Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Gildas on April 09, 2013, 11:45:19 AM
Title: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 09, 2013, 11:45:19 AM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: faithlilly on April 09, 2013, 11:51:36 AM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
The supporters of the abduction believe Tanner saw Madeleine with her kidnapper at 9.15 although I believe someone on this board has put forward a theory that Tanner saw the abductor on her second visit to her apartment at about 9.45.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 09, 2013, 12:23:25 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
The supporters of the abduction believe Tanner saw Madeleine with her kidnapper at 9.15 although I believe someone on this board has put forward a theory that Tanner saw the abductor on her second visit to her apartment at about 9.45.
I was not aware that Jane Tanner had made a second visit, Faithlilly. I had started wonder if she had seen the abductor at a later time, and the second visit would explain this. I shall have to look up the thread you mention, and read about it there.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
What are the possibilities?
Both sightings were of Madeleine Neither were One or the other were
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on April 09, 2013, 01:38:42 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
The supporters of the abduction believe Tanner saw Madeleine with her kidnapper at 9.15 although I believe someone on this board has put forward a theory that Tanner saw the abductor on her second visit to her apartment at about 9.45.
I was not aware that Jane Tanner had made a second visit, Faithlilly. I had started wonder if she had seen the abductor at a later time, and the second visit would explain this. I shall have to look up the thread you mention, and read about it there.
And we are discussing this topic also here ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1183.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1183.0)
Heri.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 09, 2013, 04:57:45 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on April 09, 2013, 05:14:36 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
The abduction took place 1 minute before Jane sighting. Jane and Smiths sighting reinforce each other indicating an abduction. What is not clear is only at what time Jane saw the abductor.
Heri.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 09, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
The abduction took place 1 minute before Jane sighting. Jane and Smiths sighting reinforce each other indicating an abduction. What is not clear is only at what time Jane saw the abductor.
Heri.
It really is not possible to state "The abduction took place 1 minute before Jane sighting"
That is merely a theory
The fact is, if there was an abduction at all, it could have taken place any time between 9.10pm and 10.05pm
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 09, 2013, 06:12:53 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
Could it be that Jane's sighting of Gerry and the abductor at the same time provided Gerry with an alibi, Iccabodcrane.
You say that you are baffled by the McCann's decision, well at the time, I was absolutely furious that they might be putting Madeleine's life at risk, by backing the Jane Tanner sighting to the exclusion every other possibility. This was when I started to have doubts about Kate and Gerry
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 09, 2013, 06:13:17 PM
All is pointless speculation.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on April 09, 2013, 06:13:27 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
The abduction took place 1 minute before Jane sighting. Jane and Smiths sighting reinforce each other indicating an abduction. What is not clear is only at what time Jane saw the abductor.
Heri.
It really is not possible to state "The abduction took place 1 minute before Jane sighting"
That is merely a theory
The fact is, if there was an abduction at all, it could have taken place any time between 9.10pm and 10.05pm
Ok, so I say: "The abduction took place before Jane sighting, maybe a minute or so before"
Heri ?{)(**
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 09, 2013, 07:41:40 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
Could it be that Jane's sighting of Gerry and the abductor at the same time provided Gerry with an alibi, Iccabodcrane.
You say that you are baffled by the McCann's decision, well at the time, I was absolutely furious that they might be putting Madeleine's life at risk, by backing the Jane Tanner sighting to the exclusion every other possibility. This was when I started to have doubts about Kate and Gerry
Both Gerry McCann and the abductor being seen within yards of each other at the same time ( however statisically remote the possibilty ) certainly does give Gerry an airtight alibi Gildas
Whether or not that is the reason the McCanns insist that Madeleine was taken at precisely 10.15pm, dismissing all other possibilities is something we can't know for sure
If there is another reason for it though, I can't think what it is
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2013, 08:45:36 PM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on April 09, 2013, 09:34:25 PM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00.
Heri.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 09, 2013, 10:24:58 PM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00.
Heri.
About this theory that Tanner may have seen the abductor at 9.45pm ( at some other check ) rather than at 9.15pm
Are you saying you think she might have lied about seeing Gerry and Jez Wilkins at the same time as seeing the abductor ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on April 09, 2013, 10:47:54 PM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00.
Heri.
About this theory that Tanner may have seen the abductor at 9.45pm ( at some other check ) rather than at 9.15pm
Are you saying you think she might have lied about seeing Gerry and Jez Wilkins at the same time as seeing the abductor ?
In eyewitness testimony there are more things than "true" and "lie" ... There is "false memory", for example, which can produce one thing to be "true" for the honest witness, but "false" in objective reality.
A lot more you can learn reading Elizabeth Loftus, Robert Buckout, John Palmer, ... on eyewitness testimony.
I only said that "based on the first testimonies of the 9 adults of the vacation group made on May 4th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 34 to 82), and the first testimony of Jeremy Wilkins made on May 7th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 494 to 505), and the second statements by Gerry, Matt and Jane on May 10th. 2007; and by Russell, Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster on May 11th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 891 to 903, 905 to 917, 919 to 931, 934 to 941, 943 to 947 and 949 to 954) it is not possible to conclude if Jane Tanner made her check at 21:15 or not (the only big inconsistency in the group testimonies, in my opinion). Also it is not clear to what extent the discussion of the events by members of the 9 adults group and the two timelines made by Russell O'Brien might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 4th. 2007. And it is not clear also if the group (except for Dianne Webster) discussion before the referred second statements, included in the files as a three pages printout (PJ main file pages 886 to 890) might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 10th. and 11th. 2007 . But it is only a small part of the statements made by the group. A more important thing, the sighting of a man with a child by Jane, is corroborated by the totally independent testimonies of the Smiths."
