This scenario is exactly what you wanted, as part of your support of the mccanns.
I have addressed the 'watcher' issue before.
Merely looking at a building does not mean it was under surveillance. There were several apartments there, so what is this fixation as if there was only one.
Casual observation of people will reveal, remarkably enough, that people do look at buildings.
It doesn't mean they are burglars, kidnappers or paedophiles.
If you think that a 'watcher' would be acceptable evidence to take to court, then I think you need to think again.
A.I.M.H.O.
Of course it supports my theory and thoughts.
It illustrates how an abduction could have been successfully achieved ... and as it works, maybe it was used. I do not claim that it definitely was used.
However it illustrates that there was the means and time to achieve an abduction successfully, which is somthing that your side, the Skeptics, has claimed was not possible.
Stephen, I cannot understand how you can blatently state that the building was not being watched.
FGS Tasmin Silence actually saw the same man twice and the once he was actually leaning on 5A wall staring at the property. She particularly noticed both times cos her Gran used to live there. Three other people noticed the staring as well.
Sorry to have to say this, stephen, but in my opinion I dont think any police officer worth his salt would take these people staring so flippantly.
