Could there have been an abductor?

On the thread ‘Pat Brown’ we are discussing how an abductor would have entered the apartment. Most of us pro’s (sorry : I mean anti of course!!!) insist there was no abductor, and I agree. But what are the things that prove that or at least indicate there was no abductor?
TM: He must have been watching the children and our habits days before already.
Even if this would be true, and the ‘abductor’ would have known how many times the children were checked and the intervals, how on earth could he have known they were sedated? He couldn’t know that from just watching them. So, if he entered through the window, the noice would have woken them up and they would have started crying. If he entered through the front door, patio door or even the roof, the minute he touches one of the children (remember, he didn’t know they were sedated), they would cry or at least he should have been afraid of that. There was no scent of chlorophorm, and I don’t know of any other sedation that works within a few seconds unless by injection, and that would have woken Maddie up too. So, I think that however long he had been watching and observing them, there is no way he could have known about the sedation.
The other possibility is, they weren’t sedated at all (which I doubt), then an abductor would have had to cover her mouth to prevent her from crying, but then how do we explain what Jane Tanner saw: a child almost liveless in his arms, unless he sedated her right after he got out of the window or the front door. Same goes for the Smith sighting.

There was no abductor because as KM said....'there was a window off opportunity' and that 'window off opportunity' would off had to of lasted over an hour as cadaver scent only starts too omit after an hour and GM saw her asleep in bed at 9.05-10.

I don't know but l love the title of your thread.

Assuming there was one and he was successful in entering the apt without being noticed in any way, 2 possibilities spring to mind.

Theory....they were not sedated by him or the McCanns, she was only tiny and the abductor clamped a large hand over her mouth until she passed out (wouldn't take long).

Or the abductor was someone she was familiar with...remembering of course that she'd been in the creche a lot and could have met or seen all sorts of people. If was upset and said abductor promised to take her to mummy she might have gone quite willingly.

Neither of those, of course, explain JTs sighting.

Factually speaking of course, there had to be an 'abducter'!
But, was it friend or foe? that is the crucial question.
Was it a member of the tapas gang? or some sculking
mysterious stranger? But some person or persons abducted
a child from where ever she was.
I think this maybe the angle that SY will apply to resolving
this mystery.

marxman wrote:Factually speaking of course, there had to be an 'abducter'!
But, was it friend or foe? that is the crucial question.
Was it a member of the tapas gang? or some sculking
mysterious stranger? But some person or persons abducted
a child from where ever she was.
I think this maybe the angle that SY will apply to resolving
this mystery.

Hi marxman, I think it could only be described as 'abduction' if Madeleine were alive when she was taken from the apartment. If Madeleine was dead then that would be classed as concealment of a body.

Autumn wrote:

marxman wrote:Factually speaking of course, there had to be an 'abducter'!
But, was it friend or foe? that is the crucial question.
Was it a member of the tapas gang? or some sculking
mysterious stranger? But some person or persons abducted
a child from where ever she was.
I think this maybe the angle that SY will apply to resolving
this mystery.

Hi marxman, I think it could only be described as 'abduction' if Madeleine were alive when she was taken from the apartment. If Madeleine was dead then that would be classed as concealment of a body.

Hi Autumn, you are most likely correct, but it
seems strange to me why the term 'kidnapping'
was not used.So, the question must be, is
kidnapping applied to 'live' victims? and can 'abduction'
be applied to a corpse?
I must put on my legal head and do some research.

First search, this link maybe of interest;
http://www.haaretz.com/news/j-lem-haredim-abduct-woman-s-corpse-to-prevent-autopsy-1.262711

I think the words simulated abduction appears in the PJ report

Christine wrote:how on earth could he have known they were sedated?

How on earth do WE know they were sedated? Maybe they wasn't.

Does anyone know how long a scent of chloroform lasts?

Velvet wrote:

Christine wrote:how on earth could he have known they were sedated?

How on earth do WE know they were sedated? Maybe they wasn't.

Does anyone know how long a scent of chloroform lasts?

Didn't Kate and Gerry suggest that the twins might have been sedated?

Velvet wrote:

Christine wrote:how on earth could he have known they were sedated?

How on earth do WE know they were sedated? Maybe they wasn't.

Does anyone know how long a scent of chloroform lasts?

Me? No, I have no idea how long the particles of chloroform persist to be detectable.

I think mr amaral has stated that thre was no smell off chloroform.


