament©
The Polícia Judiciária, the media, the people (the same people who clasped their hands in prayer alongside the McCanns ...) go with the flow. They do not stop to think.
(ANY copying & redistribution either in part or in its entirety of this site, whether for profit or profitless contribution to a third party is forbidden without the express written consent of the author.)
Madeleine McCann's abduction
I will, gradually publish, the following 7 Chronicles. (To leave NO stone unturned).
1 - The McCann couple CAN NOT be responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.
2 - The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is NOT an act of an occasional abductor.
3 - Robert Murat did not abduct Madeleine McCann. The evidences and the impossibilities.
4 - The 3 key-elements for the mystery.
5 - The "pact of silence" between "Tapas 9" was possibly solely to cover up the collective act of administration of sleeping pills to the children; this, while socially reproachable, is not criminally penalised. (Still laying about the time space between each inspection on children sleep. Sedated children do not need being so cautiously watched).
6 - In the night of her disappearance, Madeleine McCann left the appartment alive.
7 - Hypothesis 1 (with 50% likelyhood):
The abduction ordered from United Kingdom. The inevitable complicity in the abduction of Madeleine of one of the nine friends, on last "Tapas" dinner, or someone occasionaly directly connected with the McCann. The profile of a possible conniving on the abduction.
8 - Hypothesis 2 (50% likelyhood):
Man with paedophile trends, former-employee of the Ocean Club, living relatively close to Praia da Luz. He still keeps Madeleine TODAY in captivity. Description.
9 - Conclusion.
Introduction
Absolutely everything could have have happened to Madeleine McCann; it would be foolish not to admit so.
A young, apparently normal man, could have left his house, walked on Rua Doctor Agostinho da Silva, by pure chance coming across the half-opened door of the apartment at Ocean Club, entered, abducted Madeleine, killed her and burried her body in his garden.
The advanced speculations of the press have already covered all theories: the abduction, parents involvement, mother's, the friends did it, the only theory I haven't come across is that of the crime being committed by the twins Sean and Amelie.
Those are not the theories I attempt to deal with in these chronicles.
Using the (few) known facts, I try to analyse them, observe using a magnifying glass, and find some logic that can be fitted to reality, figuring out the likelyhood of each of the possibilities.
This work, (done in my personal free time), is my contribution to finding Madeleine McCann.
I'm doing it in hope that it will awaken, in some readers, some kind of clues or ideas that can potentially lead to finding out the truth.
Obviously, everything I write is based on the few facts being released by the PJ to the media. I would love to have access to some specific documents of official police inquiry, to know if some definitive queries have been made; to test some of my suspicions...
I am just one citizen who took some time to think about this mystery, a "Nero Wolfe's assistant". I am doing my best to give you a complete reflection, honest and, if possible, intelligent.
I might have missed some details; hopefully those details aren't crucial in the resolution of Madeleine's disappearance.
1st Chapter:
The McCann couple (jointly) CANNOT be responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.
Vacations at Praia da Luz
The McCann’s arrived at the small village of Luz, for a short vacation, period in one of the last days of April 2007, together with their three childrens, Madeleine and the twins Sean and Amelie. With them also travelled some friends and respective childrens.
To the McCann’s was distributed a ground floor apartment, about 500 meters from the beach, with two rooms in one of the blocks from Ocean Club.
In day 3 of May the disappearance of Madeleine will completely modify the entire life of this English middle class couple.
During supper, together with their seven friends, at restaurant “Tapas”, (located in the centre of the small urbanization), Kate, mother of Madeleine, dislocate to the apartment to watch the childrens sleep, and then realise the disappearance of Madeleine, the oldest daughter.
Immediately she alerts the group of friends for the occurrence of abduction. Kate is sure about this, “her daughter would not leave the apartment on its proper foot”. Expression that she used several times, later in interviews: “… And I am certain that she did not leave walking that room”. Certainty that could only have in case that, effectively, fathers have sedated their childs.
The most concrete stat, next to the events, that I’ve found in the press was one from resort’s manager, John Hill: “the alarm was given shortly after 22h00”. “We soon started to look for the child, with the aid of guests and popular. We have made searches in the resort, beach, streets, gardens and cars. The GNR arrived at 22h45 and the efforts had continued, but without success”
One of the “faults” presented by the generality of the journalists against the McCann couple is that they did not immediately inform the policy, as soon as they discovered Madeleine´s disappearance. In my opinion, abnormal would be if they did it. The first impulse will be always to cry out the name of the child and look for in the roundness, alerting all possible people for a search in the next perimeter. If each time a child is not where he would be, we informed the policy, (which will immediately make exactly the same primary search); policeman wouldn’t do anything else every day.
Kate and Gerry McCann are two young doctors with three very small children. Madeleine made four years the twelve of May and the twins have only two years old; all the children may be result of "in vitro" fertilization.
Immediately everyone of us found odd the fact of the three children where left alone during a few hours, without the company of any adult, in a strange country, in a strange house, while the parents have supper with friends, which, all of them also, left their own childrens asleep, the same way, in the respective apartments, without resource to the baby-sitters service that could be provided freely by the resort.
We may think that this would be a common habit in England. However, the English law strictly forbid this type of abandonment of minors.
It is expected that the period where the children be left asleep alone in the respective apartments should be extended beyond the supper, since Ocean Club seems to offer a day-care service until 23:30 h. and the McCann family did not use these services.
Periodically, (according to parents), they all would dislocate into their different apartments to verify if everything was well.
Obviously children do not get sleeping at a previously programmed hour and they will not remain themselves asleep for desired periods. We then, are allowed to assume that, given to the technician knowledge of some group members, they applied to childrens some type of sedative.
However such odd practice can be morally wrong, does not constitute, for itself, a legal serious crime.
Day 3 of May, in accordance with the police inquiry, elapsed without any incident for McCann family until about the eighteen hours; they have taken a walk with the children, eaten out, being at the swimming pool, and the children left, during afternoon, at the day-care centre, available for resort’s customers; having all those movements apparently been tested and certificated by the police.
It is in the short period between last public appearance of the entire family (eighteen hours) and their entrance at “Tapas” for supper with the 7 friends, (about twenty hours and thirty minutes), that all this drama will be gone to uncurl; will be during this period, in accordance with the current thesis, that something of very serious have happened to Madeleine, having the parents opted by staging a pretence abduction, hiding somewhere the corpse of her daughter.
In less than three hours the McCann have to kill Madeleine, combine a common strategy and make the body of the child disappear. This is something!
Which deplorable events can force somebody to take the dead body of a child, choosing to practise such serious and condemnable act: staging abduction and occulting a corpse?
To opt on hiding the corpse of such young kid is not properly a light spirit act. What kind of even more condemnable act could be committed by the parents to decide on carry such drastic attitude? The most current thesis is that the McCann have exaggerated in the given dose of sleeping pills to the child and then she has died accidentally for overdose. Just a very large overdose could kill.
In less than three hours the McCann have to kill Madeleine, combine a common strategy and make the body of the child disappear. This is something!
Which deplorable events can force somebody to take the dead body of a child, choosing to practise such serious and condemnable act: staging abduction and occulting a corpse?
To opt on hiding the corpse of such young kid is not properly a light spirit act. What kind of even more condemnable act could be committed by the parents to decide on carry such drastic attitude? The most current thesis is that the McCann have exaggerated in the given dose of sleeping pills to the child and then she has died accidentally for overdose. Just a very large overdose could kill.
The McCann, are doctors; capable to recognize the signals of an agony state, and experts on first-aid techniques, also they are not properly ignorant people who doesn’t know the legal consequences of a death by accident without evident deceit. Obviously that after the inefficacy of an immediate first-aid help, they would opt to appeal to the other doctors of its own group of friends or, in finals instance, to the Portuguese public medical emergency. An error in the amount of sedative - eventually - applied to the child, however condemnable, is not so dramatically to the point of starting such inhuman and dangerous way, with possible so unexpected final results, performed by people who does not know the topography of neighbouring lands, and has to hide a corpse, in such definitive form that no one could found it in the following days, during the inevitable search that, on their order, will be gone to be unchain.
.
The reason and the possibility
The reason and the possibility
Let us imagine therefore something of really awful that can justify such act: a sexual orgy, inadvertently witnessed by the child who take the infuriated parents. or a third person. to push Madeleine against the corner of a table? Therefore… but orgies at six o’clock in the afternoon?Hidden packs of drug in the store-room? Satanic rituals? Let us be logical. Between six o’clock in afternoon and eight o’clock in the night, nothing of so awful and mysterious can happen. The McCann did not have reason to hide the body of the daughter if she had effectively died, in this space of time, and if death was the result of an occasional act. The stronger reason than could take the McCann to occult the corpse of her daughter, would be the fear that the autopsy could disclose something more than eventual sedative residues in the organism of the child. If autopsy only disclosed the presence of sedatives, the McCann would risk to be accused of homicide for recklessness, and would leave Portugal probably with a suspended penalty per two years.
It doesn’t occur to me anything else but the hypothesis of sexual abuse or beating. Anyway, I do not see any of them as probable; it would have had antecedent, and the child would denote inevitably, some type of suffering and sadness in her expression on its known photos, these are all, with no doubt, of a happy child.
After some initial howl of the English press, (if the child would have direct died because of sedative excess), the case quickly would be forgotten and everything would come back to normal. Probably, Kate McCann would start regularly visiting a psychiatrist, due to loss of her daughter and, some familiar, friends and colleagues would condemn the McCann for its improper attitude. Would then, be valid to run all the risks and to practise such abominable acts as those supposedly they have committed? Clearly not.
After some initial howl of the English press, (if the child would have direct died because of sedative excess), the case quickly would be forgotten and everything would come back to normal. Probably, Kate McCann would start regularly visiting a psychiatrist, due to loss of her daughter and, some familiar, friends and colleagues would condemn the McCann for its improper attitude. Would then, be valid to run all the risks and to practise such abominable acts as those supposedly they have committed? Clearly not.
However, having committed a recklessness homicide, they wouldn’t be arrested (much less they being English citizens and with some statute…).
Let us analyze the facts as they would have happened, it the McCann effectively, murdered Madeleine:
Let us analyze the facts as they would have happened, it the McCann effectively, murdered Madeleine:
- “In the next few hours, and without raising suspicion, it will be very difficult to occult with security the corpse of Madeleine, even because our friends are waiting us for supper at 20:30 hours. Let us leave Madeleine dead in the bed for some few hours more, let as pretend she is asleep, then, during the night, calmly, we hide Madeleine somewhere.
During next morning, we open the window of her room and will make our kidnapping “theatre”.
But… would the McCann had the physical possibility to take the handle, in the end of the afternoon, of such corpse occultation task?
Crossing chronologically the different available information, I elaborate a list of the events, according to what is known that McCann family have done:
18:00 H. - the McCann get their children at the day-care centre.
19:30 H. - the three children go to bed. (sunset, in 3 of May occurs about 20:30 hours)
20:30 H. - the McCann arrives at restaurant “Tapas”.
Everything happening before and later, who leaves and who enters, who gives the alarm, who is in, who drinks, it is totalling irrelevant at this moment. Only two beacons are important: 18:00 hours, the last moment Madeleine was seen alive, and 20:30 hours, moment the McCann enters the restaurant, having no other possibility still to come, to consummate the hideous act of occultation of the corpse of Madeleine.
The “film” of the events
It is only during this period of time that everything can have happened. All remaining is accessory to inculpate or not the McCann for the death and occultation of the corpse of the little girl. In these two hours the McCann have to kill her daughter, to decide what to do, combine how to act and what to say later, and… to occult the corpse. Let us see if such is possible, even “hurrying” up all the inevitable steps:
18:00 H. - The McCann couple goes to collect the children at the day-care centre.
18:05 H. - The couple enters the apartment with the 3 children.
18:15 H. - One or both parents gives a sedative to the children. (Madeleine receives a triple dose).
18:30 H. - After some elementary hygiene cares, feeding, dressing pyjamas, etc., all kids went to sleep. (Notice that I am anticipating one hour in relation what it will have really happened, “to have time for everything following”. It is little credible that the parents gave the sleeping pills so early to the children. Experts about reaction time they would give the pills in such form that its effect would occur so much close as possible to the time McCann went out, in order to guarantee thus the maximum of “useful sleeping hours”).
18:40 H. - Madeleine enters in agony, (the parents will not notice that immediately therefore they would had initiated the necessary first-aid procedures, in witch case they very probably would recoup the child).
18:45 H. - Madeleine dies. I do not withhold enough knowledge to guarantee that the death of a child can occur in such short period of time, but still, we have to embed the corpse, everything has to occur very quickly. (dead could happen by many other different reason, parents may have beated Madeleine to dead, etc., it is not important at this moment).
18:50 H. - the parents pacifically agree to simulate an abduction and to embed somewhere the body of their daughter.
19:00 H. - As they are limited on time, and they are unaware of the topography around the resort to imagine where to hide the corpse in safe form, (hide from sniffing dogs and search teams), they opt to hide Madeleine in the only accessible and simultaneously safe place: the beach, merely at 500 meters from their apartment.
19:15 H. - After searching the apartment, they find - with some luck - a plastic bag, sufficiently large to contain the small corpse (the bag is essential to foil during some days the snifer dogs) and a utensil to help the hollowing, (probably one of the sand playing shovels of the children).
19:30 H. - With the child deceased in his arms, courageous and without being seen by nobody in a some movement period in the afternoon, (still in broad daylight), Gerry McCann arrives at the beach. (It must not have used the twin’s baby stand for the transportation since it would make him take more time). This task must have not, obviously, been played by Kate, since it is necessary to excavate quickly.
19:40 H. - Rambling a little in the beach, trying to perceiving people’s movements, Gerry search a less moving and appropriate zone, he puts the body of Madeleine in the sand and starts digging.
(Before writing this chapter I have tried to do the same. I have started to excavate, in dry sand, a hole with approximately 1 meter length, by 40 centimetres width, and 50 centimetres depth, with the aid of a small shovel. It is difficult, very difficult, even for me, whom was digging without special care, without having to constantly observe the possible approach of some one, and trying not to make noises in surplus.
From first diggings, I notice that the point supporting my knees went down inside the hole, becoming almost useless all my effort. After about 15 minutes, and totally inside the hole to excavate better, I gave up because I found my role there a bit idiot…
To excavate a hole in slightly wet sand, it seems easier to me, however the inevitable risk of waves will, in short-term may undisguised the corpse).
20:00 H. - One despaired person can make miracles; Gerry finally obtains to excavate its hole. He has now to place Madeleine in the plastic bag with care, so its fingerprints are not recorded, deposit the body, to full the hole with sand, spread the exceeding sand in the roundness in terms that, next morning, no one notices the digging.
20:15 H. - Tired, underneath of some stress, Gerry arrive back to the apartment.
20:25 H. - Duly washed and removed all sand residues, dressed up and with a smile of fulfilled duty in her lips, Gerry and Kate left the apartment.
20:30 H. – Night is almost there, Sunset is occurring at this moment. The McCann couple arrives at restaurant “Tapas”.
Upsss… lacks to combine what they must say and how to act in the next hours. This is not important. It’s time now to be with friends, drink a few cups and to free some laughs…
During next morning, we open the window of her room and will make our kidnapping “theatre”.
But… would the McCann had the physical possibility to take the handle, in the end of the afternoon, of such corpse occultation task?
Crossing chronologically the different available information, I elaborate a list of the events, according to what is known that McCann family have done:
18:00 H. - the McCann get their children at the day-care centre.
