Re: Do you believe that the children were really left alone in 5a?

by **HiDeHo** 03.01.18 15:33

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Mr Amaral was the co-ordinator and was privy to a lot more information than was given in the files.

During an interview, Im sure he was not fully aware of ALL the released information and is privy to far more than we know
The interview was well over eight years ago - I'm getting impatient for Mr Amaral to reveal all.

It is however interesting to note. I haven't yet seen anything to suggest Mr Amaral, as case coordinator nor since his removal, has progressed beyond the 'disappearance' on the night of 3rd May 2007 theory, as nurtured by the McCanns and their holiday group.

As I've said before, his theorizing has surely developed since the summer of 2007 over and beyond what was laid out by the group conspirators? It's perplexing as 'The Truth of the Lie' nor the subsequent documentary show any signs of a deviation from the original investigation. I've always excused this as the PJ, under Mr Amaral's leadership, were prevented from pursuing their investigation by outside pressure, so restricted from continuing a routine police investigation. He is no longer under restraint so I can't see any logical reason why all can't be revealed, so to speak.

I'm really anxious to learn.

With the help of the diligence of CMoMM and associates, his assumed secreted knowledge of the case could be intertwined and thus lead to a very positive outlook for 2018!

I really do hope that this year will bring us closer to the truth.

I feel it possible that Goncalo Amaral is waiting until the results of the ECHR before moving forward with his new book, or updating Truth of the Lie.

Once his new book is released we will learn a lot more.

I don't know about others, but I tend to see the big picture with what we have been told. In reality I'll hazard a guess that we know only a small percentage of wht really happened day to day on their holiday.

We are not privy to the 'intelligence' and the general remarks made outside of the statements.

We know that Najoua was re-interviewed on June 6th ONLY about her recollections of Kate and Payne being at the table, but there would have been a lot more discussed. As with all of the witnesses.

Goncalo Amaral tells us more info from the cleaner that was not in the witness statement.

We know VERY LITTLE about the interaction and discussions and conclusions from the GNR.

We are not privy to much of the investigation regarding anything outside of witness statements and a few emails hence Goncalo Amaral would know a LOT more than we will ever know.

As mentioned, I find his comments worthy of note, even if they are not in the files.

We have no idea how much of the investigation he was privy to after his removal and we certainly do not know of the constraints he is under.

During his time before his removal on October 2nd there was only the information from the first interviews. There was a likelihood that things changed after.

Goncalo seemed to place very little importance on the text messages, and yet the prosecutor took them to 'supreme' court in what seemed to be a hurried effort to get info on them before shelving. (In May I believe)

Goncalo also seems to have connections with Hernani Carvalho in interviews etc, which would indicate he likely has a credibility, so when I saw this comment from Hernani it suggested to me that the investigation WAS looking at a different time period. Something wich I would imagine would not be something that Mr Amaral would be able to discuss.

Regardless of any suggestions that something may have happened earlier I feel it is important to give respect for Mr Amaral's conclusions. We do not know the full story.

We also do not know where the current PJ investigation is headed.

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

by **HiDeHo** 03.01.18 15:48

Verdi wrote:HiDeHo @ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As I previously said, where did Mr Amaral get this information from?

NB: Perhaps tonight's hidden entity might have an answer - rather than customarily dipping in and out of the forum, operating behind the scenes as it were.
You can't pull the wool over the eyes of an admin .

HiDeHo wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying regarding 'hidden entity'.

polyenne wrote:
Verdi, who was “the entity” constantly dipping in and out ?

I am still really curious who you refer to in this comment and what you mean.

by Verdi 03.01.18 21:02

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

I've never taken much notice of the Mccanns threat to take Portugal before the ECHR for the simple reason, I don't believe it will even get past the doorman. An idle threat to save face in my view!

That aside, I quite agree there will extensive detail relative to the investigation that wasn't released along with the basic files. Just think, if it were the case there would be enough documentation to pave the streets of Asia. Whether or not there is any information to assist an ongoing investigation is a matter for conjecture.

After well over ten years of waiting, I'm not optimistic. I find it hard, if not impossible to believe that any positive investigation is continuing in Portugal based only on the period between May 2007 and July 2008. On the surface there is no cooperation between Portugal and the UK, if there was Operation Grange would not be feigning to continue the farcical 'investigation'. The UK establishment has managed to protect the McCanns for over ten years, I can't see a volte-face on the horizon.

