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

[sadie]

Icabod,

  my apologies that this has taken so long, but I desperately wanted to be able to post GE images.  Gawd only knows how I have tried but 4 head thumping days later, I am still unable to, despite admirable and much appreciated assistance from John and another poster.  Without GE, I feel as tho I am missing an arm, but there you go!

Below, I will post the theory <<< get ready to attack!


1011

[sadie]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.15  see posts 24 and 29



OK; Jez's actual map, so that was where Gerry anf Jez stood chatting

This theory verifies my more recent thoughts that the watcher was on the balcony immediately across the road from 5A.  ....and eliminates all the other possible watcher points

---------------------------------------

This abduction nearly failed, because the watcher couldn't see Gerry and gave the go ahead at the wrong time.  Every other view point could see that corner and for the watcher to have been given the go ahead Gerry had to have been out of his view.




Link to photo location

Ok you have the area, please open your own GE and zoom right in.


You will see a street lamp on the pavement nearthe balcony (small round circle}

This balcony was partially bathed in light from the very close sodium street light.  The back part (southern end) of this balcony was in the shade.  The watcher would have made sure he was in the shade.

From that shaded part he couldn't see Gerry and Jez, nor the emerging Jane ... so he gave the go ahead.

The getaway vehicle was in the little parking area behind the flats in which the balcony was. [directly across the road from the Reception to the Tapas]   Immediately he had given the go ahead, he walked down and thru that block and its little garden.  He crossed the garden to a gate which opened directly on to the little car park, straight into the van ... or 4 wheel drive ***

THe abductor had been skulking in/near the recess to the front door, which was in near blackness .   As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds. 

The driver drove out for the pick up to see Gerry and Jez and worse still to see Jane witnessing it all.  In shockhorror he backed in again and drove off in the opposite direction.  Bundleman meanwhile, circled around via the alleyway Aldemeante Ocean Club (Name now whooshed off GE) to that little car park to find his driver gone

Aldeamente Ocean Club is the alleyway that runs southwards immediately to the east of the road where it all happened and it is possible to get thru from there to that little car park.

Poor bundleman(the rotter!) was abandoned!  No way was he, or any sane man, going to walk thru PdL with a stolen child in his arms by design.

But he had no choice, did he?

Only my thoughts but the scenario is perfect now as far as i can see ... and brilliantly pinpoints exactly which place was used for watching

[sadie]

Before I go any further

I must tell you that on Wednesday, I must bow out of this discussion should it go any further, as we have a major event in our family.

Doubt if the discussion will last long, but prefer to mention it now

sadie

[icabodcrane]

Thanks for going to all that trouble Sadie

I'm going to read through again,  and look at the images before replying

[sadie]

 

[registrar]

Sadie wrote:

'As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds.'

Hi Sadie,

Do you mean blinds or shutters?

Either way, why would the abductor open blinds/curtains/shutters and windows? 

[sadie]

Sadie wrote:

'As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds.'

Hi Sadie,

Do you mean blinds or shutters?

Either way, why would the abductor open blinds/curtains/shutters and windows?

I meant shutters registrar. 

There are several reasons that I can think of
1)  An instant escape route if trapped
2)  A means of giving moral support to the person that lifted Madeleine and to communicate
3)  Seems drugs were administerd, or something done to render Madeleine unconscious, so maybe he passed the necessary through
4)  To waft away the scent of any drugs (chloroform?)
5)  To give a little natural light to the room.  THere had been a full moon the night before.  I doubt much light would have come from the street lamps, because the foliage of the trees was very dense
6)  To give a false impression that the window was used, because if everyone knew the door had been used then people with some attachment to OC would be scrutinised.  I think someone with  links to OC was involved
7)  To give the impression that Madeleine had wakened and wandered

Guess there are loads more reasons that I have never thought of ... so that list is just for starters.

[John]

Sorry I haven't been able to post earlier, family medical crisis.

Anyway, this is the view Gerry/Jez and the approaching Jane would have had of the balcony which Sadie refers to.  She is right, if there was a watcher and he was hidden in the shadows he may not have seen Gerry or Jez or Jane until it was too late.

[Redblossom]

So the watcher gave the go ahead because they could not see Gerry Mccann? But could see Jeremy Wilkins? How did the watcher know he might not be a person who might go and check on the kids?What about Jane Tanner's testimony that Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry Mccann were NOT at the corner of the path but further up right outside the little gate, which Jeremy Wilkins testifies to as being the place the conversagion took place?