19:30 H. - the three children go to bed. (sunset, in 3 of May occurs about 20:30 hours)
20:30 H. - the McCann arrives at restaurant “Tapas”.
Everything happening before and later, who leaves and who enters, who gives the alarm, who is in, who drinks, it is totalling irrelevant at this moment. Only two beacons are important: 18:00 hours, the last moment Madeleine was seen alive, and 20:30 hours, moment the McCann enters the restaurant, having no other possibility still to come, to consummate the hideous act of occultation of the corpse of Madeleine.
The “film” of the events
It is only during this period of time that everything can have happened. All remaining is accessory to inculpate or not the McCann for the death and occultation of the corpse of the little girl. In these two hours the McCann have to kill her daughter, to decide what to do, combine how to act and what to say later, and… to occult the corpse. Let us see if such is possible, even “hurrying” up all the inevitable steps:
18:00 H. - The McCann couple goes to collect the children at the day-care centre.
18:05 H. - The couple enters the apartment with the 3 children.
18:15 H. - One or both parents gives a sedative to the children. (Madeleine receives a triple dose).
18:30 H. - After some elementary hygiene cares, feeding, dressing pyjamas, etc., all kids went to sleep. (Notice that I am anticipating one hour in relation what it will have really happened, “to have time for everything following”. It is little credible that the parents gave the sleeping pills so early to the children. Experts about reaction time they would give the pills in such form that its effect would occur so much close as possible to the time McCann went out, in order to guarantee thus the maximum of “useful sleeping hours”).
18:40 H. - Madeleine enters in agony, (the parents will not notice that immediately therefore they would had initiated the necessary first-aid procedures, in witch case they very probably would recoup the child).
18:45 H. - Madeleine dies. I do not withhold enough knowledge to guarantee that the death of a child can occur in such short period of time, but still, we have to embed the corpse, everything has to occur very quickly. (dead could happen by many other different reason, parents may have beated Madeleine to dead, etc., it is not important at this moment).
18:50 H. - the parents pacifically agree to simulate an abduction and to embed somewhere the body of their daughter.
19:00 H. - As they are limited on time, and they are unaware of the topography around the resort to imagine where to hide the corpse in safe form, (hide from sniffing dogs and search teams), they opt to hide Madeleine in the only accessible and simultaneously safe place: the beach, merely at 500 meters from their apartment.
19:15 H. - After searching the apartment, they find - with some luck - a plastic bag, sufficiently large to contain the small corpse (the bag is essential to foil during some days the snifer dogs) and a utensil to help the hollowing, (probably one of the sand playing shovels of the children).
19:30 H. - With the child deceased in his arms, courageous and without being seen by nobody in a some movement period in the afternoon, (still in broad daylight), Gerry McCann arrives at the beach. (It must not have used the twin’s baby stand for the transportation since it would make him take more time). This task must have not, obviously, been played by Kate, since it is necessary to excavate quickly.
19:40 H. - Rambling a little in the beach, trying to perceiving people’s movements, Gerry search a less moving and appropriate zone, he puts the body of Madeleine in the sand and starts digging.
(Before writing this chapter I have tried to do the same. I have started to excavate, in dry sand, a hole with approximately 1 meter length, by 40 centimetres width, and 50 centimetres depth, with the aid of a small shovel. It is difficult, very difficult, even for me, whom was digging without special care, without having to constantly observe the possible approach of some one, and trying not to make noises in surplus.
From first diggings, I notice that the point supporting my knees went down inside the hole, becoming almost useless all my effort. After about 15 minutes, and totally inside the hole to excavate better, I gave up because I found my role there a bit idiot…
To excavate a hole in slightly wet sand, it seems easier to me, however the inevitable risk of waves will, in short-term may undisguised the corpse).
20:00 H. - One despaired person can make miracles; Gerry finally obtains to excavate its hole. He has now to place Madeleine in the plastic bag with care, so its fingerprints are not recorded, deposit the body, to full the hole with sand, spread the exceeding sand in the roundness in terms that, next morning, no one notices the digging.
20:15 H. - Tired, underneath of some stress, Gerry arrive back to the apartment.
20:25 H. - Duly washed and removed all sand residues, dressed up and with a smile of fulfilled duty in her lips, Gerry and Kate left the apartment.
20:30 H. – Night is almost there, Sunset is occurring at this moment. The McCann couple arrives at restaurant “Tapas”.
Upsss… lacks to combine what they must say and how to act in the next hours. This is not important. It’s time now to be with friends, drink a few cups and to free some laughs…
Let us not be ridiculous, all this chronology is impossible. Kate and Gerry McCann had not the physical possibility to handle such task in so short space of time.
Whenever we think that the McCann have inadvertent or deliberately murdered Madeleine, both, they would not have the physical possibility to efficiently hide the corpse of her daughter.
Other possibilities
Some people can however oppose other possibilities: the contribution of one or more elements of her group of friends in the corpse occultation; the body of the girl not to have been embedded in the sand of the beach; all the group being together in the disappearance of the child; the parents having deliberately deliver the child for adoption…
Let us see then the eventuality of one of their friends helping them in the process. How can it modify the “film” of the events? The aid of one friend would make the occultation easier? If we take a look at the delirious chronology that I have elaborated, the aid of a friend alone can be excellent just at two moments:
1 - In the attainment of a big plastic bag, and, or, in the attainment of a better utensil to excavate.
2 - In the act of digging the hole to deposit the body.
Obviously that two people working together, will dig a grave quirkiest. Thus of the 20 minutes that I destined to this work, we would possibly gain 10 minutes. How does it significantly modifies the final impossibility? I must also say that the participation of a third element would become disturbing at the moment of taking decisions. Plus an opinion will delays considerably all the process. The same reasoning is entirely valid for the participation of more one or two elements of her group of friends.
Also, in the possibility that all the 9 friends being together in all the process of disappearance of Madeleine is, on all the possibilities, the easiest to disassemble: then all the stage and the moment of the “discovery” of the disappearance of Madeleine, would be marked for a total different hour, (very probably for the following day, in the hour of a small innocent nap after lunch, where the children would be in the apartment to rest and the parents, calmly, drink some mineral water in the swimming pool’s terrace facing the apartment…). They all knew that the detail of abandon and sedation of the children would come, later or early, to be discovered, and would be of its total interest to deviate all the attentions of this lesser, but blameworthy delict.
Whenever we think that the McCann have inadvertent or deliberately murdered Madeleine, both, they would not have the physical possibility to efficiently hide the corpse of her daughter.
Other possibilities
Some people can however oppose other possibilities: the contribution of one or more elements of her group of friends in the corpse occultation; the body of the girl not to have been embedded in the sand of the beach; all the group being together in the disappearance of the child; the parents having deliberately deliver the child for adoption…
Let us see then the eventuality of one of their friends helping them in the process. How can it modify the “film” of the events? The aid of one friend would make the occultation easier? If we take a look at the delirious chronology that I have elaborated, the aid of a friend alone can be excellent just at two moments:
1 - In the attainment of a big plastic bag, and, or, in the attainment of a better utensil to excavate.
2 - In the act of digging the hole to deposit the body.
Obviously that two people working together, will dig a grave quirkiest. Thus of the 20 minutes that I destined to this work, we would possibly gain 10 minutes. How does it significantly modifies the final impossibility? I must also say that the participation of a third element would become disturbing at the moment of taking decisions. Plus an opinion will delays considerably all the process. The same reasoning is entirely valid for the participation of more one or two elements of her group of friends.
Also, in the possibility that all the 9 friends being together in all the process of disappearance of Madeleine is, on all the possibilities, the easiest to disassemble: then all the stage and the moment of the “discovery” of the disappearance of Madeleine, would be marked for a total different hour, (very probably for the following day, in the hour of a small innocent nap after lunch, where the children would be in the apartment to rest and the parents, calmly, drink some mineral water in the swimming pool’s terrace facing the apartment…). They all knew that the detail of abandon and sedation of the children would come, later or early, to be discovered, and would be of its total interest to deviate all the attentions of this lesser, but blameworthy delict.
The same line of reasoning is valid for the parents, in case they desired to simulate abduction, and occult the fact that they delivered the child to a stranger. In this case, the couple also would mount the entire scene for one completely different hour, to allow them, to hide from police investigators, their private sin of abandon and, eventually, children sedation.
Let us analyze, finally, the possibility of choosing some other place, instead of the beach, to the occultation of the corpse.
Beyond the beach, we have some other possible places:
- Some streets at Praia da Luz were under workmanships, with some open holes.
- Some existing wells in the locality.
- Garbage containers.
- Hiding of the corpse in the apartment of one of their friends.
- Loaned a car to hide the corpse in a distant zone.
Let us exclude immediately old cars and abandoned houses, because we all know that these are basic locals to search. Also let us exclude to launch the body, from some high cliff onto the sea, prisoner to a rock. Cliffs near Praia da Luz are beyond the time necessary to reach a possible suitable place, and it is very little credible that nobody wouldn’t witnessed such unusual act. Also because, inevitably, during this summer, a diver, or the nets of a fishing boat, would have discovered a body so close to the coast line.
Before continuing, consider, my dear readers, a small exercise: trace a circumference, with 1 kilometre of ray, around your own habitation area, (which very probably you will know much better that the McCann in relation to the outskirts of Praia da Luz).
Now imagine where can you hide the corpse of a child, with a minimum of certainty that it will not be detected, next days, by specialized searching teams and trained dogs.
Keep thinking… you will realise that it is difficult…
Let us come back to the McCann. Gerry, will not be able to make a previous assorted exploration to search an appropriate place. He does not have time for this.
Either he already knows where to hide the corpse, or he will have to take dead Madeleine with him and start discovering. A well? Generally, wells found outside closed private properties, are necessarily protected against the eventuality of accidents. They are closed with an iron grating or a cement cover. The open wells are generally in abandoned properties. I do not know the place too well, but I doubt that some rare existing open wells, in the roundness of Ocean Club, have not been minutely searched in the immediate days of Madeleine disappearance. The parents should know that this would happen; just one imbecile would choose a well in the roundness of their apartment to deposit the corpse.
As we all know, Portugal is a country permanently “under works”. Praia da Luz is not one exception. In the moment of Madeleine’s disappearance, there where varied pavement works, rank of sewer, etc. Let us imagine then that the McCann, in someone previous day, already had stumbled on one of these innumerable holes and that, in the height to hide the corpse, they remembered it. It is an excellent idea, to hide the body in a hole and wait that the labourers cover it eliminating all traces!
Therefore… but the McCann would not have access to the book of incumbencies nor to the workmanships plan. They would not know if that hole was to cover in the following day, to excavate, or to wait for telephone new cables. A workmanships hole is a permanent incognito, a bigger mystery that a child disappearance! A workmanships hole is an excellent option for a construction labourer to hide a corpse, if he himself, is detached for that workmanship.
Obviously that in the following morning, and during the immediate days, all workmanships holes have been searched, and all the labourers had been intent to any strange volume.
The body of Madeleine would also be very well hidden, still, underneath a plate of hardened. Gerry just had to move away a little of the gravel covering the ground, place the body, that soon, would receive fresh concrete, when auto mixers come to make their job.
Again, the same problem: Gerry does not have access to the workmanship plans, and I do not even know if some concrete plate was launched, in the neighbourhoods the next days of Madeleine’s disappearance. This possibility only Portuguese police will be able to answer.
Let us analyze, finally, the possibility of choosing some other place, instead of the beach, to the occultation of the corpse.
Beyond the beach, we have some other possible places:
- Some streets at Praia da Luz were under workmanships, with some open holes.
- Some existing wells in the locality.
- Garbage containers.
- Hiding of the corpse in the apartment of one of their friends.
- Loaned a car to hide the corpse in a distant zone.
Let us exclude immediately old cars and abandoned houses, because we all know that these are basic locals to search. Also let us exclude to launch the body, from some high cliff onto the sea, prisoner to a rock. Cliffs near Praia da Luz are beyond the time necessary to reach a possible suitable place, and it is very little credible that nobody wouldn’t witnessed such unusual act. Also because, inevitably, during this summer, a diver, or the nets of a fishing boat, would have discovered a body so close to the coast line.
Before continuing, consider, my dear readers, a small exercise: trace a circumference, with 1 kilometre of ray, around your own habitation area, (which very probably you will know much better that the McCann in relation to the outskirts of Praia da Luz).
Now imagine where can you hide the corpse of a child, with a minimum of certainty that it will not be detected, next days, by specialized searching teams and trained dogs.
Keep thinking… you will realise that it is difficult…
Let us come back to the McCann. Gerry, will not be able to make a previous assorted exploration to search an appropriate place. He does not have time for this.
Either he already knows where to hide the corpse, or he will have to take dead Madeleine with him and start discovering. A well? Generally, wells found outside closed private properties, are necessarily protected against the eventuality of accidents. They are closed with an iron grating or a cement cover. The open wells are generally in abandoned properties. I do not know the place too well, but I doubt that some rare existing open wells, in the roundness of Ocean Club, have not been minutely searched in the immediate days of Madeleine disappearance. The parents should know that this would happen; just one imbecile would choose a well in the roundness of their apartment to deposit the corpse.
As we all know, Portugal is a country permanently “under works”. Praia da Luz is not one exception. In the moment of Madeleine’s disappearance, there where varied pavement works, rank of sewer, etc. Let us imagine then that the McCann, in someone previous day, already had stumbled on one of these innumerable holes and that, in the height to hide the corpse, they remembered it. It is an excellent idea, to hide the body in a hole and wait that the labourers cover it eliminating all traces!
Therefore… but the McCann would not have access to the book of incumbencies nor to the workmanships plan. They would not know if that hole was to cover in the following day, to excavate, or to wait for telephone new cables. A workmanships hole is a permanent incognito, a bigger mystery that a child disappearance! A workmanships hole is an excellent option for a construction labourer to hide a corpse, if he himself, is detached for that workmanship.
Obviously that in the following morning, and during the immediate days, all workmanships holes have been searched, and all the labourers had been intent to any strange volume.
The body of Madeleine would also be very well hidden, still, underneath a plate of hardened. Gerry just had to move away a little of the gravel covering the ground, place the body, that soon, would receive fresh concrete, when auto mixers come to make their job.
Again, the same problem: Gerry does not have access to the workmanship plans, and I do not even know if some concrete plate was launched, in the neighbourhoods the next days of Madeleine’s disappearance. This possibility only Portuguese police will be able to answer.
Could it be a garbage container? There is on everyone of us, normal people, a immediate repulse that any human being would choose this option, the McCann were unaware of which the writs of prevention that the GNR and the Judiciary Policy would take, as well as the hours and the day where “their” container would be poured. A voluminous plastic bag in the interior of a container would be obviously objecting of inquiry. If the McCann, anyway, would stop beyond the inhuman symbolism of the act, they would not choose an option, obviously easy, but with very little insurance. Anyway, a body in a garbage container would have been discovered during the next few days.
I have also read somewhere the suggestion, perfectly abnormal, that Madeleine’s body would have been sliced in pieces, divided per diverse plastic bags, and discretely poured into different garbage containers. At last, if we follow a line where all bestialities are possible, then this chronicles don’t make any sense, since the “solutions” then possible, are innumerable.
The McCann could also opt by hiding the corpse of Madeleine, for a short period, in the apartment of their “Tapas” friends.
It is a good solution that would turn viable the occultation of the crime. I would like to know, however, which couple would give them that dangerous support, if in any way they hadn’t part of guilt in the death of the child.
