The Pro's theory of what happened to Maddie

Posted by Nigel Nessling aka Vee8

Dead simple. Two abductors, who had been watching the apartment all week. One goes in the unlocked patio door, opens the window, passes Madeleine out, maybe drugged, maybe not, then leaves back through the door. The one in the apartment may have got to know Madeleine, even the family, during the holiday, so she may have recognised him, and not cried out. The window is at the rear of the building, out of sight of the Tapas resturant, then the two split up and make their escape. A car may have featured in the original plan, but a stray passer by may have forced a sudden re-think. In and out in seconds, wearing gloves, leaving no trace.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

---------

One goes in the unlocked patio door, opens the window, passes Madeleine out, maybe drugged, maybe not, then leaves back through the door.

Why didn't he just go back out the unlocked patio door with Maddie?

[quote="Get 'em Gonçalo"]Posted by Nigel Nessling aka Vee8

Dead simple. Two abductors, who had been watching the apartment all week. One goes in the unlocked patio door, opens the window, passes Madeleine out, maybe drugged, maybe not, then leaves back through the door. The one in the apartment may have got to know Madeleine, even the family, during the holiday, so she may have recognised him, and not cried out. The window is at the rear of the building, out of sight of the Tapas resturant, then the two split up and make their escape. A car may have featured in the original plan, but a stray passer by may have forced a sudden re-think. In and out in seconds, wearing gloves, leaving no trace.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

---------

One goes in the unlocked patio door, opens the window, passes Madeleine out, maybe drugged, maybe not, then leaves back through the door.

Good theory NOT!
Isn't that what Garth posted in the Theory thread, that someone re-quoted the other day? Or why did he not go out the front door, but have to pass her through the window, at the same time opening those noisy shutters, stepping around the cots, and trying to get to a window that had a bed in front of it and a wicker chair.

Maybe Vee8 is Garth eh?

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Maybe Vee8 is Garth eh? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is what Garth wrote................

Bebootje wrote:

Garth wrote:Yeh, wot a load of crap!

I have a far simpler one.

Two abductors watch apartment.

McCanns go to dine. Abuctors wait.....one enters via patio door, the other watches over and then goes around to front. Person inside drugs child with sedative but then disturbed by GM.......hides in closet. GM leaves, abductor opens window, picks up child and passes her to accomplice. Accomplice makes away. Abductor leaves via front door. JT spots accomplice with child. Accomplice gets child out of sight before making way to other side of PDL but is then spotted by Smiths.

Uncomplicated and fits exactly what we know. Even allowing for the dumb PJ.

Simple!

OMG, do you really believe this? (Btw, once heard this same theory before from a Sylvie01 on old 3A's, who showed same troll behaviour by instantly calling other people monkeys. Has a lot of aliasses). Anyway, this theory is hilarious. Why would the so called abductor pass the child through the window (to do so he had to climb on the bed) of which no forensic traces were found, and leave through the front door. Why didn't he leave through the front door with Madeleine? Why wander around in PDL with the child at te risk to be seen? Using a car would have been much easier to get her out of the way quickly.
Abduction stories I know of all involved a car. Moreover, there was a car park, just behind the appartment block. What would have been easier.
Don't you see? By trying to explain the forensic evidence into an abduction theory the whole theory becomes impossible. Guess why the McCann's don't want a reconstruction?

Let's go back and draw up possible scenarios.
In all cases the Madeleine Fund and the dogs have to work and the time needed to plan the Fundraising.


1) she was abducted by
a stalker, a gipsy who wanted new blood for the tribe, a paedophile, an abductor working to order or someone who just liked her.
Setting up Fund and support, if this happened 3/5 is well nigh impossible. Even an earlier date leaves little time and it wouldn't be the first thing on the agenda. One presumes with a real abduction that the parents would be looking for her.
Against: the dogs don't work.

2) she was (accidentally or by 'letting it happen on purpose') killed on a previous holiday in PdL. Body refrigerated and disposed of on next holiday when a scenario was devised.
This gives plenty of time for Fund and support, explains the curious absence of M in photographs and the fact that the creche attendants thought she was shy.
Against, another girl would have to stand in for her.
For: Gerry had been to PdL or at least Portugal at least once, almost certainly knew Murat, had other contacts there as events proved.
K: the family had been on holidays (incl. the twins) to Ireland, Guernsey and Spain. Assuming the twins would not travel until 6 months old, that makes 4 holidays in 18 months. (from the book)
Gerry's remark in the bus that he wasn't there to enjoy himself. The curious behaviour of the whole group and the plan for fundraising. Brother John giving up the day job almost immediately.
Cadaver odour can last well past 6 months I believe. Explains lack of DNA in flat and possibly overlooked blood behind sofa.
Only four boarding passes were handed out at UK airport. Trying to find this again. PJ files I think.
But other people had stayed in apartment in April and 6 months in UK without M. Pretty difficult. It had to be 5a.
The dogs an the Fund would work fine.