[gilet]

Having read Wilkins statement again. There is a slight problem.

Firstly, he does not say he met him at the gate but "near" the gate which led to some stairs.

Secondly, he is only "pretty certain" that Gerry had in fact come from the flat.

So it is highly unlikely that he met him actually at the gate or it would be blindingly obvious that he had just come from the flat.

Therefore it is probable that he met him a little further down towards the Reception.

Indeed if you look at the sketch plan in the earlier post above, that Jeremy Wilkins provided to the police, it is very clear that the meeting point was not at the gate (marked A on the GE image) but at the corner of the garden and path (marked B).

The yellow line from C to B shows that there was no line of sight to the location at which Jeremy claims to have spoken to Gerry. Therefore if an abductor had been on that balcony in the shadows at the back he could well have presumed that Gerry had continued his return to the Tapas Restaurant.

[gilet]

So the watcher gave the go ahead because they could not see Gerry Mccann? But could see Jeremy Wilkins? How did the watcher know he might not be a person who might go and check on the kids?What about Jane Tanner's testimony that Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry Mccann were NOT at the corner of the path but further up right outside the little gate, which Jeremy Wilkins testifies to as being the place the conversagion took place?

My post above shows that Jeremy Wilkins was very clear about where he met Gerry and it was not right by the little gate.

I have just looked at Jane Tanner's statements and I cannot find any reference to the little gate at all.

On May 4th "The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man."
Correction. This sentence is not about the meeting of Jeremy and Jane as I incorrectly presumed. The man referred to is the potential abductor.

This could possibly mean the stairway up to the one apartment but especially as she used the word apartments in the plural it could just as likely (possibly more likely) mean the path from which there was an entrance to all the other ground floor apartments (via the patio doors) as in this photo.



On May 10th she is not asked to specify the location along the road where she saw them.

In her rogatory she says this of seeing Gerry immediately after exiting from the Reception, “I would have probably noticed him as soon as I came, I mean, I don’t, this is not, I don’t think that distance is probably as far as that, you come out and he was, they were sort of, so almost, I’d probably say almost straight away." That suggests closer to the Reception than the little gate to the apartment.

My view is that Jane has not stated that she saw Gerry and Jeremy near that little gate but closer to the Reception area and probably right where Jeremy put his x on his sketch plan, by the entrance to the path that led to all the ground floor apartments in the block.

If you have any other information which suggests she claimed to see them by the gate I would love to see it.

[Redblossom]

Gilet, I think Jane Tanners drawing with the number FIVE where she saw the man proves it was not by that back alley pathway flanking thE back of the flats!

[gilet]

Not really. There is no mention at all on the drawing of the gate to the McCann apartment.

It shows the meeting point (3) to have been fairly near the corner where Jeremy Wilkins is very specific that he met Gerry.

Both drawings are very simple basic sketches but when backed up by the fact that Jane Tanner clearly says that she came across them immediately after exiting reception and Jeremy Wilkins is clear that he didn't know if Gerry had exited the apartment they suggest that the meeting point was probably nearer the path than the gate.

[Redblossom]

On May 4th "The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man."

This could possibly mean the stairway up to the one apartment but especially as she used the word apartments in the plural it could just as likely (possibly more likely) mean the path from which there was an entrance to all the other ground floor apartments (via the patio doors) as in this photo.
*****

Your post above suggested Jane Tanner saw the man at the back alley! Which is just not true! As she saw him at the top of the road marked with number FIVE on her drawing


So no, it is NOT possibly more likely

[John]

On May 4th "The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man."

This could possibly mean the stairway up to the one apartment but especially as she used the word apartments in the plural it could just as likely (possibly more likely) mean the path from which there was an entrance to all the other ground floor apartments (via the patio doors) as in this photo.
*****

Your post above suggested Jane Tanner saw the man at the back alley! Which is just not true! As she saw him at the top of the road marked with number FIVE on her drawing


So no, it is NOT possibly more likely

We have already established where Gerry and Jez stood when they were passed by Jane.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.msg35558#msg35558


The entrance to the building where the apartments are is a reference to the Ocean Club car park located on the north side of the complex.  This was the exact place from where the man appeared carrying a child.