Not only by being then a obvious abetter of the crime; also for the tenebrous need of sleeping with a corpse near to their own children; but, over all, for being subject to the possibility that any hasty policy, had decided in the proper night of the abduction, to look for Madeleine in those apartments… To be truth, I doubt that such has not been done; police would search, that very same night, all those apartments in a more or less detailed manner
Obviously that they would think soon about the following step: tomorrow this zone is going to be full of policies; all of us will be under interrogations, and we all be facing strong notoriety. How and when do we will have a safe chance to remove the corpse out of the apartment?
The McCann, when calling on themselves all spotlights, knowing that Madeleine is a pretty child, who will excite emotions and mobilize the entire village in a detailed search, could never risk a hiding place so obviously inconvenient and precarious.
I have also read somewhere the suggestion, perfectly abnormal, that Madeleine’s body would have been sliced in pieces, divided per diverse plastic bags, and discretely poured into different garbage containers. At last, if we follow a line where all bestialities are possible, then this chronicles don’t make any sense, since the “solutions” then possible, are innumerable.
The McCann could also opt by hiding the corpse of Madeleine, for a short period, in the apartment of their “Tapas” friends.
It is a good solution that would turn viable the occultation of the crime. I would like to know, however, which couple would give them that dangerous support, if in any way they hadn’t part of guilt in the death of the child.
Not only by being then a obvious abetter of the crime; also for the tenebrous need of sleeping with a corpse near to their own children; but, over all, for being subject to the possibility that any hasty policy, had decided in the proper night of the abduction, to look for Madeleine in those apartments… To be truth, I doubt that such has not been done; police would search, that very same night, all those apartments in a more or less detailed manner
Obviously that they would think soon about the following step: tomorrow this zone is going to be full of policies; all of us will be under interrogations, and we all be facing strong notoriety. How and when do we will have a safe chance to remove the corpse out of the apartment?
The McCann, when calling on themselves all spotlights, knowing that Madeleine is a pretty child, who will excite emotions and mobilize the entire village in a detailed search, could never risk a hiding place so obviously inconvenient and precarious.
It remains the hypothesis of a loaned car to hide the corpse in a distant zone. But where? The McCann badly knows Praia da Luz, is the first time they visited Algarve. They had never droved a car in the roads of this region.
Well… they ask for aid to some car’s owner they know! He is an expert about the region, he will voluntarily assist them in the occultation of the corpse; he will find one appropriate place to hide the body (or he, beforehand, knows where to do so). Obviously that this helpful driver could not be any of their 7 friends, which have no knowledge of the involving zone, and probably haven’t got any rented car; they won’t be able to affect such diabolic transport.
Attention! Let us look again at my delirious chronology. Believing that the driver was already at the front door of McCann’s apartment, and to convince him did not delay it a significant time, the car, with the corpse of Madeleine, will pull out of the apartment around 19:30 hours having to be back by 20:15 hours.
Deducting the necessary time for leaving the car, carry and occult the corpse in the chosen place, let us say that 15 minutes will be sufficient for all these acts, there are 30 minutes remains for the two passages (gone and comes back). In an average speed of 90 km., the body would be deposited up to 22 Kilometres distance from Ocean Club.
Will then becomes a little difficult to find the corpse in these conditions, I have to admit, even so the ray of semicircle being definite initially for the searches, by GNR, was 15 Kilometres, and the body was not yet found… It is difficult to someone swallows this delirious history…
So, it was impossible, for the McCann, in such short period of time, and without any previous preparation, to hide with total success, the corpse of Madeleine in a perfectly unknown country to them. In broad daylight. Without never being seen for anybody, nor raised any suspicion.
Conclusion
Both McCann, on common agreement, had not been able to execute such serious crime of corps occultation. Individually and without each other knowledge, it may be different. Both had the chance (during their respective assorted to inspect children’s sleep), both could open the door to somebody, that would take the alive child for any safe place.
I will deal with it later, even so, some lines below in this page, (given the hysterical press articles I read against Kate); I anticipate already the impossibility of Kate being guilty.
If the testimonial evidences, owned by Judiciary Policy, can irrefutably demonstrate that Madeleine McCann was alive in day 3 of May of 2007, around 18 hours in the afternoon on that exactly day, the couple Gerry and Kate McCann, jointly, hardly could be incriminated of the death of Madeleine.
Probably they will be accused of negligent abandonment of minor and, eventually (if tests will prove so), of improper sedative use in minor.
The 3 (known) possible evidences that Madeleine was alive in day 3 of May are:
1 - Photo taken in the swimming pool of Ocean Club where the two sisters and Gerry wet their feet in the water. According to McCann and the date printed in the photo (that I did not obtain to see), this will have been taken on the day of the crime at 14:29 local hours.
2 - According to press, the McCann will have been in that day in an outside esplanade, and this sojourn will have been recorded by video cameras monitoring the place.
3 - Madeleine will have been in the day-care centre of Ocean Club in the afternoon of that day 3. It must exist same registers or testimonial evidences of this.
(I hope that Judiciary Policy has made their “work” and foiled the possibility of these proves being valid, (and or others that they may possess), that Madeleine was alive, in day 3 of May.
It is easy to modify the date of a photo in a digital camera; the owner of Restaurant Paradise can be confusing the day where the McCann, really, have been there; the employees of the day-care centre, in case they don’t have a registering book, can be confusing dates.
In what concerns the possibility of the participation in the crime of one of the McCann, (without the knowledge of each other), before a better explaining in chapter III, I must for now, demonstrate that Kate cannot be guilty of Madeleine’s death or deliverance to someone:
We must consider two different possibilities of something have happened when Kate went home, during supper, to verify the sleep of their children: to have murdered the child, or to have delivered her to someone who took the girl for an unknown place.
Attention! Let us look again at my delirious chronology. Believing that the driver was already at the front door of McCann’s apartment, and to convince him did not delay it a significant time, the car, with the corpse of Madeleine, will pull out of the apartment around 19:30 hours having to be back by 20:15 hours.
Deducting the necessary time for leaving the car, carry and occult the corpse in the chosen place, let us say that 15 minutes will be sufficient for all these acts, there are 30 minutes remains for the two passages (gone and comes back). In an average speed of 90 km., the body would be deposited up to 22 Kilometres distance from Ocean Club.
Will then becomes a little difficult to find the corpse in these conditions, I have to admit, even so the ray of semicircle being definite initially for the searches, by GNR, was 15 Kilometres, and the body was not yet found… It is difficult to someone swallows this delirious history…
So, it was impossible, for the McCann, in such short period of time, and without any previous preparation, to hide with total success, the corpse of Madeleine in a perfectly unknown country to them. In broad daylight. Without never being seen for anybody, nor raised any suspicion.
Conclusion
Both McCann, on common agreement, had not been able to execute such serious crime of corps occultation. Individually and without each other knowledge, it may be different. Both had the chance (during their respective assorted to inspect children’s sleep), both could open the door to somebody, that would take the alive child for any safe place.
I will deal with it later, even so, some lines below in this page, (given the hysterical press articles I read against Kate); I anticipate already the impossibility of Kate being guilty.
If the testimonial evidences, owned by Judiciary Policy, can irrefutably demonstrate that Madeleine McCann was alive in day 3 of May of 2007, around 18 hours in the afternoon on that exactly day, the couple Gerry and Kate McCann, jointly, hardly could be incriminated of the death of Madeleine.
Probably they will be accused of negligent abandonment of minor and, eventually (if tests will prove so), of improper sedative use in minor.
The 3 (known) possible evidences that Madeleine was alive in day 3 of May are:
1 - Photo taken in the swimming pool of Ocean Club where the two sisters and Gerry wet their feet in the water. According to McCann and the date printed in the photo (that I did not obtain to see), this will have been taken on the day of the crime at 14:29 local hours.
2 - According to press, the McCann will have been in that day in an outside esplanade, and this sojourn will have been recorded by video cameras monitoring the place.
3 - Madeleine will have been in the day-care centre of Ocean Club in the afternoon of that day 3. It must exist same registers or testimonial evidences of this.
(I hope that Judiciary Policy has made their “work” and foiled the possibility of these proves being valid, (and or others that they may possess), that Madeleine was alive, in day 3 of May.
It is easy to modify the date of a photo in a digital camera; the owner of Restaurant Paradise can be confusing the day where the McCann, really, have been there; the employees of the day-care centre, in case they don’t have a registering book, can be confusing dates.
In what concerns the possibility of the participation in the crime of one of the McCann, (without the knowledge of each other), before a better explaining in chapter III, I must for now, demonstrate that Kate cannot be guilty of Madeleine’s death or deliverance to someone:
We must consider two different possibilities of something have happened when Kate went home, during supper, to verify the sleep of their children: to have murdered the child, or to have delivered her to someone who took the girl for an unknown place.
Let me analyse the first hypothesis:
Kate kills Madeleine and decides to occult the corpse.
Kate was absent from “Tapas” for just a short period; she may be absented for just 10 or 15 minutes. Somebody in its perfect mind believes that, in such short period of time, she would have the smallest possibility to hide a body in such place that, in the immediate hours, Madeleine would not be discovered by popular, firemen, GNR, civilian protection guards, Maritime Policy and Judiciary Policy, that on her insistent order had immediately initiated the searches in the peripheral zone of the house?
It was not possible, would never be possible. Beyond that nobody would have such great certainty, that the hiding place would not be discovered.
Second hypothesis: Madeleine was taken of the apartment by an abetter. Very well, if such happened why should Kate give the alarm and risk to be not enough convincing “in her pain”?
She would calmly come back to the restaurant, affirm that the children slept calmly, and continue to supper. 20 minutes later, she would remember Gerry that it is his time to go and check if everything continued well with the 3 children, leaving to him the “sad discovery”. Gerry, returning to the restaurant, would express - genuinely - all its pain for such mysterious disappearance of Madeleine. Acting this way, Kate would give to its abetter an edge of comfortable time, which would allow the abductor to get some 30 kilometres away from Praia da Luz, before Gerry being able to give the alarm.
The crime would not be committed by the first one to give the alarm. To have a culprit, between both McCann, this cannot be Kate.
Opposing to the opinion that Judiciary Policy seems to have, Kate McCann leaves this first chapter, virtually freed of any crime. This doesn’t mean, however that Kate McCann, does not know what really happened to Madeleine.
I transcribe, finally, a short text from Bruno Sena Martins’s blog that express what I think on McCann case, and all this aberrant hysteria around this family. I personally, distrust that we have here a modern version of “Katarina Blum”:
“(…) This hypothesis is the one that more impresses me: the innocent parents, after seeing Madeleine leaving to an uncertain destination, and after having reunited all possible and imaginary efforts, see themselves abandoned by population, that now passes from solidarity tears to insults, they see themselves abandoned by the policy, that have changed the route of their inquiry, and consider now, primordially, the McCann as “arguídos”; they got themselves abandoned by public figures such as the Pope that readily demarcated from this case, they are abandoned by the press that portraits the McCann as manipulators monsters.
They gradually are being accused to have left Madeleine to die, hidden her, and, finally, to have mounted a solidarity circus as dissuasion manoeuvre (the notice of Sky News on DNA in the car, little matters it is false or not, but will cut the link between them and the solidarity of English nationalism). What can happen with those parents is without doubt, the scene that more distresses me. It is contradictory, but I almost desire that those parents are guilty just for not being innocents to suffer everything like this.”
The intervention of the Portuguese criminal policy.
I do not want to finish this first chapter without remembering the performance of Portuguese Judiciary Policy.
When affirming that, since the first moment, they had not discarded the hypothesis of Madeleine being death, and that “they had never totally embarked” in the abduction thesis, they then allow me to affirm, that they had committed some very serious technician errors: they had not immediately isolated the apartment, placing the McCann family in another lodging; they had not took blood samples of the twins during the immediate hours of their sister disappearance; they didn’t analyse (at least that it is not of public knowledge) and skill the first car rented by the McCann soon after Madeleine disappearance (a blue car); they had not proceeded to an reconstitution of the crime in the immediate days, while all the “Tapas 9” friends where in Portugal and their memories still fresh. Etc. etc. (about 8 important errors more).
But the most serious “technician error” committed by Judiciary Policy, as well as by the GNR, was to have initiated the inquiries and the searches soon after the McCann family have given the alarm: for all disappeared Portuguese children the searches only would be initiated 48 hours after disappearance. The case of the young Rui Pedro must now be remembered here.
I feel myself, for this last “technician error”, lowered and diminished in my rights of Portuguese citizen.
Surely that the main objective of this inquiry, will have to be finding Madeleine, everything else will come as addition, and will follow its natural order. It is a mistake to look for a culprit, before exactly knowing what type of crime effectively was committed in apartment 5A in Ocean Club, Praia da Luz.
Who abducted Madeleine McCann?
2nd Chapter:
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is NOT resulting of an occasional abductor. It was a thought act, methodically executed.
What happened in apartment 5A?
If it is truth that Madeleine was alive in the afternoon of day 3 of May, then she was neither murdered by her parents nor died in the apartment later. Any abductor, who inadvertently had deceased the little girl, obviously would also not take her. He would just abandon the place, or take Amelie. All the scene of death and occultation of the corpse, the detected smell by English dogs, etc., would only be reasonable, if death had occurred in the previous dawn. In this case, I do not have the smallest doubt in affirming that the McCann couple would be responsible for the crime.
I believe, however, that in what concerns the so famous English dogs, we could be giving exaggerated importance to the movements of their tail. Are those dogs that so infallible and the interpretation of its gestures so correct? According to specialists, the smell of a corpse (cadaverina) will start about three hours after death. I can not see when and in which moment, deceased Madeleine could be this minimum time in the apartment.
Kate was absent from “Tapas” for just a short period; she may be absented for just 10 or 15 minutes. Somebody in its perfect mind believes that, in such short period of time, she would have the smallest possibility to hide a body in such place that, in the immediate hours, Madeleine would not be discovered by popular, firemen, GNR, civilian protection guards, Maritime Policy and Judiciary Policy, that on her insistent order had immediately initiated the searches in the peripheral zone of the house?
It was not possible, would never be possible. Beyond that nobody would have such great certainty, that the hiding place would not be discovered.
Second hypothesis: Madeleine was taken of the apartment by an abetter. Very well, if such happened why should Kate give the alarm and risk to be not enough convincing “in her pain”?
She would calmly come back to the restaurant, affirm that the children slept calmly, and continue to supper. 20 minutes later, she would remember Gerry that it is his time to go and check if everything continued well with the 3 children, leaving to him the “sad discovery”. Gerry, returning to the restaurant, would express - genuinely - all its pain for such mysterious disappearance of Madeleine. Acting this way, Kate would give to its abetter an edge of comfortable time, which would allow the abductor to get some 30 kilometres away from Praia da Luz, before Gerry being able to give the alarm.
The crime would not be committed by the first one to give the alarm. To have a culprit, between both McCann, this cannot be Kate.
Opposing to the opinion that Judiciary Policy seems to have, Kate McCann leaves this first chapter, virtually freed of any crime. This doesn’t mean, however that Kate McCann, does not know what really happened to Madeleine.
I transcribe, finally, a short text from Bruno Sena Martins’s blog that express what I think on McCann case, and all this aberrant hysteria around this family. I personally, distrust that we have here a modern version of “Katarina Blum”:
“(…) This hypothesis is the one that more impresses me: the innocent parents, after seeing Madeleine leaving to an uncertain destination, and after having reunited all possible and imaginary efforts, see themselves abandoned by population, that now passes from solidarity tears to insults, they see themselves abandoned by the policy, that have changed the route of their inquiry, and consider now, primordially, the McCann as “arguídos”; they got themselves abandoned by public figures such as the Pope that readily demarcated from this case, they are abandoned by the press that portraits the McCann as manipulators monsters.
