The case of Madeleine McCann

[Steve_uk]

How does it contradict my assertion?  CAT claims they left PF's circa 6.30pm.  PF states she was alone in the evening.  Evening starts at 6pm.  The Tranmers, one or both, were available to abduct MM inbetween the checks.  They knew the McCanns MO from when they observed on the Sunday evening and from what they heard from PF and observed again on the Thu eve.  Stop being naive Steve, they didn't need to be at PF's up until they abducted MM.  They left and drove somewhere nearby to watch and wait.

They don't fit the profile of a potential abductor.

[Cambridgecutie]

PF didn't live on the third floor.  She was directly above the McCanns ground floor apartment. 

Maybe they didn't want children but maybe one or both wanted one to abuse either sexually or sadistically.

And Steve I know the Tranmers don't fit with your idea of the sort of people who abuduct children but just think about all the paedophiles within your church.  Please read CAT's wit stat VERY, VERY CAREFULLY several times, spaced apart!

[Cambridgecutie]

They don't fit the profile of a potential abductor.

Stop being so naive. 

[Steve_uk]

And Steve I know the Tranmers don't fit with your idea of the sort of people who abuduct children but just think about all the paedophiles within your church.  Please read CAT's wit stat VERY, VERY CAREFULLY several times, spaced apart!

I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at in the statement which provides evidence of predatory paedophilia, which is an illness that cannot be cured and involves repeated victims until eventually the perpetrator is discovered. I assume police checked that the Tranmers have no previous convictions in this field.

As far as I'm aware the couple (and that's another reason statistically it's unlikely to be them as a Fred and Rosemary West-type scenario is incredibly rare) were present in the Algarve to visit an aunt, so that's a reason for their trip, not to chance their arm at paedophilia, or kidnapping a child, who was bound to be in the news far and wide, so your theory of taking a child to raise as their own falls on that count also, given that they had made no plans to leave the UK.

[Cambridgecutie]

I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at in the statement which provides evidence of predatory paedophilia, which is an illness that cannot be cured and involves repeated victims until eventually the perpetrator is discovered. I assume police checked that the Tranmers have no previous convictions in this field.

As far as I'm aware the couple (and that's another reason statistically it's unlikely to be them as a Fred and Rosemary West-type scenario is incredibly rare) were present in the Algarve to visit an aunt, so that's a reason for their trip, not to chance their arm at paedophilia, or kidnapping a child, who was bound to be in the news far and wide, so your theory of taking a child to raise as their own falls on that count also, given that they had made no plans to leave the UK.

The main objective of the trip was to purchase property in the Algarve.

No one knows the reason for the abuduction. 

Mr Tranmer worked for the EU and was based there.

You are so naive Steve.  I have pointed out to you previously her contradiction in the interview over whether she visited the tapas bar. 

You are unable/unwilling to even read the statement.  You instantly make a judgement about the sort of person who would abduct a child and that's your starting point.  My starting point is the person(s) who abducted MM knew she was alone in the unlocked apartment and the McCanns were at the tapas bar and the only people who were aware of this were PF and the Tranmers.

[handymanz]

Yes they were!  They arrived in the morning and left early eve:

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm

And they had all the intel they needed for the abduction.

This is a rabbit hole that could have got out of control given the recent allegations of paedophile activity at Windsor Castle (secret underground tunnels etc.)

DC1485'You told me that you worked at Windsor Castle'

CT'Windsor Castle.

DC1485'Did you know the Queen'

CT'Yes. I knew her.

DC1485'Personally or'

CT'All, all, yes. The entire family, the whole royal family, yes.

CT'I worked in the Royal Collection and hummm... I was a personal assistant in the royal library and bookstore. I frequently encountered the royal family in private visits. There was also the Easter Court where the entire Buckingham Palace would usually come. Everyone had a very restricted calendar regarding their duties , thus if anything happened to the royal family, if they brought friends of visitors to Windsor, I had the opportunity to meet them and to show them around.

Dc1485'And did you speak to the Queen or Philip'

CT'Mmm, yes, yes.

[handymanz]

Is there a statement from Carol Tranmer's husband?

[Cambridgecutie]

This is a rabbit hole that could have got out of control given the recent allegations of paedophile activity at Windsor Castle (secret underground tunnels etc.)

What do you think of the section where she describes the tapas bar from her aunt's apartment and then later in the interview when asked if she visited the tapas bar states it had not been built! 

DC1485'When you are on the terrace, to which direction are you turned'

CT'We are turned to a beautiful view of the ocean and all the clay roofs of the village, where one can see the pool, the reception area, the pool zone, the tennis courts, and one could see the roof of the Tapas bar. There are trees and bushes between all of this, so when one looks out, there are only roof tops, the small homes and other villas. It is an incredible view.

And later

DC1485'Did you go to the Tapas Bar with your aunt'

CT'No, no, no it was not there when I visited the last time, and it is something very recent; I believe that it was built about a year ago and I was there before the Tapas Bar was constructed. I think it was a part of the reception or something similar. We were not there before. It is very new.

