Could there have been an abductor?

Velvet wrote:

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.

I don't think they keep the profile of the case high simply to gain money. Remember the reason of the fund was mainly for "legal expenditure" As there are lot of people who doubt the McCanns and are prepared to share evidence & info on the internet then the McCanns need to sue them all to silence them. I also think that if the case went quiet the UK media might share more information than they have done so far & not all complimentary to the couple.

Velvet wrote:

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.

Well, they didn't seem to have much money. After all they used donations from the fund to pay for the mortgage really soon after Madeleine's disappearance...

Velvet wrote:
Is it not possible for an 'abductor' to have gone through the patio door, into the children's room and opened the window/pulled up shutter incase someone disturbed them. Then picked up Madeleine and walked out through the front door which is the closest door exit from the children's room? Someone who thinks about an escape route before they enter could mean they know what they are doing, so they literally could have been in and out in minutes. Of course I not saying there wouldnt be but tell me what evidence you would expect to see if someone came in how I explained above?

(Copied across from the Pat Brown Thread as it seems to fit better here)

gillyspot wrote:

Velvet wrote:

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.

I don't think they keep the profile of the case high simply to gain money. Remember the reason of the fund was mainly for "legal expenditure" As there are lot of people who doubt the McCanns and are prepared to share evidence & info on the internet then the McCanns need to sue them all to silence them. I also think that if the case went quiet the UK media might share more information than they have done so far & not all complimentary to the couple.

They can't sue people without money, so it's a win win again. And you never have too much money.

Panda wrote:

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????

Hi Panda

News of the World 'exclusive'...... from Mccannfiles (link is there).......How fiend could have kept out of sight
personally I think they were 'avin a larf!

Claudia79 wrote:

gillyspot wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Velvet wrote:

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.

I don't think they keep the profile of the case high simply to gain money. Remember the reason of the fund was mainly for "legal expenditure" As there are lot of people who doubt the McCanns and are prepared to share evidence & info on the internet then the McCanns need to sue them all to silence them. I also think that if the case went quiet the UK media might share more information than they have done so far & not all complimentary to the couple.

They can't sue people without money, so it's a win win again. And you never have too much money.

Haha fair point, you've got me there!

OK, for the sake of argument, there was an abductor. He stole Maddie for a childless couple, a paedophile ring, whatever. She's still alive, and therefore "findable". Presumably he got paid, so his venture was successful.
Why hasn't he repeated it?

Iris wrote:OK, for the sake of argument, there was an abductor. He stole Maddie for a childless couple, a paedophile ring, whatever. She's still alive, and therefore "findable". Presumably he got paid, so his venture was successful.
Why hasn't he repeated it?

Hi Iris, and why go for the eldest of the siblings?
Why not a twin, or both, or even the whole brood?

Iris wrote:OK, for the sake of argument, there was an abductor. He stole Maddie for a childless couple, a paedophile ring, whatever. She's still alive, and therefore "findable". Presumably he got paid, so his venture was successful.
Why hasn't he repeated it?

I personally don't think she's alive. I think if she was to be abducted it was some lonely guy who took her for his own wants/needs, as morbid as it sounds. So yes I agree with you IF it was for a childless couple and it was successful then you may think they would do it again.

OK there was an abductor, and you have a fund, you would want the very best to search for your daughter, so what would you do. Send for Krugel, now i'm a bit thick but even i know you can't track some-one by putting a strand of hair in a machine I would have done anything to help the police .

marxman wrote:

Iris wrote:OK, for the sake of argument, there was an abductor. He stole Maddie for a childless couple, a paedophile ring, whatever. She's still alive, and therefore "findable". Presumably he got paid, so his venture was successful.
Why hasn't he repeated it?

Hi Iris, and why go for the eldest of the siblings?
Why not a twin, or both, or even the whole brood?

Would it be possible to walk out with all three? Even two without waking them?

chrissie1 wrote:OK there was an abductor, and you have a fund, you would want the very best to search for your daughter, so what would you do. Send for Krugel, now i'm a bit thick but even i know you can't track some-one by putting a strand of hair in a machine I would have done anything to help the police .

I couldn't help but giggle when I read about that in her book!!

Velvet wrote:

Would it be possible to walk out with all three? Even two without waking them?

Only under anaesthesia.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Would it be possible to walk out with all three? Even two without waking them?

Only under anaesthesia.

It just seems too much to drug three children then somehow carry them all! I find it difficult to carry my one boy when his asleep, let alone three!!

Agreed. Drugging (sedating, if you will) all three would be possible, but to have all three removed would be jolly unlikely.

Velvet wrote:

marxman wrote:

Iris wrote:OK, for the sake of argument, there was an abductor. He stole Maddie for a childless couple, a paedophile ring, whatever. She's still alive, and therefore "findable". Presumably he got paid, so his venture was successful.
Why hasn't he repeated it?

Hi Iris, and why go for the eldest of the siblings?
Why not a twin, or both, or even the whole brood?

Would it be possible to walk out with all three? Even two without waking them?