Heri.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 09, 2013, 11:11:17 PM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00.
Heri.
About this theory that Tanner may have seen the abductor at 9.45pm ( at some other check ) rather than at 9.15pm
Are you saying you think she might have lied about seeing Gerry and Jez Wilkins at the same time as seeing the abductor ?
In eyewitness testimony there are more things than "true" and "lie" ... There is "false memory", for example, which can produce one thing to be "true" for the honest witness, but "false" in objective reality.
A lot more you can learn reading Elizabeth Loftus, Robert Buckout, John Palmer, ... on eyewitness testimony.
I only said that "based on the first testimonies of the 9 adults of the vacation group made on May 4th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 34 to 82), and the first testimony of Jeremy Wilkins made on May 7th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 494 to 505), and the second statements by Gerry, Matt and Jane on May 10th. 2007; and by Russell, Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster on May 11th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 891 to 903, 905 to 917, 919 to 931, 934 to 941, 943 to 947 and 949 to 954) it is not possible to conclude if Jane Tanner made her check at 21:15 or not (the only big inconsistency in the group testimonies, in my opinion). Also it is not clear to what extent the discussion of the events by members of the 9 adults group and the two timelines made by Russell O'Brien might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 4th. 2007. And it is not clear also if the group (except for Dianne Webster) discussion before the referred second statements, included in the files as a three pages printout (PJ main file pages 886 to 890) might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 10th. and 11th. 2007 . But it is only a small part of the statements made by the group. A more important thing, the sighting of a man with a child by Jane, is corroborated by the totally independent testimonies of the Smiths."
Heri.
In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on April 09, 2013, 11:17:04 PM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00.
Heri.
About this theory that Tanner may have seen the abductor at 9.45pm ( at some other check ) rather than at 9.15pm
Are you saying you think she might have lied about seeing Gerry and Jez Wilkins at the same time as seeing the abductor ?
In eyewitness testimony there are more things than "true" and "lie" ... There is "false memory", for example, which can produce one thing to be "true" for the honest witness, but "false" in objective reality.
A lot more you can learn reading Elizabeth Loftus, Robert Buckout, John Palmer, ... on eyewitness testimony.
I only said that "based on the first testimonies of the 9 adults of the vacation group made on May 4th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 34 to 82), and the first testimony of Jeremy Wilkins made on May 7th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 494 to 505), and the second statements by Gerry, Matt and Jane on May 10th. 2007; and by Russell, Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster on May 11th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 891 to 903, 905 to 917, 919 to 931, 934 to 941, 943 to 947 and 949 to 954) it is not possible to conclude if Jane Tanner made her check at 21:15 or not (the only big inconsistency in the group testimonies, in my opinion). Also it is not clear to what extent the discussion of the events by members of the 9 adults group and the two timelines made by Russell O'Brien might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 4th. 2007. And it is not clear also if the group (except for Dianne Webster) discussion before the referred second statements, included in the files as a three pages printout (PJ main file pages 886 to 890) might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 10th. and 11th. 2007 . But it is only a small part of the statements made by the group. A more important thing, the sighting of a man with a child by Jane, is corroborated by the totally independent testimonies of the Smiths."
Heri.
In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ?
No, what you say it is not my conclusion. Please read carefully what I have written ...
Heri.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Chinagirl on April 10, 2013, 12:59:37 AM
No one, including Jane, can possibly say for certain that she "saw the abductor." The only certainty is that she saw someone carrying a child and, given all the other surrounding circumstances, the person she saw is highly likely to be the abductor.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 10, 2013, 01:22:44 AM
No one, including Jane, can possibly say for certain that she "saw the abductor." The only certainty is that she saw someone carrying a child and, given all the other surrounding circumstances, the person she saw is highly likely to be the abductor.
Why 'highly likely' ?
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 10, 2013, 11:14:16 AM
Iccabodcrane posted
"About this theory that Tanner may have seen the abductor at 9.45pm ( at some other check ) rather than at 9.15pm
Are you saying you think she might have lied about seeing Gerry and Jez Wilkins at the same time as seeing the abductor ? "
Iccabodcrane, for some reason I like Jane, and do not like to think that she lied. However, if things do not add up, then I have to consider that possiblity.
If we watch Kate and Gerry's documentary, we see the following:
Jane claims that she saw Jez and Gerry talking near the gate of Gerry's apartment, but neither Jez nor Gerry saw Jane.
Jane claims that the pair were standing near the gate , but Gerry contractics this by saying that they were standing on the other side of the road.
Neither, Jez nor Gerry saw the abductor.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 10, 2013, 11:16:48 AM
@ Gildas
You said Kate. Did you mean Jane?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Chinagirl on April 10, 2013, 11:22:40 AM
No one, including Jane, can possibly say for certain that she "saw the abductor." The only certainty is that she saw someone carrying a child and, given all the other surrounding circumstances, the person she saw is highly likely to be the abductor.
Why 'highly likely' ?
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
1. Madeleine is still missing. She was not missing at some time before Tanner saw someone carrying a child.
2. Despite extensive publicity at the time and continuing for the past six years, this person carrying the child on that evening at around that time has not come forward to identify hinself.
Of course it is a reasonable assumption that that person is "highly likely" (rather than definitely) to be the abductor.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 10, 2013, 11:29:36 AM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
The supporters of the abduction believe Tanner saw Madeleine with her kidnapper at 9.15 although I believe someone on this board has put forward a theory that Tanner saw the abductor on her second visit to her apartment at about 9.45.
