SY New Theory - Burglars

Smokeandmirrors wrote:It has occurred to me that in order for SY to get the go-ahead to investigate on Portugese soil, a deal was struck between SY and the PJ.

Whilst the libel trial is going on, the Brits are being given the false impression in the MSM that the PJ are a bunch of fools. They would no way allow another force onto their patch while this is a common view, it would be thoroughly insulting to national pride etc.

So, a flurry of BS statements by SY PROVING that the search is still VERY STRONG, allows the Judge to rule in Amarals favour, and rendering the McCanns claims as cr@p of the most malodorous order, albeit stating the bleedin' obvious after four long years of a lawsuit sat gathering dust in the pending file. Portugese honour is somewhat restored and ergo a working relationship between the two forces can be more meaningfully established. Then all those early witnesses, poor people who lost their jobs at the Ocean Club because of the Gruesome Twosome, can be re-interviewed by Scotland Yard, and will have a new chance to re-iterate the facts, blowing wide apart the Tapas crew's statements. Then, there will be legitimate grounds for hauling in the right people for a thorough interrogation for the first time in 6 flipping long years.

russiandoll wrote:and here is a definition of the crime of burglary

England and Wales[edit source | edit]
Main article: Burglary in English law
Burglary is defined by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which created two variants:^[17]

1. A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.^{[Note 2]}
   
2. A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building.
   

Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner, and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -

Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s

There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a further 5 seconds to cross the street.
He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and exit.

This is an important point for the understanding of what happened.

Let it be stated once again.

If the man seen by Jane Tanner was the “abductor’ (edit: now burglar) and was carrying Madeleine, as the McCanns insist, he had available to him the time from Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment to the sighting by Jane Tanner. And no more.

In this time of one minute and twenty seconds, the intruder has to
• Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three children - in the dark (plus the time needed for the drugs to take effect)
• Select Madeleine as the victim - in the dark
• Open the shutters and window - if he used the front door to enter (with gerry mccann & Jez Wilkins right outside & where you could hear a pin drop)
• Pick Madeleine out of her bed - in the dark
• Turn her round so that her head is now to his left, rather than to his right, which is the way he would have approached her in the bed.
• Exit the apartment, either through the opened window and shutters, or through the front door, which he must then close silently behind him.
• Walk to the left along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead across the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross the street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he had just abducted, and another man who has his own child in a buggy.

Taking into account the travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on the list.

suzyjohnson wrote:Unfortunately what could come next is that JT must have been mistaken, and that MM must have disappeared, with the burglars, sometime after 9.35pm after all. That would be the only way they could make it all fit.

MRNOODLES wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:Unfortunately what could come next is that JT must have been mistaken, and that MM must have disappeared, with the burglars, sometime after 9.35pm after all. That would be the only way they could make it all fit.

Or SY have put JT under the spotlight and RO'B who wrote the timeline in the first place.

Grande Finale wrote:The Lady in the apartment above the Mccanns reported in her statement for the Tuesday night (The crying episode 1hr 15 mins) that she heard the patio door sliding open. Strange then that there was no evidence from her of a door loudly slamming at 10.00pm on Thursday 3rd (Just as she sat down to watch the 10 o'clock News !)

Anyhow now we have the feckers forming an orderly queue outside 5A The caring couple followed by the abductor followed by the burglars closely followed by Gerry ..........Bring on the Dingoes I say !!

So is a burglar that abducts a child not an Abductor then ??

:wtf2:

wilbeth wrote:

Interesting that this "burglary" is being investigated by SY's     SCD1 - MIT - the latter which stands for Murder Investigation Team. I am a serving police officer with another force and this is a well known abbreviation. Odd too, burglary aside that is isn't being investigated by the Serious Crime Unit of SY. Maybe this is being treated as a murder enquiry after all. One can only hope that Madeleine gets the true justice she deserves and those responsible face up to the crimes that they have committed - regardless of who they know!

ShuBob wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:It has occurred to me that in order for SY to get the go-ahead to investigate on Portugese soil, a deal was struck between SY and the PJ.

Whilst the libel trial is going on, the Brits are being given the false impression in the MSM that the PJ are a bunch of fools. They would no way allow another force onto their patch while this is a common view, it would be thoroughly insulting to national pride etc.

So, a flurry of BS statements by SY PROVING that the search is still VERY STRONG, allows the Judge to rule in Amarals favour, and rendering the McCanns claims as cr@p of the most malodorous order, albeit stating the bleedin' obvious after four long years of a lawsuit sat gathering dust in the pending file. Portugese honour is somewhat restored and ergo a working relationship between the two forces can be more meaningfully established. Then all those early witnesses, poor people who lost their jobs at the Ocean Club because of the Gruesome Twosome, can be re-interviewed by Scotland Yard, and will have a new chance to re-iterate the facts, blowing wide apart the Tapas crew's statements. Then, there will be legitimate grounds for hauling in the right people for a thorough interrogation for the first time in 6 flipping long years.

I pray it is so

jozi wrote: [...]
I hope so too, always had faith in SY but these headlines and crap in the newspapers have guttered me .

worriedmum wrote:''and made Maddie's bed , because if she was awake, it would not allow for the gentle lifting and not disturbing the bed story.''

Quite. And did they also make her a cup of tea the day before?

galena wrote:How is this 'new'?  I know for a fact that this theory along with umpteen others has been raised - certainly on the original Digispy thread and dismissed as a possibility. It would be surprising if it had not - there is a limited number of ways Madeleine could have disappeared and I'm pretty certain that every single one has been discussed to death on some forum or another.  The popular media may give the impression that the internet is full of 'nutters' plotting against the McCanns but in fact virtually the only sensible rational discussions about Maddie's disappearance are those I've read on the internet.  The papers are full of nonsense like false leads and half-baked theories which contribute absolutely new to the search for what happened to Maddie ...

Daisy wrote:

galena wrote:How is this 'new'?  I know for a fact that this theory along with umpteen others has been raised - certainly on the original Digispy thread and dismissed as a possibility. It would be surprising if it had not - there is a limited number of ways Madeleine could have disappeared and I'm pretty certain that every single one has been discussed to death on some forum or another.  The popular media may give the impression that the internet is full of 'nutters' plotting against the McCanns but in fact virtually the only sensible rational discussions about Maddie's disappearance are those I've read on the internet.  The papers are full of nonsense like false leads and half-baked theories which contribute absolutely new to the search for what happened to Maddie ...

You're correct galena, defintely not a new theory.

Madeleine: Portuguese police to re-examine burglaries at resort
By FIONA BARTON
Last updated at 11:48 19 August 2007  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html

Daisy wrote:

You're correct galena, defintely not a new theory.

Madeleine: Portuguese police to re-examine burglaries at resort
By FIONA BARTON
Last updated at 11:48 19 August 2007  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html