Just five hours in May

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann?

User Tools

Site Tools


Index of Files

Non-English speaker may get help by Google Website translation. Translate to every language, like Portuguese, German or even Japanese:




js#bj-tango.png navbar


This is an old revision of the document!


Possible Reconstruction of an Abduction of Maddie

Disclaimer: With up to a verdict in the matter against anyone, in a state of law the presumption of innocence is in the foreground. This applies not only for the McCann's but to all those people accused during the still ongoing investigations.

The following reconstruction is thus not more or less than a just possible(!) scenario constructed from the statements of the Tapas Group which are part of the official PJ files released on the 4.th August 2008. What in the end is the truth, or what will be considered to be the truth, can only be judged by an appropriate court. The following text is thus neither a judgement nor a conviction of anybody involved. It is a reconstruction based solely on already filed evidences fitted together in seemingly logical order. Due to lack of any confession, and this always means lack of some crucial knowledge, like in every trial based on evidence alone also other seemingly logical fittings of evidences may be made in objection. Which then have to be decided on by law and logic and finally judged by a court.

For the refutation of the following reconstruction see Accidential Killing Theory and the Reconstruction of the Accidental Killing theory.


How could it have been from the statements of the Tapas Group?

The abduction theory states that Madeleine was abducted and possible killed by one or more still unknown individuals. It states that the abductors and/or killers did not leave any accountable destruction at the location but entered and leaved taking Maddie, dead or alive, away without being observed red-handed. It states that the most promising suspect was the one observed by Jane Tanner around 21:15, shortly after Gerry McCann had seen his daughter last time. The seemingly similar sighting of an promising suspect was the Smiths Sighting around 22:00 which is up to date still the Number One suspect (1A,1B) of Operation Grange. But indeed there were some additional suspects (possible burglars and charity collectors) which arouse suspicion the day(s) before the disappearence of Madeleine.

From this point of view the abduction must have been happened between (1) the last witnessed sighting of Maddie and (2) the time when Kate McCann got aware of Madeleine missing.

The time (2) is testified by the Tapas Group as to be 21:55 when Kate returned to the apartment 5A and five minutes later at 22:00 coming back to the Tapas Bar giving the alarm. From statement of Gerry McCann one week later, the time (2) was but 22:03 when she left and about 10 minutes later, which means at 22:13, the final alarm was raised.

The time (1) also depends on dependent witnesses, so the McCann’s testified leaving the apartment 5A at some minutes after 20:30. While in the Tapas Bar every some minutes one of the adults left the bar looking at the different apartments after the children. From the statements given Gerry McCann saw Maddie around 21:10 last time. Some minutes later, at about 21:25, Matthew Oldfield states that he checked the Apartment 5A, but looked just into the children bedroom to watch if everything was quiet and did not see Maddie for sure.

From this statements of the Tapas Group the abduction and/or killing of Maddie must have been done in the time 21:10 and 21:55 (or up to 22:03 from Gerry McCann's second statement). As there is up to date not any immediate positive evidence for an abduction of Maddie by strangers the construction of an possible scenario can not be made just by connecting positive evidences together. Instead a thinkable abducting scenario must have all the features which explains on one side the doing itself with the absent of immediate evidences while on the other side must explain as well the then still existing immediate positive evidences for the PJ-files based accidental killing theory by some unlikely chance. This makes the window of logic for such a construction, although there are high imponderabilities and a lot of very different scenarios thinkable in principle as well, much smaller than may be thought on first sight.

From this main constraints the possibly scenario must have been as follows:

In the time between 21:10 to 22:00 latest the abductor must have entered the apartment. In principle he or they could have done this from the patio door at the pool side or through the front door or window at the car park side of the hotel. The patio door was allegedly closed but not locked, so that the McCann’s could use the much shorter way through the back door to go into their apartment. The patio door could be arrived at through a small stairway with an additional gate at the street side. The patio door but was lighted and could be viewed for everybody from the poolside and also from the Tapas Bar. The front door was at the dark street side covered by bushes and the dark car park in front of it, but it was locked as well as the shutters of the window were closed. Operation Grange, actual suspects besides the main one from Smith's sighting

Thus a burglar seemingly would have to take the front door to enter and leave the apartment unviewed. Doing the same at the patio door, especially leaving with a child in his arms, would have been easily been watched by witnesses, especially also as some time is needed to go up and down with the captured girl through the small stairway with the additional gate in the illuminated environment. It has thus to be assumed that the much more hidden front door or window was used. The McCann’s also alleged that the window was used for the abduction.

Climbing through the window but is not that easy. First the burglar had to force the shutters away, which is possible but always leaves at least small damages, which could not be found. Also climbing through the window in the bedroom and carrying out the same way (the door was locked) the abducted child would leave also damages and/or distortion at the furniture, which also couldn’t been observed. Thus one has to assume, that a professional burglar managed to open the front door with a professional pick-lock tool.

Now the burglar(s) is (are) in the apartment. What is his/their intention now? Robbery or an abduction. Robbery seemingly was not the case as no sign of that could be found. So we must assume his intention was to abduct a child for what reason ever. So he could have taken the sleeping child Maddie and took here away. He left again through the front door, and closed it again with the use of his pick-lock tool. Which is suitable done but only when at least two burglars were at the scene. Then (he) they disappeared through the dark car park side unseen.


Possible Scenarios including the main oddities

First: Why can we exclude a typical burglary?

This is due to the usual offender advance. A burglar always has two objectives: First to rob as much valuables as possible. This are mostly easy to carry and also easy to sell valuables, first of all cash but also electronic devices, cameras, jewellery and so on. The second objective of course is not been watched or, in the worst case, to be catched red-handed.