If however, the PJ are encouraged to review the case with added impetus, who knows?

Meanwhile I wait - impatiently.

Hidden entity? My comment wasn't directed at you - apologies if I caused confusion. You have enough experience to know what goes on behind the scenes, you don't need me to explain winkwink

by **HiDeHo** 03.01.18 21:46

At the risk of sounding 'dumb' I still don't understand what I was supposed to 'get' from the comment you replied to me with.

I'm still none the wiser....just more confused until I figure it out.

I think its a 'given' the McCanns will have no chance with the ECHR, I was just poiting out that it could be possible that Goncalo Amaral is holding back on his book until after it is all resolved.

Personally I have more confidence in the current PJ investigation than you do...they wouldn't have reopened it unless they felt they had new information that was worthwhile.

Taking the text messages to cort just before the shelving, tells me that there is a direction they had but just couldn't prove without a body or without someone talking.

We know that one of the T7 lawyers has claimed his client 'feels obliged to keep silent..' and I doubt if much has changed since then...

Or has it?

We don't know.

by Verdi 04.01.18 12:46

HiDeHo wrote:We know that one of the T7 lawyers has claimed his client 'feels obliged to keep silent..' and I doubt if much has changed since then...

Whoa! That was just a press report wasn't it? I don't believe it was ever verified by a 'reliable' source - frankly, I'm not convinced that any self respecting lawyer would talk to the press about a client.

Anyway, I find the press a very unreliable source of information. In short, I don't believe a word they print.

by **HiDeHo** 04.01.18 16:06

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:We know that one of the T7 lawyers has claimed his client 'feels obliged to keep silent..' and I doubt if much has changed since then...
Whoa! That was just a press report wasn't it? I don't believe it was ever verified by a 'reliable' source - frankly, I'm not convinced that any self respecting lawyer would talk to the press about a client.

Anyway, I find the press a very unreliable source of information. In short, I don't believe a word they print.

They were quotes from the lawyer...

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

Daily Mail

McCanns accused of pressuring Tapas Nine to 'keep them silent'

Last updated at 15:04pm on 12th November 2007

Madeleine McCann's parents faced fresh allegations today that they are pressurising their friends into keeping silent over the events surrounding their daughter's disappearance.

One of the "Tapas nine" who was dining with the couple on the night Madeleine vanished is said to feel "obliged to keep silent".

Respected Spanish newspaper El Mundo quoted an un-named lawyer, said to represent the friend, criticising the McCanns' advisers.

The lawyer told the newspaper: "My client feels obliged to keep silent about what he can do to help the investigation, and not because of the Portuguese secrecy laws.

"This is very revealing about the strange circumstances surrounding this case.

"It's not that he is scared of the McCanns, but the economic and political lobby surrounding the couple is truly frightening to anybody.

"What my client wants is to reveal the whole truth, but he does not mean to accuse or blame anyone, as that is the job of the police.

"The only thing he wants is to help the police discover the truth about what happened before, during and after that dinner on May 3."

Last week El Mundo reported that lawyers acting for two of the McCanns' friends have contacted Portuguese police to say they wish to "correct" certain parts of their statements.

Gerry and Kate McCann's spokesman Clarence Mitchell denied the report and said it was not true that any of the couple's friends want to change their stories.

But the British lawyer, who has an office in London, told El Mundo: "If you take into account all of the pressure that has been placed on my client and on other people, it is perfectly natural and understandable that my client has not told Clarence Mitchell of his decision to hire his own lawyer to co-operate more closely with the police."

Four of the Tapas Nine: (clockwise from top left) Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner, Russell O' Brien, Rachael Oldfield. Not pictured are Matthew Oldfield, David Payne, and Dianne Webster

The lawyer also claimed that on the night of May 3 the McCanns did not call the police until they had discussed the possible implications for them of having left their three children alone in the holiday apartment.

The lawyer said: "The police were only informed after the group in question analysed the problems they could face for having left the children alone, and until now, my client has not had the opportunity to talk for himself about it all."