Hi Velvet, I'm hoping to point out the preposterous argument
that any would-be abducter seeking a child for a childless couple
would prefer a walking-talking toddler in preference to an infant.
Furthermore, but I'm not certain, peadophiles I have read, tend to ignore
smaller children in favour of much older ones. But, there are exceptions
I grant you.
If, as the McCanns are attempting to insinuate that it may have been
some professional child abduction enterprise. With all this child-snatching
expertise then why not take the lot if indeed it was for monetary gain.
Im just amazed that this abduction yarn was coined and circulated since
there are many places in the world for a would-be abducter to go and
find far easier pickings.

If the can find bin laden holed up in a lair in Pakistan....Im sure they could, if alive, find Madeleine McCann.


The sun found one off James Bulgars killers In Australia.

Chances of there having been an abductor ? Very small.

Chances of the mccanns being evil ? Very High.

It is one thing being negligent,if thats what they were.Its another thing scampering around like a bunch of extras in a Laurel and Hardy movie trying to cover their sorry arses whilst said abductor was having it away on his toes with their child !

And ever since the vast wealth donated to them has been primarily paid to their lawyers in 'protection money'.

Matters not a jot to me if there was an abductor or not.A child is missing because these 'parents' couldnt have cared less for Her,not then nor since.

In my opinion Madeleine could never have been abducted, or even walked out of the McCanns unlocked apartment and I'll tell you why. When the police arrived at the McCanns apartment, both of the McCanns were in the apartment along with members of the Tapas group. At least one of the McCanns, plus some of the Tapas group would have been out searching for Madeleine, had she genuinely gone missing. The fact they were busy getting their stories straight, instead of searching for Madeleine, shows that Madeleine was taken out of the apartment, dead or alive, by one of the McCanns, or by someone known to the McCanns with their blessing.

I believe every single one of the Tapas 7 knows what has happened to Madeleine and if she was dead or alive, because even if the McCanns didn't want to search for her, they would have searched for her. All the kids could have been left in one apartment with one of the Tapas group and then the rest of them could have gone to look for Madeleine. The fact they didn't do anything, shows to me that they do know what happened.

I also believe Gordon Brown was involved with this case, before the police arrived at the apartment, because it was less than 24hrs after Madeleine disappeared, when Gerry said he had spoken to Gordon Brown and he had given him his own personal telephone number and told him he could ring him any time day or night.

When the police arrived at the apartment, the McCanns behaviour aroused suspicion in them. The McCanns told the police that Madeleine had disappeared while they were dining in the Tapas Bar and she had been left unsupervised. That was a crime and the crime was made more serious because Madeleine had supposedly disappeared as a result of their neglect.

The police should have arrested the McCanns, especially as they had never looked for Madeleine and lied about the shutter. The police didn't arrest the McCanns and I think that it was because they were told not to. I believe Gordon Brown had already set the wheels in motion that would prevent the McCanns from facing any charges.

I believe the arguido status that was given to the McCanns was nothing more than a paper excercise. An arguido is supposed to have regular contact with the police and limited freedom. The McCanns passports were given back to them and they were given a police escort to the airport and allowed to return home to the UK. The McCanns have also been allowed to call all the shots and anyone who dares speak out against them publicly, is likely to face a lawsuit. Which is what is happening to Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett.

Morning kathybelle, not sure whether your interpretation of "arguido" is correct. The status is given if a person refuses to answer questions on the grounds it would incriminate her/him. At this stage the McCanns were merely being interviewed.

I am sure the arguido status (suspect) was intended to be just that at the time. Friendly GB though had a quiet chat with PT head of state Jose Socrates (as he seemed to do quite regularly then).

Panda wrote:Morning kathybelle, not sure whether your interpretation of "arguido" is correct. The status is given if a person refuses to answer questions on the grounds it would incriminate her/him. At this stage the McCanns were merely being interviewed.

Good morning Panda. When the McCanns were made arguidos, I didn't know what the status meant, so I looked it up on the internet. I checked again just before I made the post and it is still as it was back in 2007. I was lead to believe that a person is made an arguido, because they are suspected of being involved in a crime and charges are likely to follow. I also read that they have to attend a police station at a time specified by the police and they have their movements restricted. I also read that a person can ask for arguido status, because it gives them the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, when they are questioned.

Robert Murat's lawyer, said Mr Murat asked for arguido status, because more than once, he was taken in for questioning as a witness and couldn't have a lawyer present. After extensive searches at the home and garden of Mr Murat's mother and a thorough investigation of Mr Murat by the police, the PJ were satisfied he had no involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine. Mr Murat said he expected to be released from the status and when he wasn't, he said he wished he had never asked for the status in the first place.

The difference between the behaviour of Robert Murat, when he was made an arguido and the McCanns when they were made arguido, is Robert Murat answered every question that was put to him and he complied with the other terms of the arguido status. The McCanns on the other hand left the country the day after they were made arguidos, but as I said previously, I believe the arguido status issued on the McCanns, was nothing more than a paper excercise.

There has got to be a reason why the McCanns have been treated with kid gloves since Madeleine disappeared. If they were speaking the truth, when they said they left their children unsupervised, each time they went out, they committed a crime and the crime was made worse because Madeleine disappeared. As I said previously, the police should have arrested them once they admitted what they did, but for reasons best known to the police, they didn't arrest them.