For this burglars use a common tactic, which is simply speed. A break in thus takes usually not more then five minutes for a flat (and also for a typical family home not more than 10 minutes). The first thing a burglar does is watching for unguarded rooms and then will do a hit-and-run attack. The first thing of course is entering, in this case a typical holiday apartement. This indeed is no problem at all, even for an untrained burglar. There is no need for any professional tool except a large flat-ended screwdriver to open such unsecure doors. It usually takes not more than five seconds to do so with just some force applied. It is indeed yet faster than entering with the original key but always leaves some damage which cannot been overseen later. The next thing then is searching for valuables in a very fast but systematic way. Which means opening roughly every possible place in the apartment were typically something valuable is hidden. Every victim of such an burglary knows the overall effect: Large distortion and damage too, the flat afterwards looks like if an bomb had exploded in it. Latest after five minutes the whole thing is done and the burglars are somewhere else on their robbery tour.

As not any of those typical signs could be observed, a usual burglary can be omitted for sure.

Second: A disturbed burglary?

For this one has to assume that the burglar(s) did not use their usual way to come in, but used for example the much more awkward entry through the window. Which is accompanied by much more loudness and risk anyway. Although very untypical, this could have been done by forcing up the shutters, which can be done using again some force to do so. This but would leave also some typical damage to the shutters and there bearings, which could not been found. Next the entry, and much more going out, through window carrying a child is not easy and would have left at least some distortion in the childrens bedroom, which had left only small space between the three beds. Thus distortion also could not been observed.

source: McCannFiles.com - Cuddle Cat

But, although with very less possibility, we have to deal with very uncommon burglars. May be now Maddie awakes, what shall they do? Usual burglars in such cases just leave the location and will continue their daily work simply somewhere else at another good occasion. Now let us assume, that Maddie cried and the burglar(s) killed her in panic to stop her crying. Well this is a possible scenario then, as the later found cadaver odour at Maddies toy Cuddle Cat implies that she indeed died in the apartment (the toy was obviously left in the apartment, while Maddie disappered). But to take over so much cadaver odour means that the burglars had to wait now at least about half an hour while Maddie was dead holding her toy. Why should they risking to be catched red-handed and charged with lifetime sentence instead of now fleeing as fast and far away as possible? Even if they were such silly headed, why now they carry away Maddies dead body red-handed, while leaving all valuables there, and leave the same complicated way through the window carefully avoiding any damage or distortion? One may say that even for a dead body sometimes there is a chance to get a good ransom later from the parents. But besides being a very unlikely scenario, there never was such a ransom demand.

Third: A well selected abduction by professional child dealers

This scenario is the most likely after the McCann’s version of the event.

It implies that e.g. a child dealer gang first looked for a very special blond haired girl of Caucasian race, e.g. for some mandate by a still unknown client somewhere else. After watching the usual behaviour of the Tapas Group the may have come to the conclusion that between around 21:30 and 22:00 clock there should be a good occasion to catch the selected special girl. In this case first the oddities about entering and leaving the location are the same as in the first two scenarios. But let us assume they were the best professionals, e.g. some well educated former secret service employees now jobless, and could manage such things using picklock tools. The later found DNA and cadaver odour can then be explained like follows: The abductors objective can be assumed to be taking Maddie away and then transport her by e.g. using a car to Albufeira harbour and transporting her with a yacht e.g. unseen in the dark to say Marocco. Or what ever else, it means that the child has to be calm for at least some hours. Therefor they give here an sedative, which in the case of a sleeping as well as for an unwilling individual is most easily done by an injection of e.g. valium. Indeed the danger of an allergic shock is much higher in the case of an injection than it is taking it oral.

Now it may happen exactly the same way as in the accidental killing theory: The abductors may take here out of here bed while she is still holding her cuddle cat and take here to the sofa in the living room to fit here for transportation. But now she gets an allergic shock and dies within a minute. Now the well trained abductors may try also a reanimation, with the same shocking result in the spots of body fluids at the wall behind the sofa. What shall they do now, perhaps fleeing? No, obviously now they clean up the spots on the wall and other possible traces of body fluids. In the time until then they hide the body in some furniture (where the cadaver odour later was found) and finally they leave cuddle cat and Maddies contaminated clothes back in the apartment. After then, at least half an hour later, they take the dead body with them, to get e.g. a good ransom later from the parents. They leave as they have come in again looking to not leave any traces.


Amelie Maddy Sean - source: gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.de-2011-02-police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14 Which but seems to be a somehow odd scenario: In the whole time the abductor(s) risk to be catched red-handed and getting a lifetime sentence, without having got the achievement of an abduction in any way. Why now they don't take the other pretty girl in the same room, Amelie, Maddies Sister, and just leave as fast they can? Why not at all taking the younger and more easy to handle girl which is also blond and of caucasian race? But we may in favour for this scenario assume that they e.g. then liked to get a ransom in the future for the dead body, but later discarded this as the large media attention occurred. In any case the oddities with the DNA and Cadaver odour at several other places must been explained too, as well as the oddities resulting from the timeline-shift as well the Smith’s sighting. Which could be explained then just by pure chance, like for the DNA and Cadaver odour by a later contamination of those objects, following from the fact that the McCann’s used well contaminated objects left in the apartment 5A, like cuddle cat and here clothes, later on for memory reasons.


Now this is the presumptive(!) drainage from the perspective of the Tapas Group

What then finally should be judged by a fair court. It must but be stressed, that still to date there is no special immediate evidence for this version. This does not coactive mean that this version cannot be true. But anyway an explanation for this version must always be seen in coincidence with other facts and evidences of the whole case which mostly are fixed in the PJ-files. There are indeed great oddities that wait to be reasonable explained.

According to the presumption of innocence but we have to assume that other versions, like the Accidential Killing Theory [ see: (facts); (reconstruction) ] are still possible too.