Madeleine – planned abduction – Devil’s advocate

I have posted a couple of threads on how a planned abduction might work in the Madeleine McCann case. I did say that I would try out the position of Devil’s advocate, to see if I could flame-roast the weaknesses in the core idea, so here it is.

What is it that goes against the idea of a planned abduction?

Although this post is specific to a planned abduction, I hope that some of the ideas will also apply to other scenarios.

First. The incident scene that I described in my ‘elegant abduction’ scenario does not match that of the one and only witness to the original scene, Kate McCann.

In my scenario, I did not raise the bedroom shutter, I did not open the bedroom window. I did not close the patio door, and I did not close the patio gate. Kate attested that the reverse was true on each on these four points.

I do not believe that these details are fundamental to the incident, as hypothesised.

Could I have gone in via the rear, shutting everything behind, and out via the front? Why not?

Could I have gone out via the rear, leaving doors open, and still have Kate say that is not the case? Why not? Rear doors ajar and Madeleine gone …. well ….

Surely this comes down to trying to analyse what Kate found, did and thought at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance. And that happens to be a game that I am not interested in playing.

The incident scene was consistent with a planned abduction, or it was not. Kate’s description of the scene was accurate or it was not.

Second. The children (plural, and not just the McCanns trio) were unguarded. They were vulnerable. But how vulnerable were they?

If I am an abductor, I need to know that children are in block 5 without their parents. Otherwise the children are not vulnerable. How do I know this assuming the abduction is planned?

Third. I need to have some idea of the check schedule. I don’t care whether it is every half hour (scheduled by time) or event driven (starters over let’s do a check before mains). I just need a rough idea. After all, what I am doing is simple. I am nipping in between checks and stealing a child. I think I need to have some idea of the check routine,

Fourth. I need time for planning. In my post on this I picked the perfect point – the place where I could see the T9 – the place where they could not see me – the place where I could strike quickly – it was so easy. How did I find this perfect place? How long did it take? How long did it take to work out how the mechanics of the check schedule?

Fifth. Why? I did have a crack at motive early on and after thinking through the other bits and pieces of the puzzle, I have got to note that what I said on this was not one of my better thoughts.

Sixth. Absolutely all of the dog alerts have to be discarded. Not a single one stacks up the ‘elegant abduction’ theory that I explained. So the 5A alerts have to go, the Renault Scenic alerts have to go, the 27 Rua das Flores alerts all have to get the chop. The most problematic is the apartment 5A behind-the-sofa alert. That has to be explained as innocent, otherwise the ‘elegant abduction’ theory changes and becomes really complex. Namely, Madeleine has to come to damage behind the sofa, then Gerry McCann or Kate McCann has to cover it up. That is stretching credulity too far. So, the dog alerts have to be explained away.

Seventh. Despite committing a serious crime, no forensic evidence was left to link it to other crimes or to a known criminal.

Planned abduction is creaky, creaky, creaky! The problem is it remains one of the best games in town.


6 thoughts on “Madeleine – planned abduction – Devil’s advocate

  1. 1. ‘Could I have gone in via the rear, shutting everything behind, and out via the front?’ Yes. Yes you could. In fact, that’s the list of events I hypothesised on the topic at the time, and what I believe most likely happened.

    2. It’s not a tree falling in the woods philosophical conundrum- the children are vulnerable or are not, whether or not anyone knows or not or acts on that knowledge or not. In this case they were. How did anyone know they were vulnerable? The famous note? Or, quite simply, by spying a target and doing some basic and unhindered surveillance.

    3. We still don’t know how that schedule, if it were such, actually worked. But again, if that were preferable to an organised abduction, then by basic surveillance.

    4. You need more time? You’ve had a week to garner information you could have noted within an hour or two. You’re fired.

    5. Motive? We’ve discussed this ad nauseam. It’s either pecuniary or sexual with the white hope of familial thrown in, or indirectly one to the other. I don’t get the confusion on that either.

    6. Dog alerts are not evidence. Those ‘flawless dogs’ the lunatics harp about were given early retirement after some embarrassing alerts, in any case. I wouldn’t get too hung up on them, cute as they were.

    7. No forensic evidence left? No, that’s not true. There was forensic evidence left, but whether it was recovered or not is a different question. Is it possible to commit that crime and leave no trace? Unlikely. But to leave almost no trace? Certainly. And to leave no trace that has been identified by incompetent investigators in a massively contaminated scene of the crime? ABSOLUTELY.

    So, in short, not creaky in the slightest. It’s by a long way the most logical series of events based on the evidence at hand. Solid as a rock. You could discover a new continent in that ship of solid reasoning.

