The case of Madeleine McCann

[snow66!]

He would have done a lot of scouting around the resort on the day or even days before. Once he had deduced what child belonged to who and that the lights were off in the bedroom while the Tapas 7 were all at the dinner table, he had his opportunity.

I would be very suprised if Bruckner did not have a compact black market firearm on him during the abduction. He would have eliminated one of the Tapas 7 as soon as they laid eyes on him and then disappeared into the night.

That's the thing, Dave, the perp/s would have needed to stake-out the apartment block for at least a whole day and evening, waiting to see when the Tapas 7 and the McCanns returned after dinner!
And how did the perp know the routine would be repeated the next day?
And the perp couldn't watch the front of the apartments and the back at the same time?
There's nothing about this case that adds up very well, that's why I remain on the fence until more info hopefully comes to light.
There just isn't quite enough evidence at the moment to point the finger at anyone as far as I can see.

[David1819]

That's the thing, Dave, the perp/s would have needed to stake-out the apartment block for at least a whole day and evening, waiting to see when the Tapas 7 and the McCanns returned after dinner!
And how did the perp know the routine would be repeated the next day?
And the perp couldn't watch the front of the apartments and the back at the same time?
There's nothing about this case that adds up very well, that's why I remain on the fence until more info hopefully comes to light.
There just isn't quite enough evidence at the moment to point the finger at anyone as far as I can see.

That is not how criminals like this operate. You are assuming that they must and will know everything in order to make it a risk free crime. They don't. They knowingly take the risk but take steps to simply make it less risky.

[Cambridgecutie]

Well if the McCanns are innocent we know Maddie was taken sometime after Gerrys check around 9.00, by then it was pitch black so the woman that mrs Murat saw must have been beside some form of lighting in order to distinguish her purple top.
The thing is, if the perp knew the routine of the Tapas 9, they wouldn't loiter outside the apartments for long incase one of them passed by. Infact Jane Tanner saw 'Tannerman' around 9.15 while Gerry was yapping to Jeremy Wilkins, so a lot of coming and going from the Tapas 9 from 9.00 o'clock onwards.
So, whoever [if anyone?] took Maddie, be it the Tranmers or Breuckner, they were lucky they didn't bump into anyone.

The McCanns were not involved in the disappearance.

Mrs Murat may have seen the colour of clothing with the car headlights. 

The Tranmers were a pair.  One abducting the other a watch out. 

[Cambridgecutie]

That's the thing, Dave, the perp/s would have needed to stake-out the apartment block for at least a whole day and evening, waiting to see when the Tapas 7 and the McCanns returned after dinner!
And how did the perp know the routine would be repeated the next day?
And the perp couldn't watch the front of the apartments and the back at the same time?
There's nothing about this case that adds up very well, that's why I remain on the fence until more info hopefully comes to light.
There just isn't quite enough evidence at the moment to point the finger at anyone as far as I can see.

Exactly.  This is why I narrowed it down to the Tranmers because they were able to gather all the intelligence from PF.  PF knew MM was being left alone because of the crying incident.  She also knew the apartment was unlocked because she would know the doors could not be locked from outside and heard the parents return through the patio doors and then the crying stopped.  Its all in her WS.

No one else could have gained this intelligence without sitting around for hours and hours and then they would need to watch the back and front.  The back being the patio doors side.  How could anyone know a baby sitter did not arrive by the front door?  The front door being the side that overlooked the car park.

[Cambridgecutie]

He would have done a lot of scouting around the resort on the day or even days before. Once he had deduced what child belonged to who and that the lights were off in the bedroom while the Tapas 7 were all at the dinner table, he had his opportunity.

I would be very suprised if Bruckner did not have a compact black market firearm on him during the abduction. He would have eliminated one of the Tapas 7 as soon as they laid eyes on him and then disappeared into the night.

You talk utter nonsense and live in a fantasy world.

CB lived on the edge of PDL.  In 2011 PDL was home to 3,500 residents.  This figure does not include all the tourism traffic.  PDL is spread over an area of 9.5 miles.  MM arrived on Saturday 28th April 2007.  She disappeared on Thursday 3rd May 2007.  Why and how would CB suddenly fixate on MM?  Why this child out of all the thousands of others that had arrived and departed over the years CB lived in PDL?

Most of MM's time at PDL was spent in areas that were for the exclusive use of those staying at the Ocean Club. 

Lights were left on in the apartment.  Do people generally turn lights off when they go out at dusk and return when its dark?  No generally a light is left on. 

How would CB know that a baby sitter was not inside? 

[Cambridgecutie]

That is not how criminals like this operate. You are assuming that they must and will know everything in order to make it a risk free crime. They don't. They knowingly take the risk but take steps to simply make it less risky.

So if this is how criminals operate how is evidence against CB and not the Tranmers or some other perp?

[Cambridgecutie]

There's a lot of interesting info here from clinical psychologist Mike Berry:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3460024/madeleine-mccann-nanny-nurse-woman-purple-disappearance-theory/

[Cambridgecutie]

There's a lot of interesting info here from clinical psychologist Mike Berry:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3460024/madeleine-mccann-nanny-nurse-woman-purple-disappearance-theory/

Mr Berry added: “What I would say about the person who took her is that they would have to be comfortable with children.

“Many young males would be scared to remove a child from a bed in a darkened room.

“There has always also been an assumption that the person who took Maddie is a man. What if it was a woman?

“The person who took Maddie will not stand out like a sore thumb – otherwise they would have been investigated.

“This is more likely to be someone in employment, somebody who is working, somebody who is in a reasonably respected profession. This is not the creep at the end of your road who everyone thinks is bizarre.