I think the mccanns would off smelt it, its a sweet smell.

wasnt casey anthony accused off giving her daughter chloroform to go out drinking and cant too much chloroform overdose a person and kill them?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

But our on-site reconstruction proves that if the kidnapper was already in the flat, as the McCanns fear, he had a full TEN SECONDS to conceal himself after hearing Gerry open the patio doors and enter the apartment.

And he had no fewer than FOUR boltholes to choose from—behind Madeleine’s BEDROOM DOOR, inside her roomy WARDROBE, in her parents’ nearby BEDROOM or in the family BATHROOM.

Well the bathroom's out for a start 'cos Gerry went in there. And the wardrobe wasn't that big.

OK, in all seriousness.... let's say there was an abductor. The mcs say they left the apartment unlocked can you get in the front door if it's left unlocked? Usual holiday apartment doors tend to make you always use a key don't they?

And if the abductor used the patio doors wouldn't that be risky as they make a noise, Mrs.Fenn heard the Mcs come in that way one night didn't she? so we know it was noisy to do so, now they could have left it unlocked all the time and actually be telling the truth but, mrs. Fenn heard nothing that night....? still doesn't make sense.

I also seriously doubt any abductor did a recce the night(s) before and/or sedated the children. I've never known an abductor EVER who has sedated children first, he knew the parents were coming and going why wait around sedating children that could have awoken at any time?

ann_chovey wrote:And the wardrobe wasn't that big.

Indeed - not much more than child sized.

ann_chovey wrote:http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

But our on-site reconstruction proves that if the kidnapper was already in the flat, as the McCanns fear, he had a full TEN SECONDS to conceal himself after hearing Gerry open the patio doors and enter the apartment.

And he had no fewer than FOUR boltholes to choose from—behind Madeleine’s BEDROOM DOOR, inside her roomy WARDROBE, in her parents’ nearby BEDROOM or in the family BATHROOM.

Well the bathroom's out for a start 'cos Gerry went in there. And the wardrobe wasn't that big.

Hi ann_chovey,

Who's statement are you quoting? I ask because it is the first time "kidnapping" was said. @ marxman as well. "Abduction"....to take by force....
kidnap.....to take by force for ransom. No Ransom demand was ever made that is why the McCanns used the word "abduction".

If Madeleine WAS kidnapped, which I doubt. The kidnapper would have been "casing the joint" for a couple of nights noted entrance was gained through
the patio door, saw Gerry return to the Restaurant , went in and picked up the sleeping Madeleine and walked out through the Patio door, thereby
shooting down Jane Tanners sighting and the Smiths because the abductor would have had a car parked nearby to make a quick getaway rather than
risk carrying Madeleine very far for fear she would start screaming. As for the blood spots, wasn't there a story that a previous holidaymaker cut
himself shaving? See how easy it is to change the scenario to fit the assumption????

If there was an abductor, he must have been a Necrophiliac (lover of dead bodies).

AnnaEsse wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Christine wrote:how on earth could he have known they were sedated?

How on earth do WE know they were sedated? Maybe they wasn't.

Does anyone know how long a scent of chloroform lasts?

Didn't Kate and Gerry suggest that the twins might have been sedated?

As far as I'm aware yes they did believe they may have been. My point is we don't know so there is very little chance the 'abductor' would have known.

Velvet wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Christine wrote:how on earth could he have known they were sedated?

How on earth do WE know they were sedated? Maybe they wasn't.

Does anyone know how long a scent of chloroform lasts?

Didn't Kate and Gerry suggest that the twins might have been sedated?

As far as I'm aware yes they did believe they may have been. My point is we don't know so there is very little chance the 'abductor' would have known.

Gerry was suggesting that the abductor had sedated the children.

I've always wondered how that could work, injection - they first wake up.
Chloroform was not detected? Seem to remember...reading something like that.
Tablets, hmmm difficult. Wake them up, swallow, scream. Takes time to work.
Sirop, wake them up - stiff dose. Wait for it to take effect.

I'm stumped, no idea how to do that without the children first waking up. All three of them.

margaret wrote:OK, in all seriousness.... let's say there was an abductor. The mcs say they left the apartment unlocked can you get in the front door if it's left unlocked? Usual holiday apartment doors tend to make you always use a key don't they?

And if the abductor used the patio doors wouldn't that be risky as they make a noise, Mrs.Fenn heard the Mcs come in that way one night didn't she? so we know it was noisy to do so, now they could have left it unlocked all the time and actually be telling the truth but, mrs. Fenn heard nothing that night....? still doesn't make sense.