I agree with this someone, as I think Jane T saw a carrier. For some reason (and not necessarily to protect someone), she changed the hour of the occurrence.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Luz on April 10, 2013, 03:12:30 PM
No one, including Jane, can possibly say for certain that she "saw the abductor." The only certainty is that she saw someone carrying a child and, given all the other surrounding circumstances, the person she saw is highly likely to be the abductor.
Why 'highly likely' ?
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
1. Madeleine is still missing. She was not missing at some time before Tanner saw someone carrying a child.
2. Despite extensive publicity at the time and continuing for the past six years, this person carrying the child on that evening at around that time has not come forward to identify hinself.
Of course it is a reasonable assumption that that person is "highly likely" (rather than definitely) to be the abductor.
Just want to respond to your signature. António Marinho also said that the victims of paedophile acts in the Casa Pia case were all selling themselves to a CABALA against the then Socialist Government. For him the victims have political colours. The McCann were with Labour, so they were innocent, the victims that accused members of a socialist government, were guilty.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 10, 2013, 03:23:32 PM
No one, including Jane, can possibly say for certain that she "saw the abductor." The only certainty is that she saw someone carrying a child and, given all the other surrounding circumstances, the person she saw is highly likely to be the abductor.
Why 'highly likely' ?
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
1. Madeleine is still missing. She was not missing at some time before Tanner saw someone carrying a child.
2. Despite extensive publicity at the time and continuing for the past six years, this person carrying the child on that evening at around that time has not come forward to identify hinself.
Of course it is a reasonable assumption that that person is "highly likely" (rather than definitely) to be the abductor.
Just want to respond to your signature. António Marinho also said that the victims of paedophile acts in the Casa Pia case were all selling themselves to a CABALA against the then Socialist Government. For him the victims have political colours. The McCann were with Labour, so they were innocent, the victims that accused members of a socialist government, were guilty.
Could you clarify what you mean?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 10, 2013, 03:56:09 PM
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Would also an abductor carry a child the way Jane T describes, ie like a fireman carries a victim ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 10, 2013, 04:12:38 PM
Icabodcrane posted: "In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ? "
I think what Heri is saying is that Jane probably saw an abductor, but a false memory of the events surrounding the abduction, could have been implanted in her mind.
For example, if you look at the timelines drawn up immediatley after the abduction, you will see that there is no mention of Jane's visit at 9.45. Perhaps the persons drawing up the timelines, just assumed that Jane had seen the abductor at 9.20, and the time of 9.20 was then implanted in Jane's mind. I am not saying that this is what happened, but I am just using it as an example of how a false memory could have been implanted.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 04:13:05 PM
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Would also an abductor carry a child the way Jane T describes, ie like a fireman carries a victim ?
What do you mean by "like a fireman carries a victim"?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 10, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Would also an abductor carry a child the way Jane T describes, ie like a fireman carries a victim ?
Interesting question Anne
I've been thinking about it, and how often throughout the day I see parents carrying young children ... and you know ... I never see them being carried like that
I think it's the sort of carrying method a parent who is taking a sleeping child upstairs to bed might use, to be able to lie the child back down quickly without waking
Walking through the street though ? no, whether the child is sleeping or not, that is not how they are carried
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 10, 2013, 05:25:35 PM
Icabodcrane posted: "In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ? "
I think what Heri is saying is that Jane probably saw an abductor, but a false memory of the events surrounding the abduction, could have been implanted in her mind.
For example, if you look at the timelines drawn up immediatley after the abduction, you will see that there is no mention of Jane's visit at 9.45. Perhaps the persons drawing up the timelines, just assumed that Jane had seen the abductor at 9.20, and the time of 9.20 was then implanted in Jane's mind. I am not saying that this is what happened, but I am just using it as an example of how a false memory could have been implanted.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
That's because Jane didn't visit at 9.45, she didn't visit at 9.20 either in fact the only time she left the table was after the alarm was raised. The person writing the timelines was her partner Russell O'Brien. The genuine meeting of Gerry and Jez was used to give Gerry an alibi for the Smith sighting, there is a reason why Jez clearly states that Tanner didn't walk by, it's because she didn't! The fact that the timelines were provided (three different versions) is purely due to the Smith sighting.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 10, 2013, 06:04:45 PM
Icabodcrane posted: "In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ? "
I think what Heri is saying is that Jane probably saw an abductor, but a false memory of the events surrounding the abduction, could have been implanted in her mind.
For example, if you look at the timelines drawn up immediatley after the abduction, you will see that there is no mention of Jane's visit at 9.45. Perhaps the persons drawing up the timelines, just assumed that Jane had seen the abductor at 9.20, and the time of 9.20 was then implanted in Jane's mind. I am not saying that this is what happened, but I am just using it as an example of how a false memory could have been implanted.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
That's because Jane didn't visit at 9.45, she didn't visit at 9.20 either in fact the only time she left the table was after the alarm was raised. The person writing the timelines was her partner Russell O'Brien. The genuine meeting of Gerry and Jez was used to give Gerry an alibi for the Smith sighting, there is a reason why Jez clearly states that Tanner didn't walk by, it's because she didn't! The fact that the timelines were provided (three different versions) is purely due to the Smith sighting.
Peter, I was using the timelines to illustrate how a false memory could be implanted accidently, rather than deliberately which was suggested elswhere. I am not claiming that this what actually happened.
