How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[John]

I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second.  If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window.  That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street.  Very daring IMO.

To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.

So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.

Scotland Yard have excluded Tannerman from their investigation.

[sadie]

I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second.  If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window.  That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street.  Very daring IMO.

To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.

So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.

No person went thru that window, Rob

It was but a narrowish gap and there would have been hand prints on some part of the window, had Madeleine been passed trough .  Also there were no signs of any fibres on the window frame.   Try and imagine passing a floppy youngster thru that window.  At some point, or other, the child would have had two sets of hands on her and because of her floppiness these two sets would necessarily have to have been close to each other. 

One or other of the abductors would have, of necessity, had to position his shoulders between the narrow window frame, at some stage.  As he moved his arms and pulled, his clothes would have brushed the window frame sides

Yet NO fibres.  Soz Rob, but I do not believe anyone passed thru that open window.

Almost without doubt, the Front door was used, both in and out.

IMO

[Brietta]

I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second.  If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window.  That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street.  Very daring IMO.

To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.

So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.

Did any of the parents meet anyone on the street and stop to have a chat with them on any other occasion? I doubt it, therefore from an abductor's point of view the risk was slight.
As Sadie has pointed out the speed with which a child could have been lifted and removed from the scene was also something which could well have worked to an abductor's advantage ... just observe when parents have checked and returned to their meal ... nip in and out again.

A getaway vehicle would not have been parked in the car park ...

• could have been seen and subsequently identified
• occupants could have been seen and identified
  on arrival
  putting a child or a burden into the vehicle
  leaving ... for example, at least two residents entered the building about 9.15 on the 3rd and might have noted any of those occurrences
• the kidnap vehicle could have been blocked in for any of a variety of reasons

Therefore in my opinion a pick up would have taken place elsewhere and certainly not in block 5 parking area.  It would be logical to use a vehicle, but not necessarily.  There were plenty of walled properties available where a kidnapped child could have been secreted, some which may have large wine cellars which would have put the crawl space under Casa Liliana to shame.

[Robittybob1]

No person went thru that window, Rob

It was but a narrowish gap and there would have been hand prints on some part of the window, had Madeleine been passed trough .  Also there were no signs of any fibres on the window frame.   Try and imagine passing a floppy youngster thru that window.  At some point, or other, the child would have had two sets of hands on her and because of her floppiness these two sets would necessarily have to have been close to each other. 

One or other of the abductors would have, of necessity, had to position his shoulders between the narrow window frame, at some stage.  As he moved his arms and pulled, his clothes would have brushed the window frame sides

Yet NO fibres.  Soz Rob, but I do not believe anyone passed thru that open window.

Almost without doubt, the Front door was used, both in and out.

IMO

I misundertood your statement "Tannerman (with Madeleine):   had a walk of no more than 27 metres, from the hand over place to Jane Tanner corner."  So was there a handover?  Where did this occur?  By who to who?

[sadie]

I can't deny it is a possibility but in that scenario everything is down to the last second.  If Jane had been just a few seconds earlier she might have seen Madeleine being handed out the window.  That is pretty dramatic that the abductors would strike while Gerry and Jez were talking in the street.  Very daring IMO.

To walk across the road when there were 3 people potentially looking at him also seems like a mistake on part of the abductors.
Why wasn't the getaway car right in the carpark next to the McCann apartment.

So what does the second person in the apartment do? Jane could pop out at any time and Jez and Gerry are talking.

The people who I am thinking of, have a motto, "HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT"

This means hide something a couple of corners away ... and nobody associates the first place with the second place. 

So hide the getaway vehicle on the little car park opposite Tapas Reception, then pick up two corners away outside the front of 5a, [but not at the actual drive in entrance .... more likely nearer to Jane Tanner corner, where the wall is very high.]   

Except where delving very deep, there would be nothing to link these two places.  Thus, "Hidden in plain sight ".   A right corner followed by a left corner.   A trip of only about 75 metres, and both places invisible to someone walking along Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins, except when actually in line with either the first, or second place.  Also invisible to anyone looking out of the windows of block 5


It would have been a dangerous thing to do, to have pulled up in front of 5a window, because had anyone seen Madeleine being taken from 5a, then they would have made note of the vehicle Reg. Number. 
For someone (the abductor) carrying a little girl to get into a vehicle, in the street, would not have been suspicious at the precise moment of abduction, because the two happenings would not connect (instantly).   So no number would have been taken.


