Sadie's theory, the watcher and a getaway car.

[barrier]

Redwood at the very start.

https://youtu.be/1-4fp4kPi60

[G-Unit]

Abduction has become a fact for some, but it isn't. No new evidence has been released since the first investigation was archived without having identified the crime, except when the British police suggested that the man seen by Jane Tanner was an innocent holidaymaker.

Creating a story out of a doubted sighting, a possibly opened window and a few cigarette butts is inventive, but it still doesn't make abduction a fact.

[Brietta]

It would be interesting to know what evidence was found on that open window by KM? Oh sorry we do know, no evidence was found except her fingerprints.

Your statement is inaccurate.

Kate McCann's fingerprints were not the only ones found ...

There were three inadequate prints found on the outside of the shutters ... the report does not mention if the inside of the shutter was dusted or if the outside glass of the window was dusted.

Among the other prints lifted from the apartment was one which was identified as being Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa's of the Lagos GNR.

[Alice Purjorick]

What interests me is why supporters are so hellbent on ignoring Redwood's words.

Oh come now Faithlilly you are not that naive.....

[G-Unit]

Your statement is inaccurate.

Kate McCann's fingerprints were not the only ones found ...

There were three inadequate prints found on the outside of the shutters ... the report does not mention if the inside of the shutter was dusted or if the outside glass of the window was dusted.

Among the other prints lifted from the apartment was one which was identified as being Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa's of the Lagos GNR.

Well we know the GNR were there, and we know the shutters were touched and by whom.

[misty]

I'm picking up on this point. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am just throwing some counter arguments into the mix.

David Payne walked back, with KMcC, after the alarm was raised.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

sniped section:

It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera.

-----

Why did KMcC not talk about the window/shutters with David Payne, surely that would be the first thing she would say?

Her first reaction was to search the apartment for MBM, so I don't think that helps to decide the position of the window and shutters.

How does anyone know, for certain, what state the curtains, window and shutters were in. Even David Payne will not commit, and he was one of the first into the apartment.

There was a full moon that night, perhaps someone simply opened one of the curtains to allow extra light into the room. Or slightly opened one of the windows so they could hear if a parent was returning to the front door.

If the window/shutters were not significantly disturbed then I believe the "burglary gone wrong" theory may have problems.

All IMO.

Feel free to counter-argue. If I was always right there'd be nothing left for me to learn!

The rush to the rear door would have taken around 30 secs. IMO Kate's focus would have been on getting Gerry back to the apartment asap & conversation with Dave would have been limited. Dave's focus seems to have been on the the apartment rather than listening to what was being said (attention to detail not so good after a few beers).
If the window & shutter were not open, how do you explain the reason for Kate being drawn fully into the bedroom i.e the slamming door & billowing curtain?

[misty]

Redwood at the very start.

https://youtu.be/1-4fp4kPi60

Where does he say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same person?

[faithlilly]

Where does he say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same person?

Really ? Are you trying to suggest that is not what he meant ?

[misty]

Really ? Are you trying to suggest that is not what he meant ?

I've listened to what he actually said. When did he actually say Tannerman & Crecheman were one & the same person?

[faithlilly]

Where does he say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same person?

I think you need to watch the video again Misty.

[G-Unit]

Feel free to counter-argue. If I was always right there'd be nothing left for me to learn!

The rush to the rear door would have taken around 30 secs. IMO Kate's focus would have been on getting Gerry back to the apartment asap & conversation with Dave would have been limited. Dave's focus seems to have been on the the apartment rather than listening to what was being said (attention to detail not so good after a few beers).
If the window & shutter were not open, how do you explain the reason for Kate being drawn fully into the bedroom i.e the slamming door & bellowing curtain?

If the window wasn't open the door didn't slam and the curtain didn't billow.

[misty]

I think you need to watch the video again Misty.

I think what Redwood said was that Tannerman was not now considered to be the abductor - not that Tannerman was Crecheman. Define "abductor".

[Brietta]

DCI Redwood does not actually say that.

As usual, Misty, you are spot on.  I have 'over paraphrased' what the DCI actually did say into something he definitely did not say.

No excuse at all for my use of such sloppy language particularly when the transcript of the Crime Wach programme and the video are readily available.
                        ... won't do it again

[misty]

As usual, Misty, you are spot on.  I have 'over paraphrased' what the DCI actually did say into something he definitely did not say.

No excuse at all for my use of such sloppy language particularly when the transcript of the Crime Wach programme and the video are readily available.
                        ... won't do it again

No need to apologise. Maybe I am wrong & DCI Redwood did mean that Tannerman was actually Crecheman - but Amaral's insistence that Tannerman was heading from east to west makes me believe otherwise.

[Brietta]

I think what Redwood said was that Tannerman was not now considered to be the abductor - not that Tannerman was Crecheman. Define "abductor".

You think correctly.  DCI Redwood never referred to two entities.  Only to one ... my reference which was entirely wrong deflected from Sadie's theory ... so having nothing to do with Sadie's theory let's return to the topic of the thread.

I was in error by attributing remarks to DCI Redwood which started this discussion ... the DCI progressed from Crechman to Smithman in the programme;  Smithman does figure in Sadie's reckoning in relation to her theory so discussion along those lines would keep us on topic.