They gradually are being accused to have left Madeleine to die, hidden her, and, finally, to have mounted a solidarity circus as dissuasion manoeuvre (the notice of Sky News on DNA in the car, little matters it is false or not, but will cut the link between them and the solidarity of English nationalism). What can happen with those parents is without doubt, the scene that more distresses me. It is contradictory, but I almost desire that those parents are guilty just for not being innocents to suffer everything like this.”
The intervention of the Portuguese criminal policy.
I do not want to finish this first chapter without remembering the performance of Portuguese Judiciary Policy.
When affirming that, since the first moment, they had not discarded the hypothesis of Madeleine being death, and that “they had never totally embarked” in the abduction thesis, they then allow me to affirm, that they had committed some very serious technician errors: they had not immediately isolated the apartment, placing the McCann family in another lodging; they had not took blood samples of the twins during the immediate hours of their sister disappearance; they didn’t analyse (at least that it is not of public knowledge) and skill the first car rented by the McCann soon after Madeleine disappearance (a blue car); they had not proceeded to an reconstitution of the crime in the immediate days, while all the “Tapas 9” friends where in Portugal and their memories still fresh. Etc. etc. (about 8 important errors more).
But the most serious “technician error” committed by Judiciary Policy, as well as by the GNR, was to have initiated the inquiries and the searches soon after the McCann family have given the alarm: for all disappeared Portuguese children the searches only would be initiated 48 hours after disappearance. The case of the young Rui Pedro must now be remembered here.
I feel myself, for this last “technician error”, lowered and diminished in my rights of Portuguese citizen.
Surely that the main objective of this inquiry, will have to be finding Madeleine, everything else will come as addition, and will follow its natural order. It is a mistake to look for a culprit, before exactly knowing what type of crime effectively was committed in apartment 5A in Ocean Club, Praia da Luz.
Who abducted Madeleine McCann?
2nd Chapter:
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is NOT resulting of an occasional abductor. It was a thought act, methodically executed.
What happened in apartment 5A?
If it is truth that Madeleine was alive in the afternoon of day 3 of May, then she was neither murdered by her parents nor died in the apartment later. Any abductor, who inadvertently had deceased the little girl, obviously would also not take her. He would just abandon the place, or take Amelie. All the scene of death and occultation of the corpse, the detected smell by English dogs, etc., would only be reasonable, if death had occurred in the previous dawn. In this case, I do not have the smallest doubt in affirming that the McCann couple would be responsible for the crime.
I believe, however, that in what concerns the so famous English dogs, we could be giving exaggerated importance to the movements of their tail. Are those dogs that so infallible and the interpretation of its gestures so correct? According to specialists, the smell of a corpse (cadaverina) will start about three hours after death. I can not see when and in which moment, deceased Madeleine could be this minimum time in the apartment.
In what concerns the bad interpretation of the sniffer-dogs work, I will give two paradigmatic examples: recently, a former Judiciary Policy, Francisco Moita Flores, affirmed that Madeleine would be deceased and her body would have been carried, from the apartment until the beach, next to the church of Praia da Luz. He based his affirmation on the fact that the English sniffer-dogs have detected “cadaverina” in both two cited places.
This affirmation lake of scientific proof, since it is impossible to guarantee that both scents are from the same person, and also that such person was Madeleine.
Information from sniffer-dogs is insufficient to make such serious accusation.
Other, also affirmed that Madeleine is dead or kidnaped, and carried on arms, because the GNR’s dogs have detected, on the following day to the disappearance of the child, its track between the two cited places.
A child carried on arms, leaves in air its scent only per some minutes. Due to proper dynamics, the existence of movements caused by breezes, winds, and even simple movements of people and automobiles, the scent joins, move away and disappear. As the proper word indicates, the dogs had followed the track of Madeleine walking in the street. They have followed the track of the scent evidently left for its physical contact with the stones of the street. Scent that impregnated them and will remain asset on it for diverse time, consonant situations. The sniffer-dogs move on the track, with snout in the soil, not on air. What the dogs had followed were the track of a living child, walking on its proper foot.
And we can not even be able to know in which sense that walk was made. If it was from the apartment to the beach, or from the beach to the apartment.
If some thing this track of Madeleine proves, is that she was alive when she left that track. Necessarily the opposite of what is affirmed.
This affirmation lake of scientific proof, since it is impossible to guarantee that both scents are from the same person, and also that such person was Madeleine.
Information from sniffer-dogs is insufficient to make such serious accusation.
Other, also affirmed that Madeleine is dead or kidnaped, and carried on arms, because the GNR’s dogs have detected, on the following day to the disappearance of the child, its track between the two cited places.
A child carried on arms, leaves in air its scent only per some minutes. Due to proper dynamics, the existence of movements caused by breezes, winds, and even simple movements of people and automobiles, the scent joins, move away and disappear. As the proper word indicates, the dogs had followed the track of Madeleine walking in the street. They have followed the track of the scent evidently left for its physical contact with the stones of the street. Scent that impregnated them and will remain asset on it for diverse time, consonant situations. The sniffer-dogs move on the track, with snout in the soil, not on air. What the dogs had followed were the track of a living child, walking on its proper foot.
And we can not even be able to know in which sense that walk was made. If it was from the apartment to the beach, or from the beach to the apartment.
If some thing this track of Madeleine proves, is that she was alive when she left that track. Necessarily the opposite of what is affirmed.
Now, how many types of eventual abductors do we all know? I will analyze those different profiles in this chapter. Just, before I must take to consideration 3 important details:
1 - A resort will be, among all possible places, the less desirable to a predator committing a crime of this type. The criminal will be unaware of which are the measures of security, and monitoring, of the place, possible existence of guards; he will feel himself “closed” by the existence of walls and all type of prohibitions, beyond the inconvenient constant presence of customers and employees.
2 - An eventual abductor, in principle, would be unaware of the McCann couple peculiarity, of leaving their children abandoned in the apartment, without any protection, and most probably sedated. Certainly he would not say “I am going to abduct that small girl because her parents, in a wile, will go out all night with friends, and leave the kids alone at home…”
3 – We must not forget the large and appetizing reward. One million pounds offered to whom lead to the discovery of Madeleine. It must already have excited the cupidity of somebody, next to the abductor whom knew, or minimally distrusted, he has committed that crime.
If Madeleine is alive, its abductor, at this moment, may will be imagining a safe way “to lie down his hands” on the reward, without revealing his involvement in the abduction.
As the captivity of small Madeleine “is very hot”, it could only be perpetrated by a solitary criminal. Any another form, somebody, most probably, would already have denounced the crime aiming the million pounds reward. If the child was deceased, because she become a “product” impossible to commercialize, will happen the same as for a solitary criminal; if there where some more elements, to know the place where to find the body, certainly already it would have had treasons. The reward is too much tempting and would sharpen the cupidity of any lesser abetter.
This is the only case that I know where the parents have obtained to congregate such large reward. Generally, many of the abductions, happened in Portugal, are not only less divulged, as they do not deserve from our policies the attention devoted to this one.
Of the known abductions cases of children in Portugal, I do not know a single one, (personally I do not consider “Joana” a finished case) that has been solved by our criminal policies.
After consultation on the site findmadeleine, I did not obtain one important answer: does the reward is destined to whom discover Madeleine alive, or in case she is deceased, the reward will still be paid to who discover the body of the child? I think this a deliberate omission; one way to prevent that the child is definitely deceased.
One offer of such large reward, also have its perverse sides, even though next to the investigators of the Judiciary Policy. Perhaps I will come back to speak some more about this in next chapter. However the reward can be determinative in this mystery. I believe that it will be. Behind each movement around Madeleine, that million pounds are allays there, for the good and for all bad reasons. An abductor, who for example, keeps Madeleine in captivity, cannot risk the smallest incautiousness.
Any mandatory of the crime never will have a calmness moment.
There is a tremendous pressure around Madeleine, a pressure that can explode at any moment.
Let us then analyze the list of known abductors, they all are from our common knowledge and typical of past cases in different kidnappings:
1 – Paedophile-abductor.
2 - Abductor whose motivation is the attainment of a rescue.
3 - Abductor whom intends to recover a son not under its guardianship.
4 - Abductor who intends a child to be created as its own son.
5 - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic.
6 - Abductor integrated in a net for traffic of human organs.
7 - Abductor who executes a specific order.
8 - Abduction for revenge.
9 - Amateur abductor. Somebody that knows who will pay for a child, similar to Madeleine, and feels it’s possible to abduct that specific child.
10 - Vulgar thief whom, entering the apartment in search of values, opts to abduct the child.
1 - A resort will be, among all possible places, the less desirable to a predator committing a crime of this type. The criminal will be unaware of which are the measures of security, and monitoring, of the place, possible existence of guards; he will feel himself “closed” by the existence of walls and all type of prohibitions, beyond the inconvenient constant presence of customers and employees.
2 - An eventual abductor, in principle, would be unaware of the McCann couple peculiarity, of leaving their children abandoned in the apartment, without any protection, and most probably sedated. Certainly he would not say “I am going to abduct that small girl because her parents, in a wile, will go out all night with friends, and leave the kids alone at home…”
3 – We must not forget the large and appetizing reward. One million pounds offered to whom lead to the discovery of Madeleine. It must already have excited the cupidity of somebody, next to the abductor whom knew, or minimally distrusted, he has committed that crime.
If Madeleine is alive, its abductor, at this moment, may will be imagining a safe way “to lie down his hands” on the reward, without revealing his involvement in the abduction.
As the captivity of small Madeleine “is very hot”, it could only be perpetrated by a solitary criminal. Any another form, somebody, most probably, would already have denounced the crime aiming the million pounds reward. If the child was deceased, because she become a “product” impossible to commercialize, will happen the same as for a solitary criminal; if there where some more elements, to know the place where to find the body, certainly already it would have had treasons. The reward is too much tempting and would sharpen the cupidity of any lesser abetter.
This is the only case that I know where the parents have obtained to congregate such large reward. Generally, many of the abductions, happened in Portugal, are not only less divulged, as they do not deserve from our policies the attention devoted to this one.
Of the known abductions cases of children in Portugal, I do not know a single one, (personally I do not consider “Joana” a finished case) that has been solved by our criminal policies.
After consultation on the site findmadeleine, I did not obtain one important answer: does the reward is destined to whom discover Madeleine alive, or in case she is deceased, the reward will still be paid to who discover the body of the child? I think this a deliberate omission; one way to prevent that the child is definitely deceased.
One offer of such large reward, also have its perverse sides, even though next to the investigators of the Judiciary Policy. Perhaps I will come back to speak some more about this in next chapter. However the reward can be determinative in this mystery. I believe that it will be. Behind each movement around Madeleine, that million pounds are allays there, for the good and for all bad reasons. An abductor, who for example, keeps Madeleine in captivity, cannot risk the smallest incautiousness.
Any mandatory of the crime never will have a calmness moment.
There is a tremendous pressure around Madeleine, a pressure that can explode at any moment.
Let us then analyze the list of known abductors, they all are from our common knowledge and typical of past cases in different kidnappings:
1 – Paedophile-abductor.
2 - Abductor whose motivation is the attainment of a rescue.
3 - Abductor whom intends to recover a son not under its guardianship.
4 - Abductor who intends a child to be created as its own son.
5 - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic.
6 - Abductor integrated in a net for traffic of human organs.
7 - Abductor who executes a specific order.
8 - Abduction for revenge.
9 - Amateur abductor. Somebody that knows who will pay for a child, similar to Madeleine, and feels it’s possible to abduct that specific child.
10 - Vulgar thief whom, entering the apartment in search of values, opts to abduct the child.
.
The probabilities of the crime
I will try now, to typify each one of these abductors, giving to each one of them, in accordance with the probabilities to have executed the abduction of Madeleine McCann, a note that will vary between 0 and 10.
Let’s start with those with lower degrees of probability:
6 - Abductor integrated in a net for traffic of human organs.
Probability: 0
Unless Madeleine belongs to a group of people with some very rare biological quality, no abductor would risk the crime when, unhappily, as much the South America, Africa and Asia offer forced donors; young children deriving from disfavoured classes and incapable to stop the cruelty being practises against them.
Such abduction in Europe always puts into motion great police inquiries; the risk is extreme and useless.
3 - Abductor whom intends to recover a son not under its guardianship.
Probability: 0
Unless Gerry McCann is not the biological father of Madeleine, this type of abduction, obviously, is not applied.
4 - Abductor who intends a child to be created as its own son.
I will try now, to typify each one of these abductors, giving to each one of them, in accordance with the probabilities to have executed the abduction of Madeleine McCann, a note that will vary between 0 and 10.
Let’s start with those with lower degrees of probability:
6 - Abductor integrated in a net for traffic of human organs.
Probability: 0
Unless Madeleine belongs to a group of people with some very rare biological quality, no abductor would risk the crime when, unhappily, as much the South America, Africa and Asia offer forced donors; young children deriving from disfavoured classes and incapable to stop the cruelty being practises against them.
Such abduction in Europe always puts into motion great police inquiries; the risk is extreme and useless.
3 - Abductor whom intends to recover a son not under its guardianship.
Probability: 0
Unless Gerry McCann is not the biological father of Madeleine, this type of abduction, obviously, is not applied.
4 - Abductor who intends a child to be created as its own son.
Probability: 0 to 2
When somebody search to steal a child and “to adopt him” as if he was its legitimate soon, he will look for a younger child as much as possible. In Madeleine’s case, an abductor of this type would obviously have chosen their sister. For all the reasons: because Amelie would be more docile and would offer little resistance to the abduction, she would be easier to carry, she would much more quickly forget its previous relation with their biological parents.
Unless the abductor had any very specific setting in Madeleine, does not seem logical, for an abductor of this type, to opt for Madeleine, in detriment of Amelie.
2 - Abductor whose motivation is the attainment of a rescue.
Probability: 0 to 2
A criminal of this type, always starts by informing the parents that they should not make any noise or inform the policy. A note or a telephone call is made immediately informing them.
Nothing of this happened in this case. Unless the abductor has forgotten to bring a pen, I do not see any possibility to have been the motive for the abduction. It is also valid if purpose of the kidnapping was to blackmail the McCann.
The next category of abductors will be divided in different types, two of which I will analyze now:
5a - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic travelling by car.
Probability: 0 to 2
An occasional abductor in search of a child with determined characteristic similar to Madeleine, looking for a chance to consummate the act, to bring a kidnapped child somewhere in Europe or Africa, NEVER would choose Praia da Luz. This is in the opposing side of the border with Spain, in a long distance travel, to insure that Spanish territory could be reached, before being given the alarm. This type of abductor would confine its activity to the zones between Vila Real de Santo António and Faro, where, certainly, he would have the chance of crossing with thousand of other “Madeleines”.
Still there is the possibility of, the same abductor, being in Praia da Luz in the same moment as the McCann, next, or even, at the very same Ocean Club, with visual contact with the entrance to the McCann's apartment from a window in his own apartment. This is a real possibility and I will deal with more detail later, on cases with bigger probability.
5b - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic travelling in a recreation boat.
Probability: 0 the 2
What is said above is applied equally for this type of abductor. Equally he will have to cover a bigger distance to reach Africa or Spain; equally he would have preferred a marina closer to Spain. With one aggravation: any boat that left a marina in Portugal, has to communicate to the harbour, his destination and the number of people who lead on board (even being easily to lie on the number of passengers). Moreover the service of coast tracing, located in the top of Monchique, knows perfectly which boats are sailing, at any time, in the Algarvian seas.
