Sun:Inside the twisted minds of the Madeleine McCann child snatchers

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4285908/Inside-the-twisted-minds-of-the-Madeleine-McCann-child-snatchers.html

Inside the twisted
minds of the Madeleine McCann child snatchers

MADELEINE McCann was targeted from the moment she arrived at the resort where she was snatched — but her abductor was NOT a paedophile, a former top British cop believes.

She was almost certainly taken by a childless couple, respected kidnap investigator Ian Horrocks decided after reviewing the case.

The Sun took Ian to the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Portugal, to walk in the footsteps of whoever was responsible for three-year-old Madeleine’s disappearance on a family holiday five years ago.

Here he presents his shocking conclusions on the case that baffled Portuguese police have closed. Ian says:

- MADELEINE and her family were watched for days before she was taken from their apartment.

- IT was NOT an impulsive act by a lone monster, nor a “kidnap to order” by someone acting for a paedophile ring.

- MOST vitally for Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry — there is a good chance she is still ALIVE.

Ian is well qualified to review the case after a successful 30-year career in London’s Metropolitan Police.

He served as a senior investigating officer on homicide and for five years led one of Scotland Yard’s Kidnap and Specialist Investigations teams.

Walking around Apartment 5a at the resort — where the little girl was taken from her bed as her parents dined with friends — Ian stated firmly:

“Madeleine was most likely abducted by a couple. The nature of the crime, the manner in which it was carried out, together with my examination of the scene, all point to it being two people.

“It is clear the plan and the escape route were planned and probably rehearsed. It was not impulsive.
“The people who took Madeleine most likely don’t have children of their own, or a close, extended family.

“I am of the opinion they speak English as they are well-educated and would need to control her.

“Possibly they do not speak it fluently — and not necessarily as their first language.

“I do NOT believe Madeleine was targeted by a paedophile ring. There are many places where snatching a child for this purpose is simpler.

“And she was nearly four — younger than the usual target age for a paedophile.

“Madeleine was taken by someone who wanted her as part of their family. I believe they saw her earlier in the week and developed their plan to abduct her.”

Ian went on: “The main questions are, where is Madeleine now? And why has she not been discovered?”

He argued: “Many have said that, with all the publicity, she would have been seen. This is incorrect. There are many instances where this has not happened.

He argued: “Many have said that, with all the publicity, she would have been seen. This is incorrect. There are many instances where this has not happened.

“Her hair could be dyed, she could be tanned, speaking a different language. She could even be dressed as a boy.

“Another point is that a child will often believe what they are told and act accordingly. Memories cannot be totally erased but behaviour can be controlled.
“The person who did this is both a controlled and controlling individual.

“There is a good chance that the couple who took her may have subsequently moved. New friends and neighbours will accept them and not be suspicious.

“I do not believe she is in the Praia da Luz area. But if taken by someone who is Portuguese, she could still be in the country or somewhere where Portuguese is the main language — even Brazil. If she was not taken by someone local, the reality is, she could be anywhere. ”

After examining the crime scene, Ian told us: “The abductor could have made good his escape in less than two minutes.

“By turning right from the apartment he could have been totally out of sight within 30 seconds of taking Madeleine.

“This involved observing the McCanns for some time. There were six sightings of a suspicious male in the days prior to Madeleine’s abduction.

“On that night, Gerry would have been seen checking on his children at 9.05pm, then returning to the tapas bar. It was the ideal time. Sunset on May 3 2007 was 8.25pm. It would have been quite dark by 9pm.
“They knew they had 20 to 30 minutes between checks on the children.

“The abductor went into the garden area, entered through the unlocked patio doors and went to the bedroom, where Madeleine was asleep. A car could have been parked nearby.”

This timing would fit in with a 9.15pm sighting by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ holiday group, of a man walking away carrying a child in his arms.

Ian said: “I firmly believe the man she saw was Madeleine’s abductor.”

He also believes the investigation was hampered from the beginning. He said: “The scene should have been sealed when the first officer arrived to preserve any forensic evidence.

“And from early on the Portuguese police obviously suspected Kate and Gerry were involved. In such cases, an investigator can subconsciously try to make the evidence fit his theory.

“I do not believe the McCanns were involved. To imagine they are capable of creating an elaborate cover-up and then go out to dinner is ludicrous.

“Portuguese police appear to have decided within a short space of time that Madeleine was dead.

“An investigator who believes this reacts differently to one looking for a live person. There should also have been house-to-house enquiries to establish who was in the resort and nearby. And there should have been a more urgent, wider appeal for witnesses.”

Last week Portuguese officials rejected a call to reopen the case after a review by British police revealed 195 new leads.

But Ian believes Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, should be reinterviewed, along with others in their holiday group and other witnesses.