There were only two versions of the timelines; one drawn up by Russell and the other by Gerry.
Could you give some evidence to support your theories. I am not saying that they are wrong, but they differ a lot from how I understand things.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 10, 2013, 06:55:21 PM
I see parents carrying young children ... and you know ... I never see them being carried like that
I think it's the sort of carrying method a parent who is taking a sleeping child upstairs to bed might use, to be able to lie the child back down quickly without waking
Walking through the street though ? no, whether the child is sleeping or not, that is not how they are carried
I did carry my kids this way from a car to their bed, trying not to interrupt their sleep. This is quite tiring and it is no wonder that the Smith carrier had to desist the Tanner carrier position. Ay, there's the rub. Firemen carry victims the way they do when there's no muscular tension and they're like stuff dolls.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 07:06:27 PM
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Would also an abductor carry a child the way Jane T describes, ie like a fireman carries a victim ?
What do you mean by "like a fireman carries a victim"?
Bump for an answer
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 10, 2013, 07:22:49 PM
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Would also an abductor carry a child the way Jane T describes, ie like a fireman carries a victim ?
What do you mean by "like a fireman carries a victim"?
Bump for an answer
Please read above. A first aider explained me this.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 07:25:11 PM
There is what is known in English as a 'Fireman's lift' which used to be common- person carried cross shaped on the shoulder and back of the carrier, and how fire fighters now remove people to safety, carrying them cross the front of the body and shoulder.
Your words are unclear as to which one you mean.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 10, 2013, 07:45:10 PM
There is what is known in English as a 'Fireman's lift' which used to be common- person carried cross shaped on the shoulder and back of the carrier, and how fire fighters now remove people to safety, carrying them cross the front of the body and shoulder.
Your words are unclear as to which one you mean.
The first is very useful to know because it's the only way to lift someone heavier and bigger than you. The second, I was told, is used when a (light) victim is badly hurt (gripping must be avoided) or dead. The Tanner carrying way could be explained if the carrier had been equipped with a car.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 07:46:33 PM
I believe that Jane Tanner saw someone being carried across the chest and shoulder.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 10, 2013, 07:50:06 PM
Icabodcrane posted: "In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ? "
I think what Heri is saying is that Jane probably saw an abductor, but a false memory of the events surrounding the abduction, could have been implanted in her mind.
For example, if you look at the timelines drawn up immediatley after the abduction, you will see that there is no mention of Jane's visit at 9.45. Perhaps the persons drawing up the timelines, just assumed that Jane had seen the abductor at 9.20, and the time of 9.20 was then implanted in Jane's mind. I am not saying that this is what happened, but I am just using it as an example of how a false memory could have been implanted.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
That's because Jane didn't visit at 9.45, she didn't visit at 9.20 either in fact the only time she left the table was after the alarm was raised. The person writing the timelines was her partner Russell O'Brien. The genuine meeting of Gerry and Jez was used to give Gerry an alibi for the Smith sighting, there is a reason why Jez clearly states that Tanner didn't walk by, it's because she didn't! The fact that the timelines were provided (three different versions) is purely due to the Smith sighting.
Peter, I was using the timelines to illustrate how a false memory could be implanted accidently, rather than deliberately which was suggested elswhere. I am not claiming that this what actually happened.
There were only two versions of the timelines; one drawn up by Russell and the other by Gerry.
Could you give some evidence to support your theories. I am not saying that they are wrong, but they differ a lot from how I understand things.
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 . You’ll notice that the first timeline has no mention of the 9.30 check on Madeleine or Jane Tanner’s second visit. The sighting of the abductor by the Smith family brought forward the raising of the alarm causing the rapid writing of timelines that now had to combine an abduction scenario with some sort of childcare regime. First thing on the agenda was to provide Gerry with his alibi for the said Smith sighting; step forward Jane Tanner or should that read the invisible Jane Tanner to provide a sighting of the abductor at the very time that she’d just passed Gerry talking to a holiday friend, this friend denies that she walked past them and of course Jane didn’t speak to them because Jane doesn’t much care for Gerry as she was to inform us later. A knock on effect of this sighting was that any check on Madeleine after 9.15 and before the raising of the alarm would have to be carried out without noticing the now open window which at this point was the McCann’s preferred choice of entry for the abductor. Time for a second stab at a timeline. This one would now include a 9.30 check on Madeleine by Mathew Oldfield it would be explained that he achieved this check by entering the apartment via the unlocked patio doors thus allowing him to not observe the now open window, don’t feel too bad if you find it hard to believe that they left the door unlocked you’re in good company, Gerry himself still entered via the locked front door (as did Kate) according to his first statement! Of course this check required that Mathew would not actually make visual contact with Madeleine so he just listened from inside the apartment though he did see the twins breathing in their cots through the bedroom door which varied greatly in its state of openness. The story goes that Russell O’Brien was absent from the table for a lengthy period because he was attending to his ill child. In the first two timelines he returns to the table leaving his sick child alone. Oh dear that doesn’t read to well does it. Enter timeline three, Jane Tanner now returns to her apartment to take over childcare duties from her partner. How does Jane know that she needs to return? Why Mathew tells her. Apparently on his joint check with Russell he first walks past his own apartment to Russell’s whereupon crying is heard. He then turns round to check on his own children returns once more to Russell’s where he is informed of the child’s illness, this is conveyed to Jane on his return to the table. You’ll recall that Russell fails to mention any of this in the first timelines. There is one thing missing from all three timelines – Mathew’s 10.00pm check on his own children. Mathew who up until this point has been displaying Olympic standard checking of other people’s children seems not so keen on keeping tabs on his own, still perhaps he was knackered after all that walking.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 10, 2013, 10:09:55 PM
I believe that Jane Tanner saw someone being carried across the chest and shoulder.