The only apparent advantage of a recreation boat is to possess a cabin where easily a child can be temporarily hid.
It would have however, in relation to its above “colleague with a car”, a big disadvantage: it would not be housed close to the Ocean Club, and with visual contact with the entrance of McCann’s apartment, since that by a matter of principle; he would sleep in the boat.
But… if the boat did not have a cabin? Then also he could not make long distance trips, and the boat was no good to hide the children.
Either the abductor leaves Lagos in that very same night (act that would raise suspicion, and his boat would later be carefully searched), or he waits for the following day to leave the port, during normal movement, subjecting, in this case, to be tagged in the routine operation by Maritime Policy that certainly, after the alarm of Madeleine’s disappearance, has been raised.
The marina of Lagos is only some miles closer… if the destination is the north of Europe.
I am certain that this possibility, (of a recreation boat carrying Madeleine), will have been widely analyzed by Judiciary Policy.
Unless, as in the previous type, the abductor were in a vacations period and used it to advantage the unexpected chance, hypothesis that I will treat detailed later.
Also the remote possibility of an organized “gang” acting in Iberian Peninsula, I do not have any knowledge of abduction cases not resolved, happened recently in the two countries, which could justify such swaggerer.
Moreover these gangs would choose preferential children deriving of lower classes, with weak possibilities to cause abnormal media apparatus.
When somebody search to steal a child and “to adopt him” as if he was its legitimate soon, he will look for a younger child as much as possible. In Madeleine’s case, an abductor of this type would obviously have chosen their sister. For all the reasons: because Amelie would be more docile and would offer little resistance to the abduction, she would be easier to carry, she would much more quickly forget its previous relation with their biological parents.
Unless the abductor had any very specific setting in Madeleine, does not seem logical, for an abductor of this type, to opt for Madeleine, in detriment of Amelie.
2 - Abductor whose motivation is the attainment of a rescue.
Probability: 0 to 2
A criminal of this type, always starts by informing the parents that they should not make any noise or inform the policy. A note or a telephone call is made immediately informing them.
Nothing of this happened in this case. Unless the abductor has forgotten to bring a pen, I do not see any possibility to have been the motive for the abduction. It is also valid if purpose of the kidnapping was to blackmail the McCann.
The next category of abductors will be divided in different types, two of which I will analyze now:
5a - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic travelling by car.
Probability: 0 to 2
An occasional abductor in search of a child with determined characteristic similar to Madeleine, looking for a chance to consummate the act, to bring a kidnapped child somewhere in Europe or Africa, NEVER would choose Praia da Luz. This is in the opposing side of the border with Spain, in a long distance travel, to insure that Spanish territory could be reached, before being given the alarm. This type of abductor would confine its activity to the zones between Vila Real de Santo António and Faro, where, certainly, he would have the chance of crossing with thousand of other “Madeleines”.
Still there is the possibility of, the same abductor, being in Praia da Luz in the same moment as the McCann, next, or even, at the very same Ocean Club, with visual contact with the entrance to the McCann's apartment from a window in his own apartment. This is a real possibility and I will deal with more detail later, on cases with bigger probability.
5b - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic travelling in a recreation boat.
Probability: 0 the 2
What is said above is applied equally for this type of abductor. Equally he will have to cover a bigger distance to reach Africa or Spain; equally he would have preferred a marina closer to Spain. With one aggravation: any boat that left a marina in Portugal, has to communicate to the harbour, his destination and the number of people who lead on board (even being easily to lie on the number of passengers). Moreover the service of coast tracing, located in the top of Monchique, knows perfectly which boats are sailing, at any time, in the Algarvian seas.
The only apparent advantage of a recreation boat is to possess a cabin where easily a child can be temporarily hid.
It would have however, in relation to its above “colleague with a car”, a big disadvantage: it would not be housed close to the Ocean Club, and with visual contact with the entrance of McCann’s apartment, since that by a matter of principle; he would sleep in the boat.
But… if the boat did not have a cabin? Then also he could not make long distance trips, and the boat was no good to hide the children.
Either the abductor leaves Lagos in that very same night (act that would raise suspicion, and his boat would later be carefully searched), or he waits for the following day to leave the port, during normal movement, subjecting, in this case, to be tagged in the routine operation by Maritime Policy that certainly, after the alarm of Madeleine’s disappearance, has been raised.
The marina of Lagos is only some miles closer… if the destination is the north of Europe.
I am certain that this possibility, (of a recreation boat carrying Madeleine), will have been widely analyzed by Judiciary Policy.
Unless, as in the previous type, the abductor were in a vacations period and used it to advantage the unexpected chance, hypothesis that I will treat detailed later.
Also the remote possibility of an organized “gang” acting in Iberian Peninsula, I do not have any knowledge of abduction cases not resolved, happened recently in the two countries, which could justify such swaggerer.
Moreover these gangs would choose preferential children deriving of lower classes, with weak possibilities to cause abnormal media apparatus.
10 - Vulgar thief whom, entering the apartment in search of values, opts to abduct the child.
Probability: 0 to 3
The Ocean Club, as many other resorts in Algarve, is under diverse robberies, throughout the summer period. Small thieves looking for portable computers, cameras, watches… could be it the case of McCann’s apartment.
Although none valuable object seems to have been stolen from their apartment.
Abducting a child is a serious crime, and receivers of this type of “merchandise” are not easily accessible; these small thieves hardly could, not only have access to one of these receivers, as to possess knowledge and means to hold a child in captivity until its delivery.
Just after the howl, that immediately was generated around Madeleine, certainly they would have in their hands a “no-merchantable product”, for what they would just release the child alive in one of the immediate days.
Those small thief knows the place where they act very well, and they knows how to fool the diverse security measures, for what they would be much more successful that an occasional abductor, in invading McCann’s apartment.
9 - Amateur abductor. Somebody that knows who will pay for a child, similar to Madeleine, and feels it’s possible to abduct that specific child.
Probability: 0 to 3
What I said for the previous example is equally valid for this type of abductor. The “noise” that the McCann had immediately provoked and the vast international spreading of Madeleine’s picture, turns that any eventual receiver wouldn’t accept to receive Madeleine.
The abductor would immediately look for to get rid of the child alive somewhere.
This type of abductor normally configures somebody that work in place, or very next to a maintenance, security or cleaning employee, having much more possibilities of success in invading a chosen apartment.
Again, in the next example, I will have to divide the abductor in two different categories.
1a – Paedophile-abductor. Occasionally feels attraction for a child and practises opportunity abduction.
Probability: 0 to 3
The “modus-operandis”, common of most paedophiles, is known. They start watching every movements of the child and its companions; they captivate, whenever it is possible, the victim; they offer dainties, etc.
They wait for the right moment for the assault.
Given the evident mental riot, they do not prepare the escape with great length, and they are not too much worried about details, to delude possible misfortunes. They are limited to use any little advantage and chances, when they appears, and quickly direct the victim for captivity, normally in they proper house. They trust a little in that luck that protects the hallucinated persons.
A paedophile (or a pair, or a lesbian, or a couple of paedophiles, because it exists too) would not risk the necessary hours of monitoring, next to the house of the McCann, to apprehend the process - very proper - to lie down the children, and go supper with friends, leaving the 3 young kids on their own.
He would need, at least, during the previous day to have followed the McCann to the apartment. To be sure, until they left, that nobody entered however to take care neither of the children, nor they had been carried to the apartments of one of their friends, to sleep in the company of the others babies.
He would also have to wait and see what would be followed, and how would be the interval, between each inspection, that the parents made to the children.
But much more important: why would the paedophile initiate this type of monitoring if, in principle, nobody would leave the children abandoned in the apartment?
A solitary adult for many hours, always in the same place, would have been certainly noticed.
(May, at Praia da Luz, still of little movement, and would be easily noticeable such person, close to tourist apartments)
Finally, he would have to discover a way to invade the apartment, neither without noise nor to be suspicious, without any certainty that some window would be half-opened and accessible. (Apparently, front door was only “in the latch”, but this does not mean it could be opened without a key or burglary). The tests held by Judiciary Policy to the blinds of the children’s room, concluded that “these have not any signal of burglary, and would be open by the interior of the apartment”.
Given the localization of the children’s room, almost to the level of the stroll, they are of easy access; those windows are facing a small car parking, much little illuminated, and with very little movement, this WOULD BE THE LAST WINDOW OF THE APARTMENT to be left open. Not properly with fear that an intruder abducted the children, but because it would be the easiest way to enter, and pick up personal objects. There is not any better access to the house that this window. I do not believe that the McCann where so extremely distracted. Moreover, May was not of so intense heat that would justify such imprudence.
Probability: 0 to 3
The Ocean Club, as many other resorts in Algarve, is under diverse robberies, throughout the summer period. Small thieves looking for portable computers, cameras, watches… could be it the case of McCann’s apartment.
Although none valuable object seems to have been stolen from their apartment.
Abducting a child is a serious crime, and receivers of this type of “merchandise” are not easily accessible; these small thieves hardly could, not only have access to one of these receivers, as to possess knowledge and means to hold a child in captivity until its delivery.
Just after the howl, that immediately was generated around Madeleine, certainly they would have in their hands a “no-merchantable product”, for what they would just release the child alive in one of the immediate days.
Those small thief knows the place where they act very well, and they knows how to fool the diverse security measures, for what they would be much more successful that an occasional abductor, in invading McCann’s apartment.
9 - Amateur abductor. Somebody that knows who will pay for a child, similar to Madeleine, and feels it’s possible to abduct that specific child.
Probability: 0 to 3
What I said for the previous example is equally valid for this type of abductor. The “noise” that the McCann had immediately provoked and the vast international spreading of Madeleine’s picture, turns that any eventual receiver wouldn’t accept to receive Madeleine.
The abductor would immediately look for to get rid of the child alive somewhere.
This type of abductor normally configures somebody that work in place, or very next to a maintenance, security or cleaning employee, having much more possibilities of success in invading a chosen apartment.
Again, in the next example, I will have to divide the abductor in two different categories.
1a – Paedophile-abductor. Occasionally feels attraction for a child and practises opportunity abduction.
Probability: 0 to 3
The “modus-operandis”, common of most paedophiles, is known. They start watching every movements of the child and its companions; they captivate, whenever it is possible, the victim; they offer dainties, etc.
They wait for the right moment for the assault.
Given the evident mental riot, they do not prepare the escape with great length, and they are not too much worried about details, to delude possible misfortunes. They are limited to use any little advantage and chances, when they appears, and quickly direct the victim for captivity, normally in they proper house. They trust a little in that luck that protects the hallucinated persons.
A paedophile (or a pair, or a lesbian, or a couple of paedophiles, because it exists too) would not risk the necessary hours of monitoring, next to the house of the McCann, to apprehend the process - very proper - to lie down the children, and go supper with friends, leaving the 3 young kids on their own.
He would need, at least, during the previous day to have followed the McCann to the apartment. To be sure, until they left, that nobody entered however to take care neither of the children, nor they had been carried to the apartments of one of their friends, to sleep in the company of the others babies.
He would also have to wait and see what would be followed, and how would be the interval, between each inspection, that the parents made to the children.
But much more important: why would the paedophile initiate this type of monitoring if, in principle, nobody would leave the children abandoned in the apartment?
A solitary adult for many hours, always in the same place, would have been certainly noticed.
(May, at Praia da Luz, still of little movement, and would be easily noticeable such person, close to tourist apartments)
Finally, he would have to discover a way to invade the apartment, neither without noise nor to be suspicious, without any certainty that some window would be half-opened and accessible. (Apparently, front door was only “in the latch”, but this does not mean it could be opened without a key or burglary). The tests held by Judiciary Policy to the blinds of the children’s room, concluded that “these have not any signal of burglary, and would be open by the interior of the apartment”.
Given the localization of the children’s room, almost to the level of the stroll, they are of easy access; those windows are facing a small car parking, much little illuminated, and with very little movement, this WOULD BE THE LAST WINDOW OF THE APARTMENT to be left open. Not properly with fear that an intruder abducted the children, but because it would be the easiest way to enter, and pick up personal objects. There is not any better access to the house that this window. I do not believe that the McCann where so extremely distracted. Moreover, May was not of so intense heat that would justify such imprudence.
It seems that, in this matter, some press have made confusion between burglarizing the blinds and burglarizing the window. The PJ will not have detected signals of burglary on the window, not in the blind.
Still about this window, I want to remember that, of all the windows in this apartment, this one would be the last that the kidnaper would choose, given directly to the children’s room, any noise of burglary, would take the children to cry out scared, since it is supposed they where there slept without sedatives. Moreover, it could be installed in this room a baby listening system, and any suspicious noise could alert the parents, who were at two minutes distance walking.
I still disagree that this type of blinds only can be opened from inside. They open VERY easily from outside; (they even have two small lateral handles, to help to hoist them); and this opening would not have obligatorily to leave any vestige. More: nor it would have to leave any vestiges!
Finally, coming back to our abductor, he still has to carry the child to his car or apartment, (supposedly would have to be prepared to chloroforming the girl, since he probably had not knowledge of the - possible - habit of the parents sedating the children); to carry a child (in pyjamas) without being seen, nor to raise suspicion, is possible but it is not easy.
To make some hundreds or thousand of kilometres with a child in pyjamas in the luggage of a car is a risk that after the fast alert of abduction would have strong possibilities to go wrong.
One paedophile that occasionally sighted a child, would only have strong success probabilities, if he was housed next, or in the very same Ocean Club, and with visual contact with the forecourt of the entrance of McCann’s apartment. This is a real possibility and also will be treated later with more detail, in the cases of bigger probability.
The strongest possibilities
It only remains to analyze two types of abduction:
7 - Abductor who executes a specific order.
8 - Abduction for revenge.
After analyzed these two last examples, I will pass all types of abductors by a new “bolter”. Then we will get some surprises! We will see that the possible hypotheses are not thus much as it seems, and in the end, we can summarize two only “candidates”!
Wait and see.
Before passing to the “weight-heavy one” however, lacks to analyze two types of abductors that remain open:
5 - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic, in vacation and lodged in the Ocean Club or its immediacy.
Probability: 5 to 7
A criminal is always intent to any chance. In some way, from the window of its apartment, he understood that Madeleine’s family, lodged in the apartment visible in front of him, had a peculiar behaviour: they left for supper every night, leaving the children’s alone in the apartment. It would not be difficult to understand this, should be enough spent some hours on guard at the window. As it will not have been difficult to him, to perceive the standard behaviour of the parents, and their occasional returns to watch the children’s sleep. He had some days to establish a standard behaviour of the parents.
Calmly he sketches an abduction plan. He does not have haste.
A method to the invasion of the McCann’s apartment, (he will possibly have been close to the apartment and tested the windows and door before consummating the abduction), the escape plan, the contacts with the receivers of the girl, and the place where she would be delivered…
It does not seem difficult to be successful in this operation.
He will start, during the day, for cleaning any vestiges on its own apartment, and placing all its belongings in the car, preparing the space where the child will be hidden.
Let us imagine then our abductor already with the girl in its arms, conveniently sedated (independently of the parents previously having or not sedated Madeleine) and walking directing itself to his car, which certainly would be parked in a chosen place, so much accessible as possible. He would place the child in the back bank (would not risk to place it in the luggage immediately, if seen by somebody, such act would be considered odd) and would break for a long trip, just stopping somewhere to place the girl in its definitive hiding place.