The lawyer, who is said to have been hired by the friend in September, was also critical of the help the McCanns have been given by the British authorities.

He said: "I understand perfectly that our government is legally obliged to help the McCanns.

"What I can't understand is that they have received help which goes far beyond what would be considered normal in a case like this.

"However, from the very beginning it has been clear that the Madeleine case is not a normal police case.

"It's not my job to have to explain why and how certain politicians have intervened in this case, but I'm afraid these interventions have been prejudicial not only to my client, but also for determining the truth.

"My client has not received any personal support from the British authorities, only that which has come through the McCann couple.

"I don't want to accuse anyone, but there are people very close to the McCanns who are not helping them at all.

"The intention of my client is to bring to light the truth of this sad story, without any concern for who might be implicated."

Four of the Tapas Nine, the name given to Gerry and Kate McCann and the seven friends they were dining with on the night Madeleine disappeared from the holiday complex in the Algarve, have reportedly brought in their own lawyers as they prepared to be named as official suspects.

Missing: And, at the centre of it all, four-year-old
Madeleine McCann, who has been missing for six months

A Sunday newspaper named the four as Russell O'Brien and his partner Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Dr David Payne.

It claimed they had been warned they would join the McCanns and Robert Murat as "arguidos" after the discovery by Portuguese investigators of inconsistencies in key statements made immediately after Madeleine vanished.

Dr Payne, a 41-year-old cardiovascular researcher from Leicester, was the last person outside the McCann family to see Madeleine at the Ocean Club resort on May 3.
Gerry asked him to check on his wife and children while he having a tennis lesson at about 6.30pm.

Attention has also focused on Jane Tanner's claim she saw a man carrying a girl from the McCanns' ground floor apartment at about 9.15pm - when another witness says he was outside the flat at the same time but did not see her or the mystery man.

Mr Oldfield, 37, from south London, has said he entered the McCanns' apartment to check on the children about 30 minutes before Madeleine was reported missing by her mum.

He told police that although he had seen the McCanns' two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, their sister's bed was out of his sight-line.

Dr O'Brien, 36, from Exeter, was away from the group for up to 45 minutes between 9.30pm until 10.15pm while he tended to his own child who was sick in his apartment.

He told police he had changed her bedlinen, but staff at the Ocean Club were said to have denied any change of sheets was requested.

The McCanns and their friends have always denied any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance - and insist she was kidnapped.

They are barred by strict Portuguese secrecy laws from speaking about the events of May 3 but recently issued a statement denying they had a "pact of silence" or that they were covering up a secret.

Portuguese police are preparing to send a three-man team led by chief investigator Paulo Rebelo to the UK to reinterview the Tapas Nine.

British detectives will ask questions put to them by their Portuguese counterparts.

by Basil with a brush 04.01.18 23:33

HiDeHo wrote:
Verdi wrote:Dr Payne, a 41-year-old cardiovascular researcher from Leicester, was the last person outside the McCann family to see Madeleine at the Ocean Club resort on May 3.
Gerry asked him to check on his wife and children while he having a tennis lesson at about 6.30pm.

Absolute drivel. Check on them for what? If there was anything important enough that you'd have to ask your friend to 'Check on them?'....you'd do it yourself.
It's not a case of ''Oh they may just do things different from you.'' It's because it's a lie.

Apologies for not being on the topic. Just had to get that one off my chest....pheew.

by Verdi 04.01.18 23:50

HiDeHo wrote:They were quotes from the lawyer...

As reported by the press.

I rest my case.

by **HiDeHo** 05.01.18 13:32

We appear to have different opinions about press reports.

I, by no means , believe everything I read, whether because it is an error or an outright effort to mislead, but have always believed that when something is written in quotes that it is accurate.

This has been confirmed by Daily Mail regarding this article.

When the files were released, there was not a lot that surprised us as SOL articles gave us the info later confirmed by the files.

Personally if quotes are used in news article I choose to accept them as accurate, as I do with specific quotes from Mr Amaral.

A lot is to be believed in the news articles from Portugal in the early days and though I don't use article info as FACT, I certainly retain the info to use alongside the facts, or recognise important info that has been deleted from the internet.