    • There’s a long list of problems here, so I’ll tackle them bit by bit rather than a massive response at this time.

      But to take one example, forensics. There was a lot of forensic evidence recovered. None of it has been matched to a known criminal. None of it has been matched to other potentially similar crimes on the Algarve around this time. This suggests the crime was committed by someone whose DNA is not on record, and who has no clear links to potentially similar crimes on the Algarve around this time. And that takes a bit of explaining.

      • It doesn’t though, because, if you take the one example of the paedophile who was operating in Luz at that time, who has a dozen reported incidents of sexual abuse or attempted sexual abuse of children that we now know about to his name… likely countless more we do not know about… and his case wasn’t even investigated properly at all. That’s one example of a serial, predatory paedophile with a string of crimes behind him, and one who made very little attempt to avoid detection… so where is his DNA on file in Portugal???

        Answer: they didn’t look into it properly at all. The Portuguese authorities buried the case so as not to cause adverse publicity for a country whose economy is based on tourism from the British Isles.

        And that paedophile is but one example. Explaining, if needed, should be from the Portuguese authorities, as it’s clearly very possible for a paedophile to operate for several years in Portugal, and after countless reports, without anybody investigating him, never mind filing info onto a DNA database, or, God forbid, arresting or killing the ******.

        So, I’m afraid, your objection to the validity of an abduction theory based on DNA databases or investigations of similar crimes in Portugal is invalid, simply because Portuguese investigations of such crimes are also notoriously invalid.

      • I have to date investigated one and only one paedophile who might have been in the Algarve at the time – Roderick McDonald. Despite media insistence that he is an example of the gangs of paedos in the area, it is likely, but by no means certain, that he was in New Zealand in 2007. No one actually has any evidence that he was in Portugal at the time.

        And when Roderick McDonald was flagged up to the authorities in Portugal, he was not ignored. He was deported.

        As to whether any of the crimes in the Algarve is linked to Madeleine, the question is simple. SY is aware of such crimes. (How? Well presumably the Portuguese police told them about most, with Crimewatch adding one or two that were never reported.) SY is aware of unmatched DNA in 5A. It doesn’t take a genius to match DNA, times, MO etc. from other crimes to the Madeleine incident. Therefore, I have to conclude that at least on the DNA front there is no match, otherwise SY is incompetent.

        Mind you, SY did fingertip-search the mound.

        Equally, SY stringing together a number of cases in the Algarve, and tying that to an alleged but undetailed case in Luz does not make Luz the base of a paedo.

      • Just a second- McDonald was not, unless you have proof otherwise, necessarily this culprit. The culprit I mentioned has eighteen recorded crimes behind him (sorry, had said fewer)… so, he is just one example. No proper investigation for any. All buried for obvious reasons. You offer no explanation, but represent the ‘Algarve hard done by, police really honest side’. It’s not tenable. In this case, those investigations were all botched… all 18.

        You still find it unbelievable they hadn’t a solid database working there?

        And just because McDonald is the only paedophile you’ve looked into who was present in the Algarve, does not make him unique or representative of paedophiles present in the Algarve. If you want a dossier, we can compile it here quite easily… the list is extensive, and I am sure it is no coincidence. I think you see it as a media furore…. and the Algarve as suffering as a victim in this… but then you have a dog in this fight, do you not?

        And McDonald, your chosen example, was cruising around the Algarve for what… six years without having anyone from the Portuguese authorities bother him? Hardly on their game with him either. You think he took a break from being a predatory paedo for that time… became a fisherman? Then took it up again after deportation? Not likely, is it? Far more probably that he was seeking children to abuse wherever he was, and in those six years there are again countless crimes that were brushed away by incompetent and down-right corrupt Portuguese authorities.

      • If you can compile a list of paedophiles where there is evidence that they were actually in the Algarve at the time, (I stress the word evidence), I would consider it a step forward. Given the problems with such a list, I would need to see the evidence before I published it.

        And if you can list 18 crimes, again with evidence that these happened, once again it would be a step forward.

        McDonald is reported as having been living in Olhão for 2 months before he was picked up. I cannot see a solid report putting him in Portugal before that, so his 2 months in 2009 leave him 2 years too late.

        And yes, it is a media furore. Just as the endless stream of paedophile news in the UK is a media furore. Typically under the headline of ‘British police failed the public.” Consequently, Portugal is an easy target for police laziness, police corruption, and major crime of all sorts running unchecked. All of this while the phone hacking scandal rumbles on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s