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.