He added: “There are NO reliable forensics, there are NO apparent suspects. All that is left are witnesses. This is where the focus should be. It is almost five years since this terrible offence. But it is NOT too late.”

a.lazzeri@the-sun.co.uk

======================

I think that must be one of the most sensible articles I've read for a long time. It's long been a mystery why the forkers like to pretend it would have been difficult for the abductor to get in and out of 5A; it could have been done in a couple of minutes or less.

an investigator can subconsciously try to make the evidence fit his theory

No 'subconsciously' about it with Gonc. He admitted himself that he woke up on May 4th and decided the McCanns DONE IT.

He also decided Robert Murat DONE IT and seems to have had Murat booked in for a tour of the police station stairs.

He must have been gutted to find out that, not only was the world's media watching, but Murat had dual nationality.

I suspect that that is all that stopped Gonc demonstrating what a big, brave man he is at hitting people who can't fight back, and inventing a 'hypothesis' involving framing three innocent people to suit his ridiculous Fridge Theory.

That is more or less what I believe happened. Not sure about the car since I believe The Smiths saw the abductor heading for the beach where Madeleine could have been taken off by small boat. A yacht did leave the marina later that night and Madeleine could have been kept on board for some time.
But as he says, this all points to a couple who wanted a child. People with money who could have moved location once they returned from cruising.

Sabot, I would love to know why the forkers make getting in and out of 5A sound like Mission Impossible, when it would have been the work of minutes - seconds, even.

I will have to check the files, but I am sure someone saw a van parked outside 5A at the relevant time that was never traced.

Three minutes maximum, Bonny. Although I do think the abductor was already in the appartment when Gerry checked at 9 pm. Probably hiding behind the door or in the wardrobe.
I know we've been through all of this before, but it is comforting to find that an ex policeman agrees that Madeleine was almost certainly taken by a childless couple. Paedophiles just don't take these sort of risks when easier means are available.
They will have wanted a child of some intelligence who had been well looked after, and will have gone to some lengths to obtain what they wanted.

Here it is:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic9-40.html

Volume II

Pages 469 – 470a

Maria Manuela Martins da Silva

quote:


Concerning the issue of the process said;
. That she resides in Praia da Luz;
. That she often visits ********, sister of her boyfriend, who resides in Block 6, Apartment 5 in the resort known as the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, in Lagos
. The block in question is contiguous with that one occupied by the McCann family, and is a ground-floor with a kitchen window having visibility to the back windows of the apartment occupied by Madeleine McCann;

This is the relevant section:

. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;

That car is there at almost exactly 10pm.

What it means, if anything, I don't know - but some effort should have been made to trace it. That does not appear to have happened.

bb1 wrote:Sabot, I would love to know why the forkers make getting in and out of 5A sound like Mission Impossible, when it would have been the work of minutes - seconds, even.

I will have to check the files, but I am sure someone saw a van parked outside 5A at the relevant time that was never traced.

Not a van, but from Isabel Duarte's list of things not followed up by the PJ,

One witness described seeing a small grey car parked near the McCanns’ apartment but it is not apparent from the files whether the owner of the vehicle has been identified and ruled out.

Not surprisingly, Greenink, Ms Duarte is right and I am wrong; I checked and it was indeed a small grey car.

It beggars belief that this was not traced; maybe Amaral was wasting too much manpower having British police officers followed.

Didn't the Police Tracker Dogs actually follow a scent into the car park and then it just stopped suddenly ?? Like someone getting into a car

Yes, that is exactly what the Portuguese dogs did, MF.

It's well worth rereading the reports of the Portuguese dog handlers:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic18-20.html

They are very clear and concise; the officers know what they are doing, and the strengths and weaknesses of their dogs.

To me, they appear to be everything that Grime's statements are not; they seem to me to be much more professional, and should be given more attention than they are.

Apart from anything else, it's a safe bet that they actually were following Madeleine McCann's scent, not whatever it was that got Eddiewoof yapping three months later.

about:

"Gonc. He admitted himself that he woke up on May 4th and decided the McCanns DONE IT", the proof about gonc´s words can be read at Miguel Sousa Tavares interview, in which gonc was very nervous.

Miguel continues: you go to your home, wake up in the morning, this is in your book, and the first thing that comes to your brain is to ask the British who are the McCanns? And you start immediately to suspect and ask questions

He admits it in his book as well, Pedro:

Breakfast on May 4th:

We need information about the parents and their friends

and a long list of things he decides he needs to know follows.

Not once does he show the slightest interest in the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann.

Strangely, he also forgets to mention that, that very day, he is made an ARGUIDO because of the Cipriano scandal.

Wasn't there a couple that were seen acting strange and then they were gone the next day?

And Jenny Murat remarked about those people too?

Now that rings a bell, Zenny. And I'd almost forgotten that odd business of her offering to gather information if people didn't want to speak to the police....why were people scared of the police?