There is no proof Madeleine was abducted and in my opinion, the McCanns should have been made to stay in Portugal, until they could prove she was abducted. If they couldn't prove she was abducted, then they should have been charged with being more involved with Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns have been allowed to call all the shots in this case and they will keep on calling the shots, until someone grows a backbone and does what should and would have been done, back in 2007, if members of the British and Portuguese Governments, hadn't intervened.

Off topic but i did not want to start a new thread in case this has been discussed in detail at another time prior to my joining.

I note another family by the name of Gorod were in the Ocean Club at the same time as the McCanns and live close to and are / were at the time known to Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien. It seems they had hired a car for the duration of their weeks holidays, a grey opel corsa. I have seen it stated that Jane Tanner met with them on the Monday, i think, but I did not check yet to see if JT herself confirmed this.

Then, from the mccannpjfiles.co.uk :


Another witness with the surname da Silva - Maria Manuela Martins da Silva - said was visiting the sister of her boyfriend in another Ocean Club apartment (Block 6, Apartment 5) during the afternoon and evening of 3 May. From the ground floor kitchen window of that apartment, there was a direct view across to the back windows of the apartment occupied by Madeleine McCann [Source: Police Files 02 - Processos Volume II, Pages 469 to 470a].

Unusually, some five days later, Maria was able to recall the exact time she left that apartment - 9.58pm. She says she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time, and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge. Maria da Silva left with her boyfriend in a green Opel Frontera, parked in the private parking area of Block 6. As they drove away, she recalled seeing a small car, perhaps grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment. By coincidence the route taken by GNR officer, Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes and the Search & Rescue dogs in the early hours of 4 May, lost track of Madeleine's scent in the private parking area of Block 6.


So we have a small grey car parked in the car park close to 5a close to 10.00pm on 3rd May and a grey car hired by a family who were known to JT and ROB in the UK and quite possibly met with them on the Monday in PDL.

There was also a reference here in the last few days to the possibility of ROB having been in a car (other than the mccan hired renault).

So there is a possibility at least they could have had access to a car during the holiday.

As I just came across this I found it interesting, my apologies and feel free to delete if this has been discussed before.

mossman, thanks for that l hadn't seen that l don't think....

So now we have potential access to a car on the night AND one parked in the very place the search and rescue dogs used on the early morning of 4th May lost scent of Madeleine.

More pesky dogs, what are the chances of them all being wrong eh?

I wonder what Dr.Geralds response was when he found out about that, HE ASKED for dogs the morning of the 4th....

kathybelle wrote:

Panda wrote:Morning kathybelle, not sure whether your interpretation of "arguido" is correct. The status is given if a person refuses to answer questions on the grounds it would incriminate her/him. At this stage the McCanns were merely being interviewed.

Good morning Panda. When the McCanns were made arguidos, I didn't know what the status meant, so I looked it up on the internet. I checked again just before I made the post and it is still as it was back in 2007. I was lead to believe that a person is made an arguido, because they are suspected of being involved in a crime and charges are likely to follow. I also read that they have to attend a police station at a time specified by the police and they have their movements restricted. I also read that a person can ask for arguido status, because it gives them the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, when they are questioned.

Robert Murat's lawyer, said Mr Murat asked for arguido status, because more than once, he was taken in for questioning as a witness and couldn't have a lawyer present. After extensive searches at the home and garden of Mr Murat's mother and a thorough investigation of Mr Murat by the police, the PJ were satisfied he had no involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine. Mr Murat said he expected to be released from the status and when he wasn't, he said he wished he had never asked for the status in the first place.

The difference between the behaviour of Robert Murat, when he was made an arguido and the McCanns when they were made arguido, is Robert Murat answered every question that was put to him and he complied with the other terms of the arguido status. The McCanns on the other hand left the country the day after they were made arguidos, but as I said previously, I believe the arguido status issued on the McCanns, was nothing more than a paper excercise.

There has got to be a reason why the McCanns have been treated with kid gloves since Madeleine disappeared. If they were speaking the truth, when they said they left their children unsupervised, each time they went out, they committed a crime and the crime was made worse because Madeleine disappeared. As I said previously, the police should have arrested them once they admitted what they did, but for reasons best known to the police, they didn't arrest them.

There is no proof Madeleine was abducted and in my opinion, the McCanns should have been made to stay in Portugal, until they could prove she was abducted. If they couldn't prove she was abducted, then they should have been charged with being more involved with Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns have been allowed to call all the shots in this case and they will keep on calling the shots, until someone grows a backbone and does what should and would have been done, back in 2007, if members of the British and Portuguese Governments, hadn't intervened.

Afternoon kathybelle,

I seem to remember reading that Kate's Lawyer was with her when she was being interviewed and it was on his advice that she opted for arguido status.

I must admit, after 11 hrs at the Police Station and having to reply to some inane questions I can underatand why Kate rebelled. I'm sure one of our Portugese Members can translate "arguido" properly.