All simple and efficient, without being nervous or precipitated.
Then, what is the reason for only giving him note 5 to 7?
Because the investigators of the Judiciary Policy, routinely, would start looking the register of all guests, in the neighbourhood apartments of Ocean Club, whom could have absented from Praia da Luz in the night of the crime. It seems they will have found nothing suspicious.
Still, due to the almost instantaneous media alert and the massive spreading of the child’s photos, will have fond the receiver of the girl before the abductor.
The destination of the child would be most probably the Central European market (Belgium, Germany, France or Holland) or North of Africa. In any of the cases it will be a car trip with inevitable stopping for rest. Let us not forget that, he will have to travel most of the first night, to gain distance from the crime scene.
The receiver of the girl, very probably, will immediately refuse a “hot and so dangerous merchandise“, capable so currishly, of motivate the Medias of whole world.
Madeleine would be abandoned, very probably deceased, and its corpse already would have all the probabilities to have been found.
Still about this window, I want to remember that, of all the windows in this apartment, this one would be the last that the kidnaper would choose, given directly to the children’s room, any noise of burglary, would take the children to cry out scared, since it is supposed they where there slept without sedatives. Moreover, it could be installed in this room a baby listening system, and any suspicious noise could alert the parents, who were at two minutes distance walking.
I still disagree that this type of blinds only can be opened from inside. They open VERY easily from outside; (they even have two small lateral handles, to help to hoist them); and this opening would not have obligatorily to leave any vestige. More: nor it would have to leave any vestiges!
Finally, coming back to our abductor, he still has to carry the child to his car or apartment, (supposedly would have to be prepared to chloroforming the girl, since he probably had not knowledge of the - possible - habit of the parents sedating the children); to carry a child (in pyjamas) without being seen, nor to raise suspicion, is possible but it is not easy.
To make some hundreds or thousand of kilometres with a child in pyjamas in the luggage of a car is a risk that after the fast alert of abduction would have strong possibilities to go wrong.
One paedophile that occasionally sighted a child, would only have strong success probabilities, if he was housed next, or in the very same Ocean Club, and with visual contact with the forecourt of the entrance of McCann’s apartment. This is a real possibility and also will be treated later with more detail, in the cases of bigger probability.
The strongest possibilities
It only remains to analyze two types of abduction:
7 - Abductor who executes a specific order.
8 - Abduction for revenge.
After analyzed these two last examples, I will pass all types of abductors by a new “bolter”. Then we will get some surprises! We will see that the possible hypotheses are not thus much as it seems, and in the end, we can summarize two only “candidates”!
Wait and see.
Before passing to the “weight-heavy one” however, lacks to analyze two types of abductors that remain open:
5 - Abductor integrated in a paedophile net of children’s traffic, in vacation and lodged in the Ocean Club or its immediacy.
Probability: 5 to 7
A criminal is always intent to any chance. In some way, from the window of its apartment, he understood that Madeleine’s family, lodged in the apartment visible in front of him, had a peculiar behaviour: they left for supper every night, leaving the children’s alone in the apartment. It would not be difficult to understand this, should be enough spent some hours on guard at the window. As it will not have been difficult to him, to perceive the standard behaviour of the parents, and their occasional returns to watch the children’s sleep. He had some days to establish a standard behaviour of the parents.
Calmly he sketches an abduction plan. He does not have haste.
A method to the invasion of the McCann’s apartment, (he will possibly have been close to the apartment and tested the windows and door before consummating the abduction), the escape plan, the contacts with the receivers of the girl, and the place where she would be delivered…
It does not seem difficult to be successful in this operation.
He will start, during the day, for cleaning any vestiges on its own apartment, and placing all its belongings in the car, preparing the space where the child will be hidden.
Let us imagine then our abductor already with the girl in its arms, conveniently sedated (independently of the parents previously having or not sedated Madeleine) and walking directing itself to his car, which certainly would be parked in a chosen place, so much accessible as possible. He would place the child in the back bank (would not risk to place it in the luggage immediately, if seen by somebody, such act would be considered odd) and would break for a long trip, just stopping somewhere to place the girl in its definitive hiding place.
All simple and efficient, without being nervous or precipitated.
Then, what is the reason for only giving him note 5 to 7?
Because the investigators of the Judiciary Policy, routinely, would start looking the register of all guests, in the neighbourhood apartments of Ocean Club, whom could have absented from Praia da Luz in the night of the crime. It seems they will have found nothing suspicious.
Still, due to the almost instantaneous media alert and the massive spreading of the child’s photos, will have fond the receiver of the girl before the abductor.
The destination of the child would be most probably the Central European market (Belgium, Germany, France or Holland) or North of Africa. In any of the cases it will be a car trip with inevitable stopping for rest. Let us not forget that, he will have to travel most of the first night, to gain distance from the crime scene.
The receiver of the girl, very probably, will immediately refuse a “hot and so dangerous merchandise“, capable so currishly, of motivate the Medias of whole world.
Madeleine would be abandoned, very probably deceased, and its corpse already would have all the probabilities to have been found.
But… could it not be two individuals, both doing the conduction of the vehicle? It could; even so a criminal in vacation with another criminal seems to me a little odd; if he was in vacations with, say, a girl friend, I do not believe he would even dare the blow. In the case of a pair of criminals, however, they would gain many hours in the trip.
It is my opinion that this type of criminal acts alone. It is a so hideous crime - to sell a children - that hardly it will allow the formation of so amoral pairs.
They would still obtain to transact Madeleine? God only knows…
Anyway, if the Judiciary Policy did not investigate deeply the customers of all apartments that, close or far, had direct vision to the forecourt of entrance of the McCann’s apartment, still they are in time to do so…
The same criminal, could still be in the immediacy of the Ocean Club, not in an apartment but in an auto caravan (or one mini-van), parked any place, in the neighbourhoods of the McCann’s apartment from where he could watch all the entrances and exits movements of the couple.
This possibility, which cannot be discarded and only the investigators will be able to have some track. Certainly that this will have called the attention of the residents and they would exactly have said it to the policy, when they where inquiring residents, if they observed an auto caravan parked more than 24 hours in the same local, (minimum time to perceive McCann’s movements).
By norm, auto caravans use to park next to the coastline and for periods of few hours, or for night sleep. They “do not camp” in the car parking of residential zones.
Anyway that possible auto caravan or van, could only be parked, (to be able to observe correctly the movements in the apartment), in ONE only place, in the proper car parking facing the apartments used by the Judiciary Policy in Praia da Luz. Even so the monitoring could not be made from the interior of the vehicle. The car parking next to McCann’s apartment would not feet requirements.
It will be able still to oppose that the previously analyzed abductor, had its boat in the port of Lagos, and rented one of these apartments (with direct view over entrance of the McCann’s apartment), either because the cabin of his boat did not offer conditions do sleep in, either because a presumable girl friend or a friend, would inhabit there. It is possible. For the first hypothesis, of having rented for himself an apartment, close to the Ocean Club and, after the abduction, hidden the child in the boat, we comes back to the same story: if it took some time to reach the destination point by car, then, by boat this time would be significantly bigger. Again the question of all the advertising, around the child, would hinder its commercialization. Again the same nuisance to possess an “unassailable product” and, in this situation, the body would have been released in the sea, Madeleine will never be found.
How much to the second possibility, one abductor being lodged in the apartment of a girl friend or a friend: would it not be strange, for a man passing hours in front of a window? Would not later the companion make an evident association? For reasons of pure humanity, facing an act that any one will consider repulsive, (or aiming the reward), she would not have already communicated that strange behaviour to the policy?
Finally, again about the behaviour of the abductor at the moment of the abduction, it is possible to oppose that, in first moments, he would limit to hide the child in the apartment, and only would leave for is destination in one of the immediate days when everything was calmer.
Well, this would be a great luck for Madeleine McCann. If he did not leave immediately, certainly would not risk making it in the following days. He just had to take a look in the television and see the apparatus of policies movements, for not trying the smallest movement.
Per each day he waited, more difficult it would be then to sell such already less valuable merchandise.
Either he still there in the apartment with the child in captivity, or long ago he got rid of Madeleine and left Praia da Luz alone.
I must say that I believe as much in the existence of organized nets of abductors for paedophiles abuse, as much as I believe in the existence of green Venusians.
Legendary tales of sultans and maharajahs, who pay fortunes for children, is plus a history that Sherazade left for counting.
Obviously, exists organized nets, which explore children for sexual purposes.
Poor children, who for some money allow being filmed and photographed; they do not need to appeal to abduction.
I do not have knowledge of any existing movie, where one of the protagonists is an abducted child, although the diverse criminal policies, in the whole world, confiscate systematically tons of paedophile material, and never have joined any movie, where a previously kidnapped child participates.
All the resolved cases of children abduction had been perpetrated by isolated individuals, which had never been worried in commercializing their criminal activities, selling images of their victim.
The criminal who produces infantile pornography, obviously is part of an organized group: he need a cameraman who film the practised acts, an actor to perform with the children, who brides them, who distributes the movies in the ample world-wide market of perverts…
These nets do not need to appeal to abduction. There are thousand of children in the whole world that, unhappily, are ready to prostitute themselves, in exchange for some Euros.
It is my opinion that this type of criminal acts alone. It is a so hideous crime - to sell a children - that hardly it will allow the formation of so amoral pairs.
They would still obtain to transact Madeleine? God only knows…
Anyway, if the Judiciary Policy did not investigate deeply the customers of all apartments that, close or far, had direct vision to the forecourt of entrance of the McCann’s apartment, still they are in time to do so…
The same criminal, could still be in the immediacy of the Ocean Club, not in an apartment but in an auto caravan (or one mini-van), parked any place, in the neighbourhoods of the McCann’s apartment from where he could watch all the entrances and exits movements of the couple.
This possibility, which cannot be discarded and only the investigators will be able to have some track. Certainly that this will have called the attention of the residents and they would exactly have said it to the policy, when they where inquiring residents, if they observed an auto caravan parked more than 24 hours in the same local, (minimum time to perceive McCann’s movements).
By norm, auto caravans use to park next to the coastline and for periods of few hours, or for night sleep. They “do not camp” in the car parking of residential zones.
Anyway that possible auto caravan or van, could only be parked, (to be able to observe correctly the movements in the apartment), in ONE only place, in the proper car parking facing the apartments used by the Judiciary Policy in Praia da Luz. Even so the monitoring could not be made from the interior of the vehicle. The car parking next to McCann’s apartment would not feet requirements.
It will be able still to oppose that the previously analyzed abductor, had its boat in the port of Lagos, and rented one of these apartments (with direct view over entrance of the McCann’s apartment), either because the cabin of his boat did not offer conditions do sleep in, either because a presumable girl friend or a friend, would inhabit there. It is possible. For the first hypothesis, of having rented for himself an apartment, close to the Ocean Club and, after the abduction, hidden the child in the boat, we comes back to the same story: if it took some time to reach the destination point by car, then, by boat this time would be significantly bigger. Again the question of all the advertising, around the child, would hinder its commercialization. Again the same nuisance to possess an “unassailable product” and, in this situation, the body would have been released in the sea, Madeleine will never be found.
How much to the second possibility, one abductor being lodged in the apartment of a girl friend or a friend: would it not be strange, for a man passing hours in front of a window? Would not later the companion make an evident association? For reasons of pure humanity, facing an act that any one will consider repulsive, (or aiming the reward), she would not have already communicated that strange behaviour to the policy?
Finally, again about the behaviour of the abductor at the moment of the abduction, it is possible to oppose that, in first moments, he would limit to hide the child in the apartment, and only would leave for is destination in one of the immediate days when everything was calmer.
Well, this would be a great luck for Madeleine McCann. If he did not leave immediately, certainly would not risk making it in the following days. He just had to take a look in the television and see the apparatus of policies movements, for not trying the smallest movement.
Per each day he waited, more difficult it would be then to sell such already less valuable merchandise.
Either he still there in the apartment with the child in captivity, or long ago he got rid of Madeleine and left Praia da Luz alone.
I must say that I believe as much in the existence of organized nets of abductors for paedophiles abuse, as much as I believe in the existence of green Venusians.
Legendary tales of sultans and maharajahs, who pay fortunes for children, is plus a history that Sherazade left for counting.
Obviously, exists organized nets, which explore children for sexual purposes.
Poor children, who for some money allow being filmed and photographed; they do not need to appeal to abduction.
I do not have knowledge of any existing movie, where one of the protagonists is an abducted child, although the diverse criminal policies, in the whole world, confiscate systematically tons of paedophile material, and never have joined any movie, where a previously kidnapped child participates.
All the resolved cases of children abduction had been perpetrated by isolated individuals, which had never been worried in commercializing their criminal activities, selling images of their victim.
The criminal who produces infantile pornography, obviously is part of an organized group: he need a cameraman who film the practised acts, an actor to perform with the children, who brides them, who distributes the movies in the ample world-wide market of perverts…
These nets do not need to appeal to abduction. There are thousand of children in the whole world that, unhappily, are ready to prostitute themselves, in exchange for some Euros.
1a - Abductor who feels attraction for a child, and then practises a gliding abduction, since he sights the forecourt of McCann’s apartment, from his own apartment.
Probability: 7 to 10
We are now in the great probabilities.
Remember a little of what I have said above on paedophile chance:
“A paedophile would not risk the necessary hours of monitoring, next to the house of the McCann, to apprehend the process - very proper - to lie down the children, and go supper with friends, leaving the 3 young kids on their own.
Probability: 7 to 10
We are now in the great probabilities.
Remember a little of what I have said above on paedophile chance:
“A paedophile would not risk the necessary hours of monitoring, next to the house of the McCann, to apprehend the process - very proper - to lie down the children, and go supper with friends, leaving the 3 young kids on their own.
He would need, at least, during the previous day to have followed the McCann to the apartment. To be sure, until they left, that nobody entered however to take care neither of the children, nor they had been carried to the apartments of one of their friends, to sleep in the company of the others babies.He would also have to wait and see what would be followed, and how would be the interval, between each inspection, that the parents made to the children.”
It was necessary to understand the behaviour and the routines of the McCann. None would dare child abduction without some previous knowledge of the parents habits, (the child disappeared some days after the family having fond Praia da Luz), and the abductor inevitably studied the gone and the comings of the family. Thus he would only risk entering in the apartment without the certainty that it would leave unpunished with a child in their arms.
This monitoring would have giving him some answers:
1º that would not be inside the apartment any adult that could give the alarm, recognizes him, or describes him later.
2º that he would found the aimed child, in fact, sleeping in that apartment and not in another one. (There was always the possibility of Madeleine be finding to sleep together with other children, of any one of the friends, in another apartment).
3º that he would have an interval of minimum time, to allowed him neither to abandon the immediacy without being seen, nor to cross with nobody of the nine friends group.
4º that he had means to enter in the apartment, quickly and without making racket in burglaries, which could awake the children taking them to cry out. (He would not lose as much time, mounting a project of invasion and abduction, if he did not have a safe form to enter the apartment. Certainly he would not be dependent of the remote possibility of one window to be open, for allowing him enter in).
5º would have to be prepared to quickly sedate Madeleine and, eventually, one of the twins, who woke up with his presence.
6º He had to be minimally prepared with a safe place to carry the child, and the escape way to reach this shelter.
It was necessary to understand the behaviour and the routines of the McCann. None would dare child abduction without some previous knowledge of the parents habits, (the child disappeared some days after the family having fond Praia da Luz), and the abductor inevitably studied the gone and the comings of the family. Thus he would only risk entering in the apartment without the certainty that it would leave unpunished with a child in their arms.