So you don't believe Jane Tanner ?
Sorry?
Did I misunderstand ? ... I'm sorry if I did, but when you said you believe Tanner saw someone carrying a child across the chest and shoulder, I took it to mean in the usual way of carrying children ( as the Smiths describes )
Did you mean you believe Tanner saw someone carring a child horizontally, with both arms out in front ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 10:39:39 PM
I believe that Jane Tanner saw someone being carried across the chest and shoulder.
So you don't believe Jane Tanner ?
Sorry?
Did I misunderstand ? ... I'm sorry if I did, but when you said you believe Tanner saw someone carrying a child across the chest and shoulder, I took it to mean in the usual way of carrying children ( as the Smiths describes )
Did you mean you believe Tanner saw someone carring a child horizontally, with both arms out in front ?
I am beginn ing to thinkyou are just being tiresome for its own sake.
REad back.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 10, 2013, 10:49:58 PM
No one, including Jane, can possibly say for certain that she "saw the abductor." The only certainty is that she saw someone carrying a child and, given all the other surrounding circumstances, the person she saw is highly likely to be the abductor.
Why 'highly likely' ?
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Where JT saw bundleman was not on any route to, or from, the creche or the restaurant. With the exception of one house (the one with the big pyramid in its garden) there were no houses or apartments for about 250 yards, apart from OC itself.
That man would not carry his own child, on such a cold blustery night, for such a distance without any cover or footwear. The child would have been awake, shivering and howling at the cold, had he done so. That child, unless she came from OC, must have been drugged.
That was almost certainly Madeleine
This, of course, was supported by Stephen Carpenters statement that his wife Caroline had heard the name "Madeleine, Madeleine" murmured as they neared their apartment after eating. The Carpenters were in the right sort of place, at the right sort of time, to have heard this.
Pls check the statements; might have been Carolines statement, or Stephens .. not sure which
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 10, 2013, 10:52:32 PM
I believe that Jane Tanner saw someone being carried across the chest and shoulder.
So you don't believe Jane Tanner ?
Sorry?
Did I misunderstand ? ... I'm sorry if I did, but when you said you believe Tanner saw someone carrying a child across the chest and shoulder, I took it to mean in the usual way of carrying children ( as the Smiths describes )
Did you mean you believe Tanner saw someone carring a child horizontally, with both arms out in front ?
I am beginn ing to thinkyou are just being tiresome for its own sake.
REad back.
I'll tell you what's tiresome ... you never directly answering a question ... that's what's tiresome
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 10, 2013, 10:56:32 PM
I, too, debunker have read somewhere that the image shows the child in the incorrect position. The child was carried, in actual fact, up on bundlemans chest. The feet were facing JT tho
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 10:57:50 PM
I too debunker have read somewhere that the image shows the child in the incorrect position. The child was carried, in actual fact, up on bundlemans chest. The feet were facing JT
I just don't know how much we really know about almost anything.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: faithlilly on April 10, 2013, 11:03:53 PM
@ debunker
Isn't that rather unfortunate when the only evidence that there was an abduction is Tanner's sighting ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 10, 2013, 11:14:08 PM
Icabodcrane posted: "In a nutshell then ... Jane Tanner might not have actually seen the abductor when she passed elusively by Gerry and Jez ... she just thought she did ? "
I think what Heri is saying is that Jane probably saw an abductor, but a false memory of the events surrounding the abduction, could have been implanted in her mind.
For example, if you look at the timelines drawn up immediatley after the abduction, you will see that there is no mention of Jane's visit at 9.45. Perhaps the persons drawing up the timelines, just assumed that Jane had seen the abductor at 9.20, and the time of 9.20 was then implanted in Jane's mind. I am not saying that this is what happened, but I am just using it as an example of how a false memory could have been implanted.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html
That's because Jane didn't visit at 9.45, she didn't visit at 9.20 either in fact the only time she left the table was after the alarm was raised. The person writing the timelines was her partner Russell O'Brien. The genuine meeting of Gerry and Jez was used to give Gerry an alibi for the Smith sighting, there is a reason why Jez clearly states that Tanner didn't walk by, it's because she didn't! The fact that the timelines were provided (three different versions) is purely due to the Smith sighting.
Peter, I was using the timelines to illustrate how a false memory could be implanted accidently, rather than deliberately which was suggested elswhere. I am not claiming that this what actually happened.
There were only two versions of the timelines; one drawn up by Russell and the other by Gerry.
Could you give some evidence to support your theories. I am not saying that they are wrong, but they differ a lot from how I understand things.