[Cambridgecutie]

Is there a statement from Carol Tranmer's husband?

No! 

Afaik he has never been interviewed as a witness or suspect by any of the investigating authorities.  This should tell everyone all they need to know about the state of the investigation then and now. 

[handymanz]

What do you think of the section where she describes the tapas bar from her aunt's apartment and then later in the interview when asked if she visited the tapas bar states it had not been built! 

DC1485'When you are on the terrace, to which direction are you turned'

CT'We are turned to a beautiful view of the ocean and all the clay roofs of the village, where one can see the pool, the reception area, the pool zone, the tennis courts, and one could see the roof of the Tapas bar. There are trees and bushes between all of this, so when one looks out, there are only roof tops, the small homes and other villas. It is an incredible view.

And later

DC1485'Did you go to the Tapas Bar with your aunt'

CT'No, no, no it was not there when I visited the last time, and it is something very recent; I believe that it was built about a year ago and I was there before the Tapas Bar was constructed. I think it was a part of the reception or something similar. We were not there before. It is very new.

From my reading of her statement, I thought she said that in her last visit in Feb 2004 (the visit before April/ May 2007) the Tapas bar had not then been built. But was built not long before April 2007.

[snow66!]

No! 

Afaik he has never been interviewed as a witness or suspect by any of the investigating authorities.  This should tell everyone all they need to know about the state of the investigation then and now.

So what do you think happened to Maddie, do you think she is alive or dead, Cutie?

[Cambridgecutie]

From my reading of her statement, I thought she said that in her last visit in Feb 2004 (the visit before April/ May 2007) the Tapas bar had not then been built. But was built not long before April 2007.

No.  The interview was carried out on 22nd April 2008, almost a year after MM's disappearance. 

DC1485'Did you go to the Tapas Bar with your aunt' (He is asking if she went to the TB during the 2007 visit when MM disappeared.)

CT'No, no, no it was not there when I visited the last time (The last time being the 2007 visit when MM disappeared), and it is something very recent; I believe that it was built about a year ago and I was there before the Tapas Bar was constructed. I think it was a part of the reception or something similar. We were not there before. It is very new.

She is attempting to distance herself and make out she did not even know the parents were at the TB etc, etc.

[Cambridgecutie]

So what do you think happened to Maddie, do you think she is alive or dead, Cutie?

I think the Tranmers were involved in her disappearance but no idea whether one or both and what the motive was.  They were a childless couple so would be nice to think they may have taken her to raise as their own.  Maybe they thought she was being neglected when they learned she was being left alone night after night and one evening was heard crying for over an hour. 

I uploaded a vid from psychiatrist Raj Persaud who said the perp may have panicked with all the publicity and did something unintended.  Eg if the Tranmers took her to raise as their own thinking there would be little or no publicity and it would quickly fade plus not appreciating MM had the identifying eye mark, if the plan was to raise as their own how could this happen with all the publicity and eye feature? 

[snow66!]

I think the Tranmers were involved in her disappearance but no idea whether one or both and what the motive was.  They were a childless couple so would be nice to think they may have taken her to raise as their own.  Maybe they thought she was being neglected when they learned she was being left alone night after night and one evening was heard crying for over an hour. 

I uploaded a vid from psychiatrist Raj Persaud who said the perp may have panicked with all the publicity and did something unintended.  Eg if the Tranmers took her to raise as their own thinking there would be little or no publicity and it would quickly fade plus not appreciating MM had the identifying eye mark, if the plan was to raise as their own how could this happen with all the publicity and eye feature?

OK, thanks, Cutie! I'll watch the video later!

[snow66!]

I think the Tranmers were involved in her disappearance but no idea whether one or both and what the motive was.  They were a childless couple so would be nice to think they may have taken her to raise as their own.  Maybe they thought she was being neglected when they learned she was being left alone night after night and one evening was heard crying for over an hour. 

I uploaded a vid from psychiatrist Raj Persaud who said the perp may have panicked with all the publicity and did something unintended.  Eg if the Tranmers took her to raise as their own thinking there would be little or no publicity and it would quickly fade plus not appreciating MM had the identifying eye mark, if the plan was to raise as their own how could this happen with all the publicity and eye feature?

So you're theory regarding Madeleine McCann is that instead of adopting, the Tranmers decided to abduct Maddie and raise her as their own due to the fact they thought she was being neglected?
Or, one or both of the Tranmers knew the McCanns routine and simply abducted Maddie for some nefarious reason?
You make a big point about what the abductor/s may have done once the police made public Maddie's eye fleck! Well, if the Tranmers abducted her to bring up and love as their own it is hard to imagine they could simply 'dispose' of her once the eye defect was disclosed, however, if they abducted Maddie for nefarious reasons they would probably have intended to cause her demise anyway!
So, the eye defect would only be a problem if the abductor/s intended to keep Maddie alive surely?
Still, there is no telling what someone would be capable of who could abduct a child in the first place, I mean you cant be thinking straight to put it mildly, no matter what the reason may be?