Madeleine McCann

Beasty wrote: »

You can (still, I think) pick up Pay as you Go phones without providing any information

thats what i would assume a criminal would do if they were planning a crime like this.


i would also assume that the phone company could trace that sim to the shop that sold it and track it that way. maybe i have watched too much csi

2u2me wrote: »

The phone call has me most curious. Police must suspect the person on the other end of that line, which was shortly before the abduction and lasted 30 minutes.

Doesn't this imply a conspiracy and not a simple opportunist?

I really think that number could potentially be someone who works at the hotel. He was known for robberies so maybe it was a robbery that went "wrong" with someone tipping him off with the coming and going of the residents.

limnam wrote: »

Do we know if there was other robberies that day/night in the resort or nearby hotels?


The time would seem really odd to attempt a robbery in a family oriented resort. These would be best carried out during the day where the likely hood of it been empty is much higher.


As they kept the same pattern. E,g out drinking every night. I would be surprised someone in the hotel not knowing the lack of childcare


It looks like the Portuguese police forwarded his name in 2012 to the British police who never requested any further information. So they seemed to not put much on him at the time either.

In regards to not putting much on him back then I say it was due to no red flags at the time but the witness coming forward and then him being accused of abducting a 5 year old and the rape of the older lady suddenly a deeper look into this guys history opened a can of worms I guess. He has all the hallmarks of an abductor learnt from his burglary history and sneak attacks then add in his hippie lifestyle 18 months before the Madeline abduction. I’d say he found a new way to be even more under the radar by going between living in the van, jag and few houses so the nomadic lifestyle enabled him to plan journeys to remote areas where he could get rid of evidence.

danslevent wrote: »

I really think that number could potentially be someone who works at the hotel. He was known for robberies so maybe it was a robbery that went "wrong" with someone tipping him off with the coming and going of the residents.

I have always thought it was an inside job .The pattern of leaving the children and the door open was most likely noted by a staff member and passed on .Whether is was a burglary that went wrong or a burglary and someone saw an opportunity is a possibility . Maybe he went in to burgle and saw the child and took the opportunity .

anewme wrote: »

He looks like a serious suspect.

It would be great for the family to get closure.

According to the Australian news you tube clip someone posted earlier.


He was given the all clear in 2008. Apparently the van with the reg plate change was forensically checked at the time and given the all clear.



He was then past on to the British police in 2012 by the Portuguese who didn't request anything further from them. So looks like this is pretty dormant for 8 years.


Whats new seems to be some drunk slurring in a pub.


Not sure how serious we're looking here

thecomedian wrote: »

Is the person that came forward not creditable? Do they have a drinking problem?
Or do you think this Christian guy just made up the story?

No idea, he was drinking with a child rapist who burgles for a living. I wouldn't like to depennd on him for much


I just thinking whispering in a pub is probably not very solid.


I wouldn't like to put my child's hopes on it

dark crystal wrote: »

From her statement:

"At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.

Faced with this situation,she verified that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance. The whole group then set about searching for Madeleine throughout the complex, looked in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc....as well as in the apartment with the help of employees, who, at the same time, contacted the authorities."

This is the part I can never understand as a mother... am I correct in saying she left the twins alone in the apartment while running back to the tapas bar saying somebody had abducted Madeleine?

I can't for the life of me understand if you think there's somebody dangerous around how would you leave your kids again?

I think a lot of people WANT it to be that the McCanns were somehow involved in Madeleine's disappearance/death(?).

Why? Because it gives them comfort.

It is easier for them to believe that there is a calculated conspiracy behind Madeleine's disappearance than face the reality that random, inexplicable things can and will happen every day with no rhyme nor reason behind them. That frightens them. A lot.

If the McCanns "did it" then Madeleine's disappearance was not random or down to luck or chance.

mosii wrote: »

Anyone else see the how difficult it would be to carry a child out the window,it was about 8ft or higher from the road,from what i can see.Even getting in that window would be difficult,in my opinion.If the kids were given calpol,or something stronger,i would think they could remain asleep while someone carried them away.I would think that the families were been watched in the days leading up to the abduction,and the person or persons who abducted her knew that the view from the pool could not be great.

Calpol doesn't cause drowsiness.


There was no evidence the window was tampered with aFAIK.

My two cents on this issue. The parents are innocent. I think if they were in on some cover-up they would not have made such a fuss about the case in the first place. Also given that they were eating 50m from the apartment where their friends were, I don't think they would even have time to hide the body and keep 10 people silent. It's not really credible.

On the negligence aspect of things, I am sure thousands of parents have done similar things. When I think back to my own childhood, my parents were often in with the next-door neighbour's house having a pint or something and that would have been 200 metres across a field where I am from. I would be at home watching television or playing Nintendo and they would come and check up on me. Granted I was probably older than Madeline. I think all of the people calling for their heads are a bit clueless and 24/7 child supervision is just not possible. I doubt people calling for this have kids. I think the amount of scares around paedophiles is also overblown. We live in the age of 24/7 media and instant communication so it makes things appear out of proportion.

I think they were unlucky and I feel sorry for them. Yes, they might have been too relaxed given they were in a foreign country but they have been punished enough with the loss of their daughter.

I think it is frightening the number of people who nowadays believe in conspiracy theories. I enjoy them myself but goodness they are just entertainment. We shouldn't believe them all.

mosii wrote: »

They window apparently was open a one stage ,according to evidence given by one of the people who went to check on them.I just looked at the netflix doc. again ,and that was also implied.
As for calpol not making you drowsy,ask anybody who has kids,i know its a pain killer,but it will make kids sleep a lot faster and deeper,especially if they are tired.:cool:

I've kids.


There's nothing in calpol to cause drowsiness. It's paracetamol basically.


I need to check, but I was pretty sure they confirmed the window hadn't been opened. Might be wrong. One way or another. For the parents or anyone. It was a difficult enough situation to get a kid out in.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have always thought it was an inside job .The pattern of leaving the children and the door open was most likely noted by a staff member and passed on .Whether is was a burglary that went wrong or a burglary and someone saw an opportunity is a possibility . Maybe he went in to burgle and saw the child and took the opportunity .

The Netflix documentary had it that there was a note written in the restaurant reservations book that the group wanted that table at that time every night because their children were being left alone in the apartment nearby. I reckon some of the staff (restaurant, cleaner, whatever) saw this and tipped somebody off. They probably watched them, learned the routine, etc and had planned what to do with her (safehouse or whatever).

I really doubt that it was opportunistic. I find it hard to believe that someone walked in there looking for cash and walked out with a child and were then able to avoid detection for 13 years (at least) despite the huge resources that have gone into this case in that time.

limnam wrote: »

I've kids.


There's nothing in calpol to cause drowsiness. It's paracetamol basically.


I need to check, but I was pretty sure they confirmed the window hadn't been opened. Might be wrong. One way or another. For the parents or anyone. It was a difficult enough situation to get a kid out in.

I agree ,which is why the abductor was probably watching them earlier ,and knew that he couldnt be seen from the pool,he probably went out the front door,and out the side entrance.Only my theory,god help the poor Innocent child.
Unfortunately ,Paedophiles have been with us since the beginning of time,but with the advent of the Internet,they can share their sick and depraved actions.

Any time i went on Holidays with the Kids,I would constantly be looking after them.I actually didnt enjoy going,as i worried so much about them.
Society is going to have to address this problem going forward.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The high window was to the side and about 8 feet off the road .The front window beside the hall door was at a normal window height

Are you saying this was their bedroom window?