This monitoring would have giving him some answers:
1º that would not be inside the apartment any adult that could give the alarm, recognizes him, or describes him later.
2º that he would found the aimed child, in fact, sleeping in that apartment and not in another one. (There was always the possibility of Madeleine be finding to sleep together with other children, of any one of the friends, in another apartment).
3º that he would have an interval of minimum time, to allowed him neither to abandon the immediacy without being seen, nor to cross with nobody of the nine friends group.
4º that he had means to enter in the apartment, quickly and without making racket in burglaries, which could awake the children taking them to cry out. (He would not lose as much time, mounting a project of invasion and abduction, if he did not have a safe form to enter the apartment. Certainly he would not be dependent of the remote possibility of one window to be open, for allowing him enter in).
5º would have to be prepared to quickly sedate Madeleine and, eventually, one of the twins, who woke up with his presence.
6º He had to be minimally prepared with a safe place to carry the child, and the escape way to reach this shelter.
Analysing the known cases of paedophiles abductors, I did not find, one case alone, where the abduction was made at a considerable distance of the captivity place. This paedophile must inhabit Portugal, (or maybe Spain in a short distance to the border). I do not believe that he risked the abduction if his shelter was far in central Europe.
All this work of monitoring requires some patience, and few hours during more than what one day. He could not just stay there in the neighbourhoods on foot or in a car. He would be found strange, and later somebody would remember him.
This monitoring can only have been carried through some hidden place, or the window of an apartment, that allowed him to apprehend clearly the gone and comings of the McCann…
I have come to emphasize a detail that absolutely seems obvious to me: the abductor possess a copy of the keys from McCann’s apartment.
Nobody prepares a blow of this dimension, without quiet having the absolute certainty that, in the end, he obtains to enter the apartment, without being dependent of a hypothetical window or badly closed door.
To be thus, and our criminal possess a copy of the keys of the apartment (or a hypothetical key-master), he have to:
1 - There have been housed recently.
2 - To be connected with an employee of Ocean Club, or the rental agency.
3 - To have been (or to still be), employee of the resort.
According to coincident versions in diverse Newspapers, the Ocean Club would have been targeted of varied assaults in the months that had preceded the arrival of the McCann.
The Times, for example, published the testimony of a British tourist who, in February of this year, spends vacation in the Ocean Club, in an apartment located 100 meters from the one where Maddie disappeared. Ian Robertson affirms that his apartment was assaulted during is permanence, having been stolen two mobile phones, a video camera and some money. Robertson discloses, despite the police authorities had not detected any signal of burglary, and relate that when he was to present his complains to the policy, he found more two people of the very same resort to denounce identical situations. Later, one lady who was housed there counted that her apartment also had been assaulted.
I know the internal functioning of this type of resorts, and I know that when happens frequently assaults of this type, these must be due to the existence of illegally duplicates keys.
The first measure generally held up, is to change the lock between different apartments.
The maintenance services, normally, make use of diverse supplemental locks and proceed to the change, whenever a guest finishes its stay.
There is also some organized gangs; they install themselves in resorts of this type, for minimum periods, proceed to the duplication of the keys, rent another apartment next, for another new minimum period, and wait calmly that the new occupants, of that one where they had been previously lodged, move away to proceed to a “systematic cleanness”. Successively they assault the apartments that they had before occupied.
This type of acting generally is perpetrated by one duo. They use to act during the high season where their activities passes more unobserved.
If our abductor occupied the apartment recently, (a very happy coincidence), than he would risk that maintenance had changed the lock of the door, due to these recent assaults. He would had itself to dislocated to McCann’s apartment and verify if such eventuality didn’t happen. Certainly he would not be preparing so important blow, to come across with so great misfortune.
If this was the case, had the Judiciary Policy care to investigating the historic of the previous occupants of the apartment? I obviously do not have any possibility of knowing that, given the secrecy of the inquiry.
Now let us see the hypothesis of collusion between the abductor and one Ocean Club employee.
All this work of monitoring requires some patience, and few hours during more than what one day. He could not just stay there in the neighbourhoods on foot or in a car. He would be found strange, and later somebody would remember him.
This monitoring can only have been carried through some hidden place, or the window of an apartment, that allowed him to apprehend clearly the gone and comings of the McCann…
I have come to emphasize a detail that absolutely seems obvious to me: the abductor possess a copy of the keys from McCann’s apartment.
Nobody prepares a blow of this dimension, without quiet having the absolute certainty that, in the end, he obtains to enter the apartment, without being dependent of a hypothetical window or badly closed door.
To be thus, and our criminal possess a copy of the keys of the apartment (or a hypothetical key-master), he have to:
1 - There have been housed recently.
2 - To be connected with an employee of Ocean Club, or the rental agency.
3 - To have been (or to still be), employee of the resort.
According to coincident versions in diverse Newspapers, the Ocean Club would have been targeted of varied assaults in the months that had preceded the arrival of the McCann.
The Times, for example, published the testimony of a British tourist who, in February of this year, spends vacation in the Ocean Club, in an apartment located 100 meters from the one where Maddie disappeared. Ian Robertson affirms that his apartment was assaulted during is permanence, having been stolen two mobile phones, a video camera and some money. Robertson discloses, despite the police authorities had not detected any signal of burglary, and relate that when he was to present his complains to the policy, he found more two people of the very same resort to denounce identical situations. Later, one lady who was housed there counted that her apartment also had been assaulted.
I know the internal functioning of this type of resorts, and I know that when happens frequently assaults of this type, these must be due to the existence of illegally duplicates keys.
The first measure generally held up, is to change the lock between different apartments.
The maintenance services, normally, make use of diverse supplemental locks and proceed to the change, whenever a guest finishes its stay.
There is also some organized gangs; they install themselves in resorts of this type, for minimum periods, proceed to the duplication of the keys, rent another apartment next, for another new minimum period, and wait calmly that the new occupants, of that one where they had been previously lodged, move away to proceed to a “systematic cleanness”. Successively they assault the apartments that they had before occupied.
This type of acting generally is perpetrated by one duo. They use to act during the high season where their activities passes more unobserved.
If our abductor occupied the apartment recently, (a very happy coincidence), than he would risk that maintenance had changed the lock of the door, due to these recent assaults. He would had itself to dislocated to McCann’s apartment and verify if such eventuality didn’t happen. Certainly he would not be preparing so important blow, to come across with so great misfortune.
If this was the case, had the Judiciary Policy care to investigating the historic of the previous occupants of the apartment? I obviously do not have any possibility of knowing that, given the secrecy of the inquiry.
Now let us see the hypothesis of collusion between the abductor and one Ocean Club employee.
This type of “work” always raises, to any lesser abetter, natural distrusts.
The collusion hypothesis, rules on the principle that somebody, inside Ocean Club, will have supplied to the abductor the keys of the apartment, receiving (or not), in exchange some type of rewards.
After the discovery of the abduction, the abetter will easily understand the gravity of the act and the consequences, to himself, if the author of the crime comes to be discovered.
In the situation now in analysis, (paedophile that practises the crime for its proper joy), I do not believe that with little money, it comes possible to buy much time of silence.
Except if the abductor exert on the abetter very strong and permanent coercion, (or if delivered to him substantial part of an eventual sale of the child), an abetter of this nature, already would have disclosed its small involvement to local authorities, at least in exchange for not become inculpated in the abduction.
As certainly the payment of his share (to exist) would only be made some days later, (after the delivery of Madeleine to the receiver), I do not believe that a small abetter, exerting a lesser profession, and certainly badly psychologically prepared for police interrogation, would hold the tremendous pressure of so many police officers all around the resort in the following days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Finally, in the same good line of police novels where “the culprit is always the butler”, our Judiciary Policy, certainly will have detailed interrogated all stuff of Ocean Club. And none of about 400 employees denoted suspicious nervousness, hastily ran away abandoning his job, or fell in some serious contradiction. (Nothing at least has been said in newspapers).
Let us see the third possibility: the proper abductor to have been employee of the resort. Very probable. Very probable indeed. In my calculation of probabilities, this is one absolute 10.
The abductor can be somebody working in cleanness or maintenance of apartments, for example. Thus would justify him to possess a copy of the access keys, not only to the McCann’s apartment, but still to one another, that, in a privileged position, allowed him to watch the gone and the comings of the McCann.
And that apartment cannot be any one! McCann’s apartment has some singularities that I will not enumerate here, (for reasons related with my proper security, obviously), but I can guarantee, that they are only four apartments that the abductor can have used, (beyond a very reasonable hiding place and two individual garages) to be able to watch with enough certainty, all the movements in that determined apartment.
The collusion hypothesis, rules on the principle that somebody, inside Ocean Club, will have supplied to the abductor the keys of the apartment, receiving (or not), in exchange some type of rewards.
After the discovery of the abduction, the abetter will easily understand the gravity of the act and the consequences, to himself, if the author of the crime comes to be discovered.
In the situation now in analysis, (paedophile that practises the crime for its proper joy), I do not believe that with little money, it comes possible to buy much time of silence.
Except if the abductor exert on the abetter very strong and permanent coercion, (or if delivered to him substantial part of an eventual sale of the child), an abetter of this nature, already would have disclosed its small involvement to local authorities, at least in exchange for not become inculpated in the abduction.
As certainly the payment of his share (to exist) would only be made some days later, (after the delivery of Madeleine to the receiver), I do not believe that a small abetter, exerting a lesser profession, and certainly badly psychologically prepared for police interrogation, would hold the tremendous pressure of so many police officers all around the resort in the following days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Finally, in the same good line of police novels where “the culprit is always the butler”, our Judiciary Policy, certainly will have detailed interrogated all stuff of Ocean Club. And none of about 400 employees denoted suspicious nervousness, hastily ran away abandoning his job, or fell in some serious contradiction. (Nothing at least has been said in newspapers).
Let us see the third possibility: the proper abductor to have been employee of the resort. Very probable. Very probable indeed. In my calculation of probabilities, this is one absolute 10.
The abductor can be somebody working in cleanness or maintenance of apartments, for example. Thus would justify him to possess a copy of the access keys, not only to the McCann’s apartment, but still to one another, that, in a privileged position, allowed him to watch the gone and the comings of the McCann.
And that apartment cannot be any one! McCann’s apartment has some singularities that I will not enumerate here, (for reasons related with my proper security, obviously), but I can guarantee, that they are only four apartments that the abductor can have used, (beyond a very reasonable hiding place and two individual garages) to be able to watch with enough certainty, all the movements in that determined apartment.
Today, Sunday 24 of September, I went to Praia da Luz and traced the triangulations of the possible apartments to have served as base to the abductor.
One of them seemed to me being destined the permanent occupation, and the others three, I believe, to be tourist lease apartments.
(However, the guard point that seemed to me more promising is not an apartment, since that in one determined local, I found very strange marks, that I photographed and I will keep with me, until the day a responsible for the inquiry asks me how I found it).
In the beginnings of May, the apartments occupation still is reduced, for what an employee, can easily use any of those apartments to watch his victim.
Still, on the possibility of the abductor being “somebody of the house”, would have to be analyzed the possibility of the new Ocean Club administration, to integrate some element that, in the moment of the disappearance of a child, about 16 years ago, (Ben Needham) of a Greek Ocean Club resort, met there in service.
Conclusion
What do the 3 examples of possible abductors have in common?
First, the fact that not being occasionally in Praia da Luz, and to know the Ocean Club resort with some detail.
The knowledge that there is not security and monitoring measures, also that Ocean Club does not have watchmen.
Third, very probably, to inhabit in Praia da Luz or the neighborhoods.
After so many analyses I, finally, risk to make my first guess: this third example of possible abductor, that I just described, has all the hypotheses to have executed the crime.
In this case, Madeleine may be alive and will be kept in captivity, very next to the place of abduction, probably in an interior room of any house in Praia da Luz, or next locality. I bet 50% of my credits in this paedophile.
Much even so, in good truth, the majority of known cases the abductor-paedophile, if to be find inserted though the people of close relationship to the child or even amidst its own family.
Let us see, finally, the hypotheses of an abductor whom executes a specific order; and abduction for revenge.
One of them seemed to me being destined the permanent occupation, and the others three, I believe, to be tourist lease apartments.
(However, the guard point that seemed to me more promising is not an apartment, since that in one determined local, I found very strange marks, that I photographed and I will keep with me, until the day a responsible for the inquiry asks me how I found it).
In the beginnings of May, the apartments occupation still is reduced, for what an employee, can easily use any of those apartments to watch his victim.
Still, on the possibility of the abductor being “somebody of the house”, would have to be analyzed the possibility of the new Ocean Club administration, to integrate some element that, in the moment of the disappearance of a child, about 16 years ago, (Ben Needham) of a Greek Ocean Club resort, met there in service.
Conclusion
What do the 3 examples of possible abductors have in common?
First, the fact that not being occasionally in Praia da Luz, and to know the Ocean Club resort with some detail.
The knowledge that there is not security and monitoring measures, also that Ocean Club does not have watchmen.
Third, very probably, to inhabit in Praia da Luz or the neighborhoods.
After so many analyses I, finally, risk to make my first guess: this third example of possible abductor, that I just described, has all the hypotheses to have executed the crime.
In this case, Madeleine may be alive and will be kept in captivity, very next to the place of abduction, probably in an interior room of any house in Praia da Luz, or next locality. I bet 50% of my credits in this paedophile.
Much even so, in good truth, the majority of known cases the abductor-paedophile, if to be find inserted though the people of close relationship to the child or even amidst its own family.
Let us see, finally, the hypotheses of an abductor whom executes a specific order; and abduction for revenge.
8 - Abduction for revenge.
Probability: 0 to 10
I believe to be important to remember that, for norm, somebody that intends to avenge, emits signals and threats more or less guarded, type “you will see”, etc. Apparently, the McCann nothing feared, (or they had not imagined that such came to happen), to the point to leave the children totally unprotected.
Someone looking for avenge (I can not analyze the reasons; it would be impossible to me), why would wait that McCann’s left England to make it? Why would he choose Madeleine and not Amelie? How would he know that the McCann came on vacation, for where and in which place? How would he prepare the blow if he did not know that the children would be abandoned in house? How would he think to assault an apartment whose securities he was unaware of? Why opted to taking a child if he could just asphyxiate the girl until the death? How would he think to invade the apartment without possessing a key, nor to know if its localization would allow the burglary without being detected?
The reply to some of these questions has just one reply: the abductor counted with the aid of an abetter inside the group of the nine friends. Even a professional, would not have access to so many information.
Let us start to analyse the diverse interrogations:
Why would he wait they left England to make it? Just three answers occurs to me: either because, carrying through the abduction in England, would then become obvious who was the author; either because the final destination of the child was the continental Europe and the abductor feared that it would be difficult to abandon the island with the girl; either, finally, because the abduction was executed by the proper, and not by a contracted criminal, and he did fear to be recognized in the village where McCann leave.
Why would he choose Madeleine and not Amelie? Why he opted to taking the child and did not murdered the girl in place? Clearly it would be much simpler to take Amelie. The abductor intended that specific child. Someone can say that he would have distrust of being deceptive in the twins, and bringing Sean by mistake instead of a girl.
Balls! It takes 10 seconds to uncover one of them, and verify if he has penis or not!
Then, why Madeleine? Meeting two reasons: the child was abducted because its destination is “to substitute” one another similar child, or the abductor, as final revenge, intends to consummate abuse of its victim, to in some form, “compensate” an act of Madeleine’s parents.