3) she was going to be passed on to another family/person, who had to do the abduction. This went wrong and she died. Say 1/5 this happened.
For: G and K. : 'the night we found her'.
Kate saying frequently that she hoped whoever had her would look after her and she would light up the lives of all around her. (didn't do that at home according to her book). Curious remarks. A prepared mantra that didn't fit the script anymore? Or simply a mantra that made her feel better? Bloody weird thing to say if you think she's with paedophiles.
Also the somewhat panicked temporary disposing of the body. Did Murat have to fly back for that?
Both dogs and Fund work.

4)She was successfully abducted by arrangement and now lives happily with another family.The Fundraising can work fine, no chance of anyone recognising her from the poster since she doesn't have a coloboma and wasn't blond or 90 cm. tall.
Against: very risky, can be blackmailed by the new parents.
The dogs don't work but the Fund does in this scenario.

5) She was overdosed(accident or design) by her parents and they found her dead, this would work only if it was much earlier in the holiday, or if it was intentional.
It was IMO probably the reason the T7 cooperated with the deception and Rachel made the remark about resuscitation.( Kate allegedly screamed "They've taken her" and "We've let her down". Now I think the first one was for the benefit of the world in general and the last one for the T7, most of whom may have truly thought that Maddie was very ill or injured. Hence Rachel's remark.
The Fund can work, but only just in the case of accident, more likely intentional. The stand-in girl would have to be arranged on the spot. As everything else.

6. She died as a result of actions by her parents. The plan was worked out in the UK, before the holiday and carried out almost immediately on arrival.
Fund and Dogs work perfectly. Stand-in girl also arranged in UK.

In all cases except nr 1, the coloboma idea and the out of date photo would be fine. Therefore, nr. 1 can never have happened, because why distribute a photograph with 'the eye' which didn't look anything like her. (compare the tennis girl) when you're really looking for her.
Premeditation is a distinct possibility IMO. Setting up a company (no longer a Fund apparently) the photographs, the posters. The wider agenda. The company was up and running on the 15th May. Two weekends in between with a bank holiday.

The fake coloboma was a mistake, now they've retracted it, making out it was hardly there. Big mistake, because that really smells of premeditation.
It had to be photoshopped to achieve that. Was it only to get out of checking sightings? Because they sure checked very few.
Whichever wild way I try to work it, I think this started in the UK, was performed in backward, clodhopping, paedophile infested Portugal. (as presented by TM, remember the 'lawless villages' Algarve awash with paedophiles? )
The fury of the McC's that the PJ were asking them questions, that their story wasn't accepted. There's something rather childish about that reaction. A certain xenophobia can be detected. NOTW loved it to bits.
But without the protection they had, the likelyhood is that the PJ would have had enough evidence to convict. IMO of course.

Can anyone think of any other scenario?

My vote goes to nr. 6. or perhaps 2. ?

tigger

Very good scenarios. I like the idea that you used the regulators: dogs and Fund.

I can almost go with Number 6 out of all of them. But this means something terrible as regards the blood and cadaver scent.

Number 5 would work as regards GA's scenario and cover the blood and cadaver scent.
Rachel's comment etc., would fit as well.
Not really necessary to have a stand-in if it occurred say, 2nd May.
Which is why nothing seems to fit for the 3rd.
Steam cleaning is good for Hospitals which could explain the lack of DNA

Number 2 - well it would explain lots of things but it's on the very edge of reason that there are people who would do this. It must be a "first" if ever.

So it could be 5 or 6.

I really like the idea of the brains on this board trying to come up with abduction theories. It makes any argument more robust.

Ahhh, Nigel Nessling from ipswich again! His theory is joke -

HOW could one, two or three abductors be 'in and out in seconds'??? Let's not forget, they would have to tackle the child gates that Kate kindly told us about in her book. Find the right bedroom in the dark clamber around the bedroom. Drug child(ren). Open shutter and window, pass M to 'accomplice'. Shut window, lower shutter. Leave (but not before making .Maddie's bed!!!). Shut all gates and doors on way out, then be seen and allowed to get away by JT.
Not plausible, is it? Certainly NOT 'in and out in seconds'

The only bit I give any credence to is that Maddie knew her abductor - VERY well. IMHO of course!

Tigger, good theories, am going to think about them all a bit more