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 . You’ll notice that the first timeline has no mention of the 9.30 check on Madeleine or Jane Tanner’s second visit. The sighting of the abductor by the Smith family brought forward the raising of the alarm causing the rapid writing of timelines that now had to combine an abduction scenario with some sort of childcare regime. First thing on the agenda was to provide Gerry with his alibi for the said Smith sighting; step forward Jane Tanner or should that read the invisible Jane Tanner to provide a sighting of the abductor at the very time that she’d just passed Gerry talking to a holiday friend, this friend denies that she walked past them and of course Jane didn’t speak to them because Jane doesn’t much care for Gerry as she was to inform us later. A knock on effect of this sighting was that any check on Madeleine after 9.15 and before the raising of the alarm would have to be carried out without noticing the now open window which at this point was the McCann’s preferred choice of entry for the abductor. Time for a second stab at a timeline. This one would now include a 9.30 check on Madeleine by Mathew Oldfield it would be explained that he achieved this check by entering the apartment via the unlocked patio doors thus allowing him to not observe the now open window, don’t feel too bad if you find it hard to believe that they left the door unlocked you’re in good company, Gerry himself still entered via the locked front door (as did Kate) according to his first statement! Of course this check required that Mathew would not actually make visual contact with Madeleine so he just listened from inside the apartment though he did see the twins breathing in their cots through the bedroom door which varied greatly in its state of openness. The story goes that Russell O’Brien was absent from the table for a lengthy period because he was attending to his ill child. In the first two timelines he returns to the table leaving his sick child alone. Oh dear that doesn’t read to well does it. Enter timeline three, Jane Tanner now returns to her apartment to take over childcare duties from her partner. How does Jane know that she needs to return? Why Mathew tells her. Apparently on his joint check with Russell he first walks past his own apartment to Russell’s whereupon crying is heard. He then turns round to check on his own children returns once more to Russell’s where he is informed of the child’s illness, this is conveyed to Jane on his return to the table. You’ll recall that Russell fails to mention any of this in the first timelines. There is one thing missing from all three timelines – Mathew’s 10.00pm check on his own children. Mathew who up until this point has been displaying Olympic standard checking of other people’s children seems not so keen on keeping tabs on his own, still perhaps he was knackered after all that walking.
Thank you for replying to my post, Peter. There is a lot of information to consider, so I need a bit of time to think about it.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 11, 2013, 11:20:34 AM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
Good question Gildas
As far as I can see, if there was an abduction, it could have happened any time between the time Madeleine was last seen ( by Gerry at 9.10pm ) and found to be missing by Kate at 10.05pm
Why the McCanns insist that she was abducted at precisely 9.15pm is baffling
I understands it accomodates Jane Tanner's sighting, but her evidence is not, and never was, absolute proof of an abduction ... the possibility should be considered, of course, but to dismiss any other possibility on the strength of it just doesn't seem sensible at all
If we admit that both carriers are one and only, then Jane T could have felt what Martin S wondered after watching the news in September. Could the thought or unconscious feelling the police could be misled by this absurd idea suggest her to give Gerry an alibi ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: DCI on April 11, 2013, 01:54:43 PM
Bit of an odd statement, from Martin Smith.
Quote
"He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a metre in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed."
If the man carrying the child, was carrying her the way Martin says, how would he know, she was asleep and her eyes were closed?.
The same statement from his son, Peter.
Quote
He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old. She appeared to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. It was a girl with a normal complexion. She had blond hair, of medium tone, without being very shiny. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not see her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 11, 2013, 02:04:22 PM
"He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a metre in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed."
If the man carrying the child, was carrying her the way Martin says, how would he know, she was asleep and her eyes were closed?.
The same statement from his son, Peter.
Quote
He states the child was female. She was perhaps two or three years old. She appeared to be a bit smaller than his niece of the same age. It was a girl with a normal complexion. She had blond hair, of medium tone, without being very shiny. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not see her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
I too always thought it was odd. Added in translation ? Or was the external corner of the closed eyelid visible as suggested in the description of the skin colour ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 11, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
bug !
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: gavdalf on April 11, 2013, 02:21:07 PM
I thought it couldn't be corroborated by anyone, who JT saw. Wasn't it she then thought it to be Murat, when he was made a aquido after her initial sighting? And the smith sighting somewhere else? but didn't they believe it to be GM so they don't confirm each other at all
they could have just been parents with children could they not, that's a possibility too
Isnt there also ref to that GM & JW didn't see JT where she was supposed to be? so who was there and where? GM & JW confirm each other do they not?
I do not think JT bundleman is proof or fact of anything unfortunately?
I think these are questions we do not know the answers too
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 11, 2013, 05:37:01 PM
I've just been reading through.
So far, I haven't found any eureka moment to change my opinion in favour or against any of the options:
Both sightings were of Madeleine Neither were One or the other were
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 11, 2013, 06:22:37 PM
So far, I haven't found any eureka moment to change my opinion in favour or against any of the options:
Both sightings were of Madeleine Neither were One or the other were
I agree
I also see no convincing evidence to suggest any of the options above is more likely than the others
I don't agree. One person (JT) sees a man who could eventually carry a puppet (limp legs) whereas seven (adults and teenagers, the Smiths) see a 3/4 white little girl with medium blond hair shoulders long.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: gavdalf on April 12, 2013, 09:42:00 AM
So far, I haven't found any eureka moment to change my opinion in favour or against any of the options:
Both sightings were of Madeleine Neither were One or the other were
That is this case in a nutshell unfortunately, and the little girl is still missing, we cant even state that she may not have wondered off if the doors were unlocked but I don't think we can even establish that. key used, open ,closed who knows
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 09:54:25 AM
Peter Claridge posted;
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.
Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 10:26:56 AM
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.
Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.
"at first" = when ? " if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 10:44:55 AM
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.
Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.
"at first" = when ? " if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.
Anne, I was discussing Peter's theory.
"At first" means the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.
Thank you for letting me know that you do not think Jane saw a carrier.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 10:56:38 AM
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.
Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.
"at first" = when ? " if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.
Anne, I was discussing Peter's theory.
"At first" means the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.
Thank you for letting me know that you do not think Jane saw a carrier.