“If it is a woman who took her then they will likely be someone who worked with children and confident around them.”

The criminal psychologist, who has been working in the field of forensic psychology for decades,  said the type of person who would take a child would appear completely normal to outsiders – and maybe even their family.

[Cambridgecutie]

And for the doubters I would remind them of CAT's WS.  Please note she made two WS's.  The first on 8th May 2007.  She interjected herself as a witness when she saw what she considered to be a 'suscpicious man' leaving 5B.  Who in all probability was Matthew Oldfield who was residing at 5B.  Imo this was a ploy to interject herself before investigators sought her out as a witness given she and her husband were in the apartment above shortly before MM's disappearance. 

The second WS was made on 22nd April 2008  This was as a result of the Portuguese asking Leicester police (being the force local to McCanns UK residence) to reinterview witnesses to see if anything further could be gleaned.  My interpretation of this WS is that she is attempting to distance herself from all and any knowledge of the siutation eg did not know McCanns were staying under PF's, the tapas bar wasn't built etc.  The officer carrying out the interview is clearly just going through the motions, the ultimate 'ticky boxy' and not really paying any attention to what she is actually saying eg:

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 then later in the interview:

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.

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

[snow66!]

That is not how criminals like this operate. You are assuming that they must and will know everything in order to make it a risk free crime. They don't. They knowingly take the risk but take steps to simply make it less risky.

I believe the McCanns left a light on in the flat, is this true, Dave?
If so, how could a potential robber/abductor know the flat was empty as it were?

[snow66!]

Exactly.  This is why I narrowed it down to the Tranmers because they were able to gather all the intelligence from PF.  PF knew MM was being left alone because of the crying incident.  She also knew the apartment was unlocked because she would know the doors could not be locked from outside and heard the parents return through the patio doors and then the crying stopped.  Its all in her WS.

No one else could have gained this intelligence without sitting around for hours and hours and then they would need to watch the back and front.  The back being the patio doors side.  How could anyone know a baby sitter did not arrive by the front door?  The front door being the side that overlooked the car park.

Yes, you may have a point there, Cutie!

[David1819]

I believe the McCanns left a light on in the flat, is this true, Dave?
If so, how could a potential robber/abductor know the flat was empty as it were?

If I remember correctly they did not leave the bedroom light on. Just a lamp on in the living area.

[snow66!]

If I remember correctly they did not leave the bedroom light on. Just a lamp on in the living area.

Do you think the lamp was indeed to deter intruders, Dave?
I suppose Cutie's scenario stands up to scrutiny up until the point of abduction, but afterwards?
How would the Tranmers explain the sudden appearance of Maddie, adoption? Maybe, but wouldn't you need certain papers to sign a child up to a GP or enroll in school? Maybe the Tranmers could somehow forge a birth certificate?
Maybe Cutie means it would be easier if the Tranmers were travelling around Europe?
But apart from any of this the biggest problem would be memories! I mean Maddie was almost four so would have been devastated to be removed from her parents whom she would never forget surely?
Wouldn't it have been more sensible to steal one of the younger twins?
Of course this is presuming that the Tranmers stole Maddie to bring up as their own daughter and not for a more sinister motive!
I just don't know Dave, but I suppose the Tranmers are a plausible possibility? Just odd that the police didn't see the possibility too and investigate them further?

[David1819]

Do you think the lamp was indeed to deter intruders, Dave?
I suppose Cutie's scenario stands up to scrutiny up until the point of abduction, but afterwards?
How would the Tranmers explain the sudden appearance of Maddie, adoption? Maybe, but wouldn't you need certain papers to sign a child up to a GP or enroll in school? Maybe the Tranmers could somehow forge a birth certificate?
Maybe Cutie means it would be easier if the Tranmers were travelling around Europe?
But apart from any of this the biggest problem would be memories! I mean Maddie was almost four so would have been devastated to be removed from her parents whom she would never forget surely?
Wouldn't it have been more sensible to steal one of the younger twins?
Of course this is presuming that the Tranmers stole Maddie to bring up as their own daughter and not for a more sinister motive!
I just don't know Dave, but I suppose the Tranmers are a plausible possibility? Just odd that the police didn't see the possibility too and investigate them further?

This is a theory from the only person in the history to drink Special Brew indoors? Why am I not surprised. 

[Steve_uk]

Do you think the lamp was indeed to deter intruders, Dave?
I suppose Cutie's scenario stands up to scrutiny up until the point of abduction, but afterwards?
How would the Tranmers explain the sudden appearance of Maddie, adoption? Maybe, but wouldn't you need certain papers to sign a child up to a GP or enroll in school? Maybe the Tranmers could somehow forge a birth certificate?
Maybe Cutie means it would be easier if the Tranmers were travelling around Europe?
But apart from any of this the biggest problem would be memories! I mean Maddie was almost four so would have been devastated to be removed from her parents whom she would never forget surely?
Wouldn't it have been more sensible to steal one of the younger twins?
Of course this is presuming that the Tranmers stole Maddie to bring up as their own daughter and not for a more sinister motive!
I just don't know Dave, but I suppose the Tranmers are a plausible possibility? Just odd that the police didn't see the possibility too and investigate them further?

Talk about jumping through hoops. One has to accept that the Tranmers, who had a valid reason to travel to Portugal, somehow turned into a paedophile couple, who decided on the spur of the moment on the report of their aunt to abduct and subsequently murder a three-year-old child.

I would have thought once the couple discovered the furore surrounding the child and Madeleine's colomba they would have left her in a safe place and telephoned the authorities anonymously, or in the first place informed them the previous evening that children were being left unattended in the Ocean Club resort.