I truly (at a number of levels with apparant links) think that the getaway vehicle was parked on the small parking area opposite the Tapas reception.  HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT

Only my thoughts.

[sadie]

I misundertood your statement "Tannerman (with Madeleine):   had a walk of no more than 27 metres, from the hand over place to Jane Tanner corner."  So was there a handover?  Where did this occur?  By who to who?

You obviously have missed my posts earlier.

I believe that a "Go ahead" signal was received and one person, the lifter, went into 5A thru the front door.  Tannerman stood outside and probably opened the shutters and window.  Reasons for this given elsewhere.

I believe that the lifter exited by the front door,  handed Madeleine over to Tannerman, probably over the wall seperating the pathway at the front from block 5 car park.  The lifter, job accomplished vanished.   Tannerman meanwhile waited for the getaway car to arrive, (more or less in line with the front door to 5a on Rua Dr Aghostino de Silva), standing by the high wall almost on the corner of that road, yet out of sight of anyone travelling up Rua Dr Francisco G.M.

Measuring the path on GE it appears to be a 27 metre walk.


Now I am off to bed

Nigh night

[Robittybob1]

Did any of the parents meet anyone on the street and stop to have a chat with them on any other occasion? I doubt it, therefore from an abductor's point of view the risk was slight.
As Sadie has pointed out the speed with which a child could have been lifted and removed from the scene was also something which could well have worked to an abductor's advantage ... just observe when parents have checked and returned to their meal ... nip in and out again.

A getaway vehicle would not have been parked in the car park ...

• could have been seen and subsequently identified
• occupants could have been seen and identified
  on arrival
  putting a child or a burden into the vehicle
  leaving ... for example, at least two residents entered the building about 9.15 on the 3rd and might have noted any of those occurrences
• the kidnap vehicle could have been blocked in for any of a variety of reasons

Therefore in my opinion a pick up would have taken place elsewhere and certainly not in block 5 parking area.  It would be logical to use a vehicle, but not necessarily.  There were plenty of walled properties available where a kidnapped child could have been secreted, some which may have large wine cellars which would have put the crawl space under Casa Liliana to shame.

OK  all that is possible.  If Madeleine had been carried to some local area she would possibly have been found by the sniffer dog teams.

[Robittybob1]

Scotland Yard have excluded Tannerman from their investigation.

So they say.  I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.

[jassi]

So they say. I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.

I would agree with that. 
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO

[faithlilly]

I would agree with that. 
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO

My thoughts exactly jassi.

[Lace]

So they say.  I wonder if someone didn't invent this crecheman idea as a decoy to take away the focus from the real Tannerman individual.
Originally the McCanns tried to suggest that the Tannerman was the abductor, but that would basically mean he was in the apartment along with Gerry, and I found that hard to swallow, and more so now that I realise he turned the light on during his check on the kids.

That would mean Jane was lying,   I find no reason for Jane to lie.

If there were two individuals involved in the abduction,  then the one outside could have warned the one inside 5a that Gerry was on his way,  meaning the one inside could easily have slipped out through the front door until Gerry had left the apartment.   Gerry did say he found the door open more than they had left it.

[John]

That would mean Jane was lying,   I find no reason for Jane to lie.

If there were two individuals involved in the abduction,  then the one outside could have warned the one inside 5a that Gerry was on his way,  meaning the one inside could easily have slipped out through the front door until Gerry had left the apartment.   Gerry did say he found the door open more than they had left it.

I think Jane has had a very heavy cross to bear but SY went some way to lightening the load by introducing Crècheman.

[Alice Purjorick]

I would agree with that. 
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO

I'll go threes up on that.

[Alfie]

I would agree with that. 
Tannerman is a red herring that needed disposing of without appearing to rubbish Tanner as a witness.
IMO

Why, in your opinion are either of those things necessary, ie: 1) "disposing" of a piece of evidence and 2) not "rubbishing" JT as a witness ?

[Alfie]

I think Jane has had a very heavy cross to bear but SY went some way to lightening the load by introducing Crècheman.

You almost make it sound as if the Met felt sorry for Tanner and invented Crecheman to let her off the hook.