Gildas, I could have expressed badly myself, sorry for that. I don't think Jane (pretended she) saw a carrier IN ORDER TO give GMC an alibi. To my knowledge the McCann never said Madeleine was abducted after 21h30 (or not).
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 11:21:30 AM
Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster) http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.
Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.
"at first" = when ? " if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.
Anne, I was discussing Peter's theory.
"At first" means the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.
Thank you for letting me know that you do not think Jane saw a carrier.
Gildas, I could have expressed badly myself, sorry for that. I don't think Jane (pretended she) saw a carrier IN ORDER TO give GMC an alibi. To my knowledge the McCann never said Madeleine was abducted after 21h30 (or not).
Anne, it was generally believed that Madeleine was abducted after 9.30, because it was thought that Matthew had seen her at 9.30. I can't remember what Kate or Gerry said about it.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 11:30:50 AM
Gildas, Matthew never pretended he saw Madeleine. 4th of May, 11:30 am : "he (Matthew) couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping." PJ Files 01 Pages 52 to 57
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 12:13:47 PM
Gildas, Matthew never pretended he saw Madeleine. 4th of May, 11:30 am : "he (Matthew) couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping." PJ Files 01 Pages 52 to 57
Anne, I have lot of things to check when I get around to it. One thing I have to check is the way I remember what was said at the time. The way I remember things is ;
It was first believed that Madeleine was abducted after 9.30, because Matthew had checked at 9.30. I suppose it would be natural to assume he had seen her.
Later, Gerry supported Jane's sighting.
Reporters asked Matthew, how could Madeleine have been abducted at 9.15, if he had seen her at 9.30. Matthew replied that he had not seen her, because her bed was behind the door.
Remember, there were no PJ files back then, just newspaper reports.
If Gerry had planned Jane's sighting as an alibi, would he not have supported the sighting from the very beginning?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
Gildas, Matthew never pretended he saw Madeleine. 4th of May, 11:30 am : "he (Matthew) couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping." PJ Files 01 Pages 52 to 57
Anne, I have lot of things to check when I get around to it. One thing I have to check is the way I remember what was said at the time. The way I remember things is ;
It was first believed that Madeleine was abducted after 9.30, because Matthew had checked at 9.30. I suppose it would be natural to assume he had seen her.
Later, Gerry supported Jane's sighting.
Reporters asked Matthew, how could Madeleine have been abducted at 9.15, if he had seen her at 9.30. Matthew replied that he had not seen her, because her bed was behind the door.
Remember, there were no PJ files back then, just newspaper reports.
If Gerry had planned Jane's sighting as an alibi, would he not have supported the sighting from the very beginning?
Gildas, Gerald McCann planning Jane's sighting sounds (imo) conspirational and totally implausible. Don't you think that, learning Madeleine had disappeared (around 22h), Matthew wouldn't have immediately claimed he saw her à 21h30 if he had ? He likely was asked and had to be more specific than "all quiet, all sleeping" (that is, if he really went inside, which is dubious).
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 12:59:09 PM
AnneGuedes posted
Gildas, Gerald McCann planning Jane's sighting sounds (imo) conspirational and totally implausible. Don't you think that, learning Madeleine had disappeared (around 22h), Matthew wouldn't have immediately claimed he saw her à 21h30 if he had ? He likely was asked and had to be more specific than "all quiet, all sleeping" (that is, if he really went inside, which is dubious).
Anne, I was originally replying to Peter's post and questioning his conspiracy theory.
I am pleased to see you agreeing with me.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 12, 2013, 02:20:47 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 03:44:18 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 12, 2013, 03:56:32 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !
How do you know he lied?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 12, 2013, 04:12:31 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !
How do you know he lied?
How do you know he told the truth ?
Do you really believe in an investigation, criminal or otherwise, everyone tells the truth ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 12, 2013, 04:19:26 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !
How do you know he lied?
How do you know he told the truth ?
Do you really believe in an investigation, criminal or otherwise, everyone tells the truth ?
I don't know that he told the truth.
There are many gradations between a truth and a lie.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 12, 2013, 04:22:06 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !
How do you know he lied?
What we do know is that he would not commit to being the last person to see Madeleine ... although he could be expected to have been, given that he was the last person to look into the McCann children's bedroom at 9.30pm
We are meant to believe, though, that Madeleine had already been abducted at that point ... so we have Oldfied making a 'visual' check that does not include any 'vision' of Madeleine
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 12, 2013, 04:34:30 PM
Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?
Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !
How do you know he lied?
What we do know is that he would not commit to being the last person to see Madeleine ... although he could be expected to have been, given that he was the last person to look into the McCann children's bedroom at 9.30pm
We are meant to believe, though, that Madeleine had already been abducted at that point ... so we have Oldfied making a 'visual' check that does not include any 'vision' of Madeleine
It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in. Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.
Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much! I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 05:15:01 PM
C Edwards posted;
It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in. Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.
Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much! I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...
Mr Edwards, I understand what you are saying, but if they had created an alibi for Gerry, why did they not use it immediately.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 12, 2013, 05:41:25 PM
I'm a simple soul.
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 12, 2013, 05:41:31 PM
It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in. Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.
Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much! I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...
Mr Edwards, I understand what you are saying, but if they had created an alibi for Gerry, why did they not use it immediately.
Well maybe they did? Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar? Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time? I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water. In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline. Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely. I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 12, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose! I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins). Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 12, 2013, 05:49:01 PM
Well maybe they did? Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar? Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time? I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water. In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline. Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely. I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.
What would the point of that have been? JT and GM on their own?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 12, 2013, 05:51:18 PM
Well maybe they did? Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar? Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time? I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water. In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline. Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely. I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.