I therefore believe the lawyers comments are worth noting.

by roz 05.01.18 14:42

Yes – I do believe that the Mc Cann children were really left alone in 5A.
The sheer lack of holiday photos of Madeleine that week tells me she was ‘gone’ Sunday/Monday -not lunching with the others etc, tells me they hid her absence during the day until the ‘abduction’ could take place.
So too at night would Madeleine’s absence have to be concealed from those who did not know.
The O’Briens and Olfields possibly carried their children to the Payne apartment Sunday to Wednesday (not Thursday night) where there one of them then stayed to babysit until certain that all 5 children were asleep. (The babysitter could then briefly join the others for their meal in the Tapas, while they listened through the Payne’s monitor.)
The Mc Canns, in my opinion, could not risk the carrying of only two children each night to the Payne’s apartment - not necessarily knowing who else of the group would enter the apartment as they did so. (I do not believe that ALL the Tapas 7 knew.)
The Mc Canns would also have no way of knowing at what time any of the group would return to the Payne’s apartment to collect their children at the end of their meal in the Tapas.

I believe also that the patio door of 5A would have been kept locked outside of crèche times - if for no other reason than to stop anyone else from entering and seeing only the twins.

by Verdi 05.01.18 15:47

roz wrote: (I do not believe that ALL the Tapas 7 knew.)

Too many flaws in the reported proceedings of the week and the aftermath, to believe the entire Tapas group were not complicit with the cover-up.

The crèche attendance and register.

The movement of the group throughout the week, even if the McCann's largely kept themselves to themselves every day, there is still the anomaly of the McCanns being seen by the group with the twins, minus Madeleine. They couldn't have hidden themselves and the twins in apartment 5a all week.

Evidenced by the witness statements, the group jointly colluded to obfuscate their movements during the week, including the nights when they were at the Tapas restaurant.

The Paynes concocted a confusing and conflicting story about David Payne's visit to the McCann apartment late afternoon on the 3rd May.

The Tanner/O'Briens were willing active participants in the phantom abductor storyline.

The Oldfield/Mampillys willingly and actively went along with the checking of the McCann children on the night of 3rd May. Oldfield also claims to have entered the McCann apartment - he could see the twins breathing but didn't look to see if Madeleine was OK. roll

Dianne Webster, although perhaps on the periphery turning a blind eye, couldn't possibly have been in total ignorance of the groups movements throughout the week.

Then we have this - drawn up by the group in unison on the night of 3rd May 2007..

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

Since May 2007, the group have remained silent about the disappearance of Madeleine - a PACT of silence!

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

There can be no doubt the entire group were complicit.

by roz 05.01.18 16:16

I think the Tapas 7 were all complicit in covering up for the Mc Canns out of sympathy – after Madeleine’s ‘abduction’. It does not necessarily mean that they all knew for sure that Madeleine was ‘gone’ beforehand.

by Verdi 05.01.18 21:23

Do you seriously believe the group of friends thought Madeleine had been abducted? Think again!

I've laid out a few reasons to suggest the group were all complicit including their behaviour during the week - there are many more.

If you, roz for example, are in accord with the compelling evidence that Madeleine met her fate earlier in the week, then you can't rule out the crèche attendance and register, or indeed the riddle of the 'tennis ball' image or other references by members of the group, that Madeleine was seen during the week.

Above all else, if any members of the group went along with the McCann plan out of sympathy because they thought Madeleine had been abducted, as you say, then why have they (whoever they might be) remained silent for all these years, rather than confessing their delusion for the sake of Madeleine.

Who is important here - an innocent three year old child or the face of a group of adults who were foolish enough to be conned by the McCanns?

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

by roz 06.01.18 7:10

If all the Tapas 7 knew that ‘something had happened to Madeleine’ prior to Thursday, then why did the Mc Canns carry out any avoidance?
Why did the Mc Canns avoid going to the Payne’s apartment at lunch times after Sunday/Monday? (Tuesday 1^st – Mc Canns alleged lunchtime ‘beach trip’ with 3 children).

Fiona Payne Rog 10.4.08 (snipped) And then, erm, come lunchtime we'd pick them up, pick the kids up and meet back at the, at our apartment and, generally, I think, every day, we fed the kids in our apartment and usually Matt and Rachael came, would come up and Russ and Jane were there and the kids and usually Kate and Gerry had theirs in their apartment, mainly because their, they just found it easier'.