I know we know now they had good reason to be scared of the local thugs in uniform, but we didn't then.

bb1 wrote:Now that rings a bell, Zenny. And I'd almost forgotten that odd business of her offering to gather information if people didn't want to speak to the police....why were people scared of the police?

I know we know now they had good reason to be scared of the local thugs in uniform, but we didn't then.

I'm trying to remember it though. Is it in the files?

No, I don't think it is - was a press report? I just cannot remember. I know I've read it somewhere, though..

bb1 wrote:No, I don't think it is - was a press report? I just cannot remember. I know I've read it somewhere, though..

Me too.

This? LL

bb1 wrote:Now that rings a bell, Zenny. And I'd almost forgotten that odd business of her offering to gather information if people didn't want to speak to the police....why were people scared of the police?

I know we know now they had good reason to be scared of the local thugs in uniform, but we didn't then.

At some point in the future (near future if at all possible) I would really like to know why she set up a table in the middle of PDL. I can't imagine any UK police force allowing such a thing. When I was reading up about Murat recently that struck me as one of the oddest things to happen in the whole story.

Does anyone know if she was ever more complete in explaining her reasons for doing it?

So was there anything given to her I wonder? Did it go to the police? Did it ever get into the files does anyone know?

I cannot recall seeing it in the files, Greenink. Just looking at the clip LL posted - what on earth was/is going on on the Algarve?

I am going through old material; I came across this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6647479.stm

Some of the volunteers who have gathered daily to help police, fire and civil defence officers with the search are ready to continue.

But the criminal police - the Policia Judiciaria - which is handling the investigation, yesterday made clear that the official ground search has ended, after finding nothing of significance.

That was published on the 11th...

Mrs Murat did give a witness statement, but there is nothing about a couple in it:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JENNIFER-MURAT.htm

Reading that, I just think, yet again, that it was dreadful of the PJ to release so much personal information. It's kept the ghouls in meat ever since.

ETA, there is this:

For three days (Friday 11/05, Saturday 12/05 and Sunday 13/05) she was at the "post" mounted near to the cinema having obtained some information that she gave to Robert who, in turn, gave it to the Police.

But as Gonc was apparently all set to give Murat a tour of the police station stairs, I think it's safe to say he passed it on.

Wasn't there a couple that were seen acting strange and then they were gone the next day?

Are you referring to the two men that Mrs Fenns neice saw on ?the balcony of an adjoining flat, looking over 5A?


Or the watcher that Tasmin Sillence and others saw?


Or was there someone else?

There is a lot of good thinking by Ian Horrocks

Ian Horrocks

“On that night, Gerry would have been seen checking on his children at 9.05pm, then returning to the tapas bar. It was the ideal time. Sunset on May 3 2007 was 8.25pm. It would have been quite dark by 9pm.
“They knew they had 20 to 30 minutes between checks on the children.

“The abductor went into the garden area, entered through the unlocked patio doors and went to the bedroom, where Madeleine was asleep. A car could have been parked nearby.”

This timing would fit in with a 9.15pm sighting by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ holiday group, of a man walking away carrying a child in his arms.

Ian said: “I firmly believe the man she saw was Madeleine’s abductor.”

But some things do not tie in. Entering through the unlocked patio doors.
This cannot be true unless the abductor was prepared to risk being seen by Kate and Gery who were only 50 metres away. There was a steet lamp immediately opposite the rear patio entrance to 5A and it can be seen from photographs that the rear steps and patio were very well illuminated.

With the front door so recessed, hidden and out of sight, and in almost complete darkness no intruder would go in thruogh this well lit and overlooked place, it seems to me. Better to choose the dark hidden way in.
From previous break ins in the block, it had been proven that it was easy enough to gain entrance via front doors

Also as sabot points out,
1) either the abductor had to be in the appartment when Gerry arrived, or else
2) he had to enter whilst Gerry and Jezz were talking outside quite close to the steps he had to use to reach the patio doors


Number 2 is a non runner.

Lets examine number 1)
So the abductor precedes Gerry into the apartment then hides cos Gerry is coming. Think about it,. He had walked up those steps and let himself in. He was in a dangerous position. First thing lift Madeleine and leave immediately. BUT Gerry went in, looked at Madeleine and she was fast asleep undisturbed.
The fact that she was undisturbed means that the abductor hadn't managed to get to Madeleine when he realised Gerry was right behind him.

So Gerry was very close on the abductors tail. How come that with the steps and patio so well lit, he hadn't seen him bathed in light as he approached? I find that difficult to reconcile with the well illuminated patio and the closeness of the two men.


[See upper photo . The gate with the steps up is at the RH end of the hedge and the patio with the patio doors is in the area of the illuminated arches. The lower photo clearly shows the street light immediately opposite the gate, the steps up and the patio area.]

I still believe it was via the hidden ill lit front door, in and out. Therefore probably a key. Therefore probably someone from OC involved