I also seriously doubt any abductor did a recce the night(s) before and/or sedated the children. I've never known an abductor EVER who has sedated children first, he knew the parents were coming and going why wait around sedating children that could have awoken at any time?

Exactly if Mrs Fenn heard the door open and thought it was the Mccanns who's to say she wouldn't have thought the abductor wasnt them too, if they were checking up on them she would have heard it open several times that week. As far as the abductors concerned he was making the same amount of noise entering as the Mccanns would have.

I agree, I don't think there would have been a practice run before or they sedated the children.

Yes, in theory there could clearly been an abductor. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence of one, an abductor does not explain the blood and the death scent (unless the abductor killed Madeleine, cleaned it up and took her body in a matter of minutes and even then there would be no time for the scent to develop) and it certainly does not explain the several versions of the truth by the main witnesses (which Pat so clearly mentioned in her last tweets).

Claudia79 wrote:Yes, in theory there could clearly been an abductor. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence of one, an abductor does not explain the blood and the death scent (unless the abductor killed Madeleine, cleaned it up and took her body in a matter of minutes and even then there would be no time for the scent to develop) and it certainly does not explain the several versions of the truth by the main witnesses (which Pat so clearly mentioned in her last tweets).

I completely agree with the death scent, etc. To me I just don't think the Mccanns would have wanted to stay in the limelight for so long if they knew they were guilty with the potential of being caught out and losing their other two children. I'm not saying I whole heartedly go with with the abduction theory, Im just not 100% on the parents involvement either. One thing I do think is that if they were involved it couldn't have been the night of the apparent abduction as it would be too much, cleaning, removing the body even hiding initial shock and grieving. In my opinion it would have to have been before. Let's hope Pat finds something.

Velvet wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Yes, in theory there could clearly been an abductor. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence of one, an abductor does not explain the blood and the death scent (unless the abductor killed Madeleine, cleaned it up and took her body in a matter of minutes and even then there would be no time for the scent to develop) and it certainly does not explain the several versions of the truth by the main witnesses (which Pat so clearly mentioned in her last tweets).

I completely agree with the death scent, etc. To me I just don't think the Mccanns would have wanted to stay in the limelight for so long if they knew they were guilty with the potential of being caught out and losing their other two children. I'm not saying I whole heartedly go with with the abduction theory, Im just not 100% on the parents involvement either. One thing I do think is that if they were involved it couldn't have been the night of the apparent abduction as it would be too much, cleaning, removing the body even hiding initial shock and grieving. In my opinion it would have to have been before. Let's hope Pat finds something.

No limelight, no money. And also people saying exactly what you just said 'why would they still be here if they were guilty?'. Win, win situation.
I believe whatever happened, happened on the 3rd. That ridiculous timeline and those ridiculous versions of the Tapas had no time to be 'prepared' It was all in a hurry which is why none of it makes sense. Although it seems unbelievable that anyone could be able to hide such a shock, I also find it unbelievable to laugh your sorry ar§e off a few days after your child is 'abducted' and they want us to believe that's perfectly normal.

Claudia79 wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Yes, in theory there could clearly been an abductor. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence of one, an abductor does not explain the blood and the death scent (unless the abductor killed Madeleine, cleaned it up and took her body in a matter of minutes and even then there would be no time for the scent to develop) and it certainly does not explain the several versions of the truth by the main witnesses (which Pat so clearly mentioned in her last tweets).

I completely agree with the death scent, etc. To me I just don't think the Mccanns would have wanted to stay in the limelight for so long if they knew they were guilty with the potential of being caught out and losing their other two children. I'm not saying I whole heartedly go with with the abduction theory, Im just not 100% on the parents involvement either. One thing I do think is that if they were involved it couldn't have been the night of the apparent abduction as it would be too much, cleaning, removing the body even hiding initial shock and grieving. In my opinion it would have to have been before. Let's hope Pat finds something.

No limelight, no money. And also people saying exactly what you just said 'why would they still be here if they were guilty?'. Win, win situation.
I believe whatever happened, happened on the 3rd. That ridiculous timeline and those ridiculous versions of the Tapas had no time to be 'prepared' It was all in a hurry which is why none of it makes sense. Although it seems unbelievable that anyone could be able to hide such a shock, I also find it unbelievable to laugh your sorry ar§e off a few days after your child is 'abducted' and they want us to believe that's perfectly normal.

Were the Mccanns hard of cash? I really doesnt by with me that they would do it for money with the risk of losing their other children.

Yes them images of Gerry laughing days after are deplorable.