What was so hard about walking with 3 children to the Payne’s apartment?

Perhaps it was hard for the Mc Canns to walk there with just two?

by NickE 06.01.18 8:32

For several reasons I don't believe they left the kids alone at all that week.
According to Rachel Oldfield was the big shutter on 5A's patio door down and closed on the evening of May 3rd and she said that they had to raise it every time they went inside the apartment.
When some TM shill's don't can defend the "abduction for the window theory" they say, "The patio door was unlocked it would have been easy for the abductor to leave that way"
I don't think someone were inside that apartment after they left for Tapas until Kate went there later to check on the children because the apartment was empty.
What they did when they left the table were to make the final preparation for a staged abduction.
Raised the shutter on the bedroom window just before 10pm and KM opened up the window when she came back and make the bed looking that someone slept in it.
Imo.
Snipped from the files, Rachel Oldfield on May 15th.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Phoebe 06.01.18 11:57

I'm wary of giving any credence to the story of the lunching arrangements. After all, the source for this is the Tapas gang and they have obviously been untruthful in much of their evidence regarding that holiday. I suspect they invented the lunch routine to try and imply that they saw little of the McCanns other than at dinner that week. It screams of "We know nothing, please don't bother asking us how the McCanns were getting along with each other or the children as we saw precious little of them during the days". I also believe they deliberately headed to the beach sans McCanns on that Thursday for the same reason. Only when the P.J. began to look at the period after high tea on Thursday and it became obvious that there was ample time for something untoward to have happened did Payne come under pressure to make the fuddled claim that he had seen Madeleine alive and well after six p.m. Nothing they say can be taken as truthful IMO!

by Basil with a brush 08.01.18 2:39

Phoebe wrote:I'm wary of giving any credence to the story of the lunching arrangements. After all, the source for this is the Tapas gang and they have obviously been untruthful in much of their evidence regarding that holiday.

Only when the P.J. began to look at the period after high tea on Thursday and it became obvious that there was ample time for something untoward to have happened did Payne come under pressure to make the fuddled claim that he had seen Madeleine alive and well after six p.m. Nothing they say can be taken as truthful IMO!

...and that really is a fuddled claim. So downright ridiculous, it's almost funny.

I agree with those two points of yours Phoebe thumbup

by Verdi 08.01.18 12:46

NickE wrote:For several reasons I don't believe they left the kids alone at all that week.
According to Rachel Oldfield was the big shutter on 5A's patio door down and closed on the evening of May 3rd and she said that they had to raise it every time they went inside the apartment.

Like all aspects of this saga as regards the McCanns and their friends - you can't believe a word. There might be an element of truth hidden somewhere but that's far outweighed by the inconsistencies. Rachael Oldfield being a prime example of botched obfuscation..

Rachael Oldfield witness statement 4th May 2007

Yesterday, at around 8.45pm, like every evening, they joined the rest of the group to eat at the," tapas," restaurant. Her husband Matthew, went to look for David Payne and Fiona Payne. At around 9pm, the couple arrived followed by Matthew two or three minutes later. He had been to check the children's bedrooms, his own apartment where his daughter was sleeping but also that of the twins and Madeleine. He listened at both closed shutters and didn't hear any noise. He also checked to see if there was any noise in Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner's apartment. He said that he hadn't heard any noise.
~~~

Between the starters and the main course, at around 9.30pm, her husband Matthew Oldfield and Russell O'Brien both went to check on the children. Kate was also planning to go and see the children, but they told her it was no trouble, that they would go and check. Kate, therefore, stayed at the restaurant. Four or five minutes later the interviewee's husband came back after having checked his apartment. He also checked the one where Madeleine was. He entered the apartment by the sliding door/window at the rear (the couple Gerry and Kate McCann left that access unlocked during dinner). The said patio door gives access to the apartment's lounge where two doors open into the respective bedrooms.

Rachael Oldfield witness statement - 11th May 2007

After about 4 minutes, MATHEW returned to the table when they ordered the food, and said he had "listened" to his daughter and to the RUSSEL and MCCANN children, outside the front by putting his head [ear] against the shutters of the windows of their respective bedrooms and that everything was calm with the children.
~~~

At that point, presumably, she cannot be sure, if her husband MATHEW or RUSSEL volunteered to go to see KATE's children, and she them that they would have to enter by the back door, which was unlocked. RUSSEL and MATHEW left at the same time. About five minutes later, MATHEW returned saying that the children were all well, and that RUSSEL had stayed in the bedroom as one of his daughters was crying.