This possibility puts much psychology, a discipline that is decidedly difficult to me… Anyway, the revenge did not aim the death of the child, at least in short-term, given that he would obviously, executed immediately the crime in the apartment.
How would he know that the McCann came of vacation, for where and in which place? How would he prepare the blow if he did not know that the children were abandoned in house?
If he is not part of the McCann friend’s ring, or has in this group, somebody that keeps him informed, the abductor would not know.
Probability: 0 to 10
I believe to be important to remember that, for norm, somebody that intends to avenge, emits signals and threats more or less guarded, type “you will see”, etc. Apparently, the McCann nothing feared, (or they had not imagined that such came to happen), to the point to leave the children totally unprotected.
Someone looking for avenge (I can not analyze the reasons; it would be impossible to me), why would wait that McCann’s left England to make it? Why would he choose Madeleine and not Amelie? How would he know that the McCann came on vacation, for where and in which place? How would he prepare the blow if he did not know that the children would be abandoned in house? How would he think to assault an apartment whose securities he was unaware of? Why opted to taking a child if he could just asphyxiate the girl until the death? How would he think to invade the apartment without possessing a key, nor to know if its localization would allow the burglary without being detected?
The reply to some of these questions has just one reply: the abductor counted with the aid of an abetter inside the group of the nine friends. Even a professional, would not have access to so many information.
Let us start to analyse the diverse interrogations:
Why would he wait they left England to make it? Just three answers occurs to me: either because, carrying through the abduction in England, would then become obvious who was the author; either because the final destination of the child was the continental Europe and the abductor feared that it would be difficult to abandon the island with the girl; either, finally, because the abduction was executed by the proper, and not by a contracted criminal, and he did fear to be recognized in the village where McCann leave.
Why would he choose Madeleine and not Amelie? Why he opted to taking the child and did not murdered the girl in place? Clearly it would be much simpler to take Amelie. The abductor intended that specific child. Someone can say that he would have distrust of being deceptive in the twins, and bringing Sean by mistake instead of a girl.
Balls! It takes 10 seconds to uncover one of them, and verify if he has penis or not!
Then, why Madeleine? Meeting two reasons: the child was abducted because its destination is “to substitute” one another similar child, or the abductor, as final revenge, intends to consummate abuse of its victim, to in some form, “compensate” an act of Madeleine’s parents.
This possibility puts much psychology, a discipline that is decidedly difficult to me… Anyway, the revenge did not aim the death of the child, at least in short-term, given that he would obviously, executed immediately the crime in the apartment.
How would he know that the McCann came of vacation, for where and in which place? How would he prepare the blow if he did not know that the children were abandoned in house?
If he is not part of the McCann friend’s ring, or has in this group, somebody that keeps him informed, the abductor would not know.
How did he think to assault an apartment whose security measure was unaware of? How did he think to invade the apartment without possessing a key, nor to know if its localization would allow an easy burglary?
If someone ordered this work to a professional, this one would raise some immediately difficulties. The abductor, as a matter of principle, is unaware of the place; this can or not being accessible. It is a distant country; he does not know if it will be possible to enter with some certainty and security (let us imagine, for example, that the McCann’s apartment was just in front of reception, or had a intent doorman on the entrances and guests exits, or the apartment was in third floor and the door possessed high security lock, or the resort possessed monitoring video cameras spread by the corridors…). Even more: without knowing in which apartment exactly would be the McCann lodged, he had than to find it amidst two hundreds of equal apartments.
Without the participation of one members of “Tapas 9”, whom would supply all the necessary information, as well as a copy of the key to the apartment, this type of abduction would not be possible.
Finally, if the abductor for revenge executed him the blow, he would know the possible serious risks of being recognized or to cross inadvertently with some of the McCann.
This type of abduction, to be possible, would be executed by a contracted criminal and with the collusion of one of “Tapas 9”.
This sends us for the last category: an ordered abduction.
Due to the evolution of the events and the promised high reward, I do not envy life of a mandator of the crime, I easily foresee the blackmail he is going to be subject…
To have happened abduction for revenge, the answer for this mystery, inhabits in one of the McCann.
In case of abduction for revenge, it’s also necessary to analyze, the possibility of this revenge to be directed to the new proprietors of Ocean Club and not against the McCann. Any former-employee, (after fired by new ownership), can, in such way, to discredit the company, leading the customers to fear to be lodged there, having kidnapped Madeleine for some reason of accessibility or easiness.
7 - Abductor who executes a specific order.
Probability: 0 to 10
In the previous case, I risked half of mine 100%. I did it, because I do not have access to the inquiry and I do not know if the 4 apartments that I relate duly had been investigated, as well as its past occupation, and the inquiry of all that could have access to those apartments, during the days that surrounded the disappearance of Madeleine.
If I could discard the possibility of one of them have served as point of guard to our abductor, than mine 100% would go entirely, without any doubt, for this hypothesis that lacks to analyze. It would be my option, but it was much possibly a wrong decision. The cold analysis of possibilities, that will appear later in this analysis, denies the viability of my option. The abductor, who executes an order, would not be successful without the contribution of somebody of the “Tapas 9”. And this I will demonstrate could not have happened.
The persistent reader will ask me: “but, then you don’t resist making your own guess too…”
My reply is simple: I think that my writing is based on the logic of the facts, and I am not based in previous feelings of who could be the culprit. I am not moving for emotions, but for reasoning.
For that same reason I can not see the abduction being committed by one paedophile which, just by seeing Madeleine once or twice, “gets passionate”, to the point to consummate such act, since, nothing would allow him to assume that Madeleine would be accessible and abandoned in the apartment.
I do not see in the daily behaviour of Madeleine’s parents, outside the apartment, any signal of negligence or carelessness towards the children, whom allowed a paedophile to infer that it would be possible to enter the room and abduct the child.
I still do not see how he would infer that Madeleine would be alone without the monitoring of an adult.
If someone ordered this work to a professional, this one would raise some immediately difficulties. The abductor, as a matter of principle, is unaware of the place; this can or not being accessible. It is a distant country; he does not know if it will be possible to enter with some certainty and security (let us imagine, for example, that the McCann’s apartment was just in front of reception, or had a intent doorman on the entrances and guests exits, or the apartment was in third floor and the door possessed high security lock, or the resort possessed monitoring video cameras spread by the corridors…). Even more: without knowing in which apartment exactly would be the McCann lodged, he had than to find it amidst two hundreds of equal apartments.
Without the participation of one members of “Tapas 9”, whom would supply all the necessary information, as well as a copy of the key to the apartment, this type of abduction would not be possible.
Finally, if the abductor for revenge executed him the blow, he would know the possible serious risks of being recognized or to cross inadvertently with some of the McCann.
This type of abduction, to be possible, would be executed by a contracted criminal and with the collusion of one of “Tapas 9”.
This sends us for the last category: an ordered abduction.
Due to the evolution of the events and the promised high reward, I do not envy life of a mandator of the crime, I easily foresee the blackmail he is going to be subject…
To have happened abduction for revenge, the answer for this mystery, inhabits in one of the McCann.
In case of abduction for revenge, it’s also necessary to analyze, the possibility of this revenge to be directed to the new proprietors of Ocean Club and not against the McCann. Any former-employee, (after fired by new ownership), can, in such way, to discredit the company, leading the customers to fear to be lodged there, having kidnapped Madeleine for some reason of accessibility or easiness.
7 - Abductor who executes a specific order.
Probability: 0 to 10
In the previous case, I risked half of mine 100%. I did it, because I do not have access to the inquiry and I do not know if the 4 apartments that I relate duly had been investigated, as well as its past occupation, and the inquiry of all that could have access to those apartments, during the days that surrounded the disappearance of Madeleine.
If I could discard the possibility of one of them have served as point of guard to our abductor, than mine 100% would go entirely, without any doubt, for this hypothesis that lacks to analyze. It would be my option, but it was much possibly a wrong decision. The cold analysis of possibilities, that will appear later in this analysis, denies the viability of my option. The abductor, who executes an order, would not be successful without the contribution of somebody of the “Tapas 9”. And this I will demonstrate could not have happened.
The persistent reader will ask me: “but, then you don’t resist making your own guess too…”
My reply is simple: I think that my writing is based on the logic of the facts, and I am not based in previous feelings of who could be the culprit. I am not moving for emotions, but for reasoning.
For that same reason I can not see the abduction being committed by one paedophile which, just by seeing Madeleine once or twice, “gets passionate”, to the point to consummate such act, since, nothing would allow him to assume that Madeleine would be accessible and abandoned in the apartment.
I do not see in the daily behaviour of Madeleine’s parents, outside the apartment, any signal of negligence or carelessness towards the children, whom allowed a paedophile to infer that it would be possible to enter the room and abduct the child.
I still do not see how he would infer that Madeleine would be alone without the monitoring of an adult.
Someone suggested to me, that a paedophile could have seen the McCann supper with friends without the children, and the following short inspections to the apartment to watch the children’s sleep.
And this proofs what!? That a nurse was not in the apartment? What if the parents were so care of their children, to the point of often dislocating to the apartment to know if the baby-sitter was effectively close to them?
Any signal of negligence, or carelessness of the parents, would take the abductor to follow all the family steps, hoping to have a chance of abducting Madeleine at any place where she could move too much away from her distracted and negligent parents, but never in the apartment.
It does not fit. This “part” does not encase in puzzle. On warder, when I start my explanation of what could have effectively happened, ours paedophile may to dilute himself in this kind of improbabilities. Just wait a little more.
Clearly, not having possibility to control some steps of this inquiry, I am much limited in my conclusions. Certainly that, face to my line of reasoning, some concrete ascertainment would have to being made.
I just give two examples so that you can better understand what I want to say:
1 - In case that the abduction has been carried through by a paedophile resident in the immediacy, (to have advantages and the possibilities of success that, previously, I described), his recent past in the village, would not be certainly totally innocent. Small hints next to other children, offer of insignificant gifts, approaches…
I would immediately have contacted the teachers of infantile and primary schools in the zone, suggesting them to ask the children something like: “Who already received a chocolate offered by a stranger, puts the finger in air”. The results could be interesting.
2 - In the eventuality to have an abetter in the “Tapas 9”, in the night of the crime where had been presumptive dunked reasonable amounts of wine, would have the guilty sufficient courage to exaggerate in the drink, knowing that a drama was to uncurl in its back, and would be necessary to keep totally alert?
I would ask them all separately something simply “Which of you have drank less than expected in that night”
Analyzing a little of much that has been said on this in case, stands out the cemented positions and the arguments to defend them. I give only one example:
“The hours do not much! Some say they arrived at 9 and they had left at 10… Others say it was 30 minutes later! They are guilty”
On the other hand, if the hours each one of “Tapas 9” beat certain ones with the others: “They are guilty! They had combined everything! They are guilty! "
Popular lynching is what we all know. They will be always imprisoned, as we say here in Portugal, either they have or they do not have a dog.
Coming back to the last hypothesis in study, I believe that one of the first measures to take, with sight to foil one of the obvious possibilities; will be to analyze the compatibility of Madeleine’s DNA with the one of Gerry. The eventuality of Madeleine not to be his biological daughter, (or the result of an insemination with its semen), could take Gerry McCann to refuse the child in his family. Gerry will have been, in fact, the last one to see Madeleine in her bed with the twins.
And this proofs what!? That a nurse was not in the apartment? What if the parents were so care of their children, to the point of often dislocating to the apartment to know if the baby-sitter was effectively close to them?
Any signal of negligence, or carelessness of the parents, would take the abductor to follow all the family steps, hoping to have a chance of abducting Madeleine at any place where she could move too much away from her distracted and negligent parents, but never in the apartment.
It does not fit. This “part” does not encase in puzzle. On warder, when I start my explanation of what could have effectively happened, ours paedophile may to dilute himself in this kind of improbabilities. Just wait a little more.
Clearly, not having possibility to control some steps of this inquiry, I am much limited in my conclusions. Certainly that, face to my line of reasoning, some concrete ascertainment would have to being made.
I just give two examples so that you can better understand what I want to say:
1 - In case that the abduction has been carried through by a paedophile resident in the immediacy, (to have advantages and the possibilities of success that, previously, I described), his recent past in the village, would not be certainly totally innocent. Small hints next to other children, offer of insignificant gifts, approaches…
I would immediately have contacted the teachers of infantile and primary schools in the zone, suggesting them to ask the children something like: “Who already received a chocolate offered by a stranger, puts the finger in air”. The results could be interesting.
2 - In the eventuality to have an abetter in the “Tapas 9”, in the night of the crime where had been presumptive dunked reasonable amounts of wine, would have the guilty sufficient courage to exaggerate in the drink, knowing that a drama was to uncurl in its back, and would be necessary to keep totally alert?
I would ask them all separately something simply “Which of you have drank less than expected in that night”
Analyzing a little of much that has been said on this in case, stands out the cemented positions and the arguments to defend them. I give only one example:
“The hours do not much! Some say they arrived at 9 and they had left at 10… Others say it was 30 minutes later! They are guilty”
On the other hand, if the hours each one of “Tapas 9” beat certain ones with the others: “They are guilty! They had combined everything! They are guilty! "
Popular lynching is what we all know. They will be always imprisoned, as we say here in Portugal, either they have or they do not have a dog.
Coming back to the last hypothesis in study, I believe that one of the first measures to take, with sight to foil one of the obvious possibilities; will be to analyze the compatibility of Madeleine’s DNA with the one of Gerry. The eventuality of Madeleine not to be his biological daughter, (or the result of an insemination with its semen), could take Gerry McCann to refuse the child in his family. Gerry will have been, in fact, the last one to see Madeleine in her bed with the twins.
Gerry’s recent affirmation says: “when coming back to the apartment I repaired that the door to the children’s room would not be as it was before, I thought Maddie could went to drink water”. Then…, Madeleine was not sedated (under effect of sedatives she could move), or…, he is lying therefore if he effectively sedated Madeleine, he would know that she hardly could rise of the bed.
Today, day 4 of October, I am in conditions to affirm, that the indications and evidences that I photographed in place at Praia da Luz, allow me to infer that somebody was in a privileged position to watch, (at moment and during a time that I cannot evidently specify), all the involving area of the apartment 5A, from one of the only 3 apartments, where a total monitoring could be mounted, to all the entrances and exits of that specific apartment.
If my analysis is correct, and proofs are concluding, then the abductor left backwards an enormous trail, relatively easy to follow... and will not be necessary to walk really far to find him.
,
Today, day 4 of October, I am in conditions to affirm, that the indications and evidences that I photographed in place at Praia da Luz, allow me to infer that somebody was in a privileged position to watch, (at moment and during a time that I cannot evidently specify), all the involving area of the apartment 5A, from one of the only 3 apartments, where a total monitoring could be mounted, to all the entrances and exits of that specific apartment.
If my analysis is correct, and proofs are concluding, then the abductor left backwards an enormous trail, relatively easy to follow... and will not be necessary to walk really far to find him.
,
To be continued...
No. After all it will not be continued.
No. After all it will not be continued.
I stop here. It’s finished. I already gave, with these two chapters, some contribution to the discovery of Madeleine. I am certain of this. I feel myself in peace.
.
.
Found many mistakes on this translation? Tell me, please.
Ajude a concluir este trabalho. Traduza um ou mais parágrafos e envie-mos para que os publique.
...Quem é o meu principal suspeito de ter planeado o rapto? - Porque os indícios e as coincidências são óbvias, o suspeito principal é J..., contudo será muito difícil produzir prova que o incrimine, a menos que a polícia encontre o elo fraco da cadeia - o raptor - se este ainda estiver vivo.