Rachael Oldfield witness statement 15th May 2007

The Payne family and Dianne arrived just after 21.00. Matthew bumped into them as he had gone to the apartment, but he did not enter, he just listened outside to see if there was any noise. He did the same at the Tanner and McCann apartments.
The window shutters of the McCann's apartments were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.
~~~

At about 21.30 Matthew and Russell went to check on their children at the same time. They offered to check on the McCann children. After checking his children Matthew went to see the McCann children. In order to do so he entered via the patio doors. According to what her husband told her the bedroom door was ajar. He did not enter the room and therefore cannot say whether Madeleine was in the room or not. All he could confirm was that nobody was crying and the twins were there. Russell was not with him as he had stayed in his apartment because one of his children was crying.
~~~

The very notion of this child checking arrangement is nonsensical. You're out for an evening meal, to relax and get so into each other, yet the whole time is spent bobbing up and down, walking (or flip flopping in Jane Tanner's case) across the way to check children in respective apartments? No wonder Gerry McCann packed a supply of medication for indigestion. How can you enjoy an evening meal under such circumstances?

That aside, assuming the arrangement be truthful for the purpose of dissecting Rachael Oldfield's storyline, why the need to emphasize apartment 5a patio doors? To pave the way for an abductor to enter/leave at his/her leisure?

According to the 4th/llth version of the truth, the earlier check was listening at the children's bedroom window (front of building alongside front locked door) but the second check by her husband, he visited the McCanns apartment via the patio doors. Why would he do that on one specific occasion? If he was also checking his own children by the same route, it would have been up the stone steps to the McCann'ery back down and then up his apartment stone steps and back down - his own patio doors being locked from the inside? Why bother?

Moving on to the 15th May version of the truth, for the first visit Ms Oldfield said..

"...he did not enter, he just listened outside to see if there was any noise. He did the same at the Tanner and McCann apartments.
The window shutters of the McCann's apartments were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter."

The children's bedroom window was at the front of the building, the patio doors were at the back of the building accessed by a flight of stone steps. Are we then to believe that Matthew Oldfield did a tour of the building to check all the windows and doors - like a janitor? Then, the second later visit to apartment 5a, he again uses the patio entrance to check on the McCann children.

Piecing in all together, this checking arrangement really is a load of garbled nonsense. I venture to suggest it never happened. Whatever, Rachael Oldfield certainly made a pigs ear of trying to convince.

Little did they know that eventually their words would be presented before the world.

by polyenne 08.01.18 13:03

IMO, the Oldfields, like the Paynes, are the probable main co-conspirators to the McCanns.

If true, was it their lawyers who stated that they'd like to say more.....but couldn't ?

by Verdi 08.01.18 13:30

The O'Brien's played a pivotal role - they're all culpable.

The 'couldn't say more' mantra, expounded by every one of the group at some time or other, was but a shield to hide behind. They used the Portuguese law to maximise their advantage of remaining silent.

The Portuguese investigation was archived in the summer of 2008. The group have had nigh on ten years to 'say more'.

by Guest 19.06.18 20:20

Interesting possibility. The only reason why I believe they did left them home alone is their self defensiveness as soon as she was gone while they were in tapas. They all came up with a BS checking system.
The Mccann's are very right - so right that it makes them even more suspicious - when they say they could never predict something like this, the place is very safe. It is. Portugal, Algarve, specially on a low season, is very quiet and safe. It's a very peaceful country, specially out of the cities. It doesn't shock me so much that they left them unattended, although you should never do it since children are children with needs and little capabilities, but in that regard - being a safe place - they were right. So right, that their theory of abduction is very very unlikely. Abducted children are usually taken by family members (in divorces, abusive relationships) or shady friends. Nevertheless, people they know. Like Rui Pedro, a missing kid that was kidnapped by someone close to a friend of the kid - a shady older friend that use to take him to brothels.

Log in for more topics