What would the point of that have been? JT and GM on their own?
Plausibility. No point claiming Tanner had seen GM at whenever o'clock if, by chance, waiter or barperson happened to just notice the time and that JT was at the table all night, for example.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 05:52:14 PM
It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in. Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.
Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much! I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...
Mr Edwards, I understand what you are saying, but if they had created an alibi for Gerry, why did they not use it immediately.
Well maybe they did? Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar? Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time? I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water. In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline. Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely. I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.
OK, Mr Edwards, Its just that we had been discussing a theory that the timelines had been created to give Gerry an alibi.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: faithlilly on April 12, 2013, 06:02:34 PM
If the Smith sighting was tied in with Tanner's sighting and Tanner had seen Gerry at the same time as her 'bundleman' then Tanner's sighting rules out Gerry as the man the Smith's saw. Or that seems to have been the plan.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 06:22:17 PM
And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?
Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time
Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean...? Which independent witness? Seen by whom?
Gerry, Jez (the independent witness) and the abductor seen by Jane.
What abductor ???
It's just a 'thesis'.
Och aye.
Stephen, I was posting in the context of the alibi. Maybe I should have typed "abductor" or perhaps "the man carrying the child whom Kate and Gerry claim is the abductor, but I don't think he is really , but for the the alibi to work it is presumed that he is the abductor"
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 12, 2013, 08:00:26 PM
And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?
Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time
Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean...? Which independent witness? Seen by whom?
Gerry, Jez (the independent witness) and the abductor seen by Jane.
What abductor ???
It's just a 'thesis'.
Och aye.
Stephen, I was posting in the context of the alibi. Maybe I should have typed "abductor" or perhaps "the man carrying the child whom Kate and Gerry claim is the abductor, but I don't think he is really , but for the the alibi to work it is presumed that he is the abductor"
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 12, 2013, 08:10:14 PM
What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common? They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting. Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised. Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.
It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 12, 2013, 08:28:07 PM
What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common? They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting. Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised. Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.
It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!
IN your humble opinion.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 09:47:30 PM
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose! I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins). Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.
I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 09:56:06 PM
What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common? They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting. Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised. Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.
It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!
So many "wasn't" ! What was then in YHO ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 12, 2013, 10:26:36 PM
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose! I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins). Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.
I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.
The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew chosen to do this check. On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there? I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 12, 2013, 10:47:58 PM
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose! I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins). Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.
I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.
The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew chosen to do this check. On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there? I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.
If there was a conspiracy it would probably appear more plausible to a conspiracy-creator to have a non-McCann "discover" the missing Madeleine...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Luz on April 12, 2013, 11:50:05 PM
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose! I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins). Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.
I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.
The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew chosen to do this check. On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there? I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.
What about 12 bottles of wine at dinner on top of whatever they took prior?! (just guessing) Do they look professional criminals? I think not...not even amateurs, despite those ridiculous poses of Mr. Gerry over his wider agenda. For me they were just a group of immature, careless people that suffered a major, ultimate accident and, immaturely and foolishly are trying to get over with. They started a lie and now don't know how to get out of it. They are totally intertwined into the web they weaved.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 11:50:50 PM
In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?
Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose! I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins). Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.
I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.
The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew chosen to do this check. On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there? I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.
Matthew wasn't chosen, he was the only possibility since Russell had to stay with his daughter. Matthew might have or not suggested listening at the shutters as he had done at 9. But, if he did so, it had to be changed into his entry into the flat since listening blew up the lifted shutters/open window required for abduction at Jane carrier time. If you admit the TP7 were convinced after learning about the shutters/window and searching around that Madeleine couldn't but have been abducted, then you'll understand part of their untruths had the unique objective to pressure the PJ in this way.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 12, 2013, 11:57:39 PM
What about 12 bottles of wine at dinner on top of whatever they took prior?! (just guessing) They started a lie and now don't know how to get out of it. They are totally intertwined into the web they weaved.
12 bottles is a myth, though they drank substantially. If they're caught into the web they contributed to weave, serenity requires helping them.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Luz on April 13, 2013, 12:01:45 AM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00.
Heri.
So for you, the dogs that are the most objective subjects as testimonies are dismissed? You don't believe they signaled cadaver odour or blood, is that it?
Well, for me, the dogs are the only reliable witnesses, since they have no hidden objectives. And I reaffirm: if there had never been a death in 5A, which cadaver did the dogs signal and what blood on the exact same spots was it but the only person missing from that place?!
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 13, 2013, 06:27:06 AM
Neither Jane nor the Smith family know for sure that it was Madeleine.
Whether it was the same person carrying Madeleine or a different child, or different people carrying her, or different people carrying children who were not her ... it is still an open question as no one seems to have stepped forward to eliminate themselves.
A question: Why did the PJ not organise an e-fit of the person the Smiths saw?
The dogs showed no evidence, the DNA were inconclusive, no important fingerprints in the window ... Yes. Also that she was abducted by a stranger ...
But we do not coincide in some other aspects, Carana ... ?{)(**
I think we can rely on three things based on the analysis of eyewitness testimonies:
1. Kate found the 5A window opened just after 22:00, just before raising the alarm. 2. Jane saw the abductor at 21:15 or 21:45. 3. The Smiths saw the abductor just after 22:00. Heri.
So for you, the dogs that are the most objective subjects as testimonies are dismissed? You don't believe they signaled cadaver odour or blood, is that it?
Well, for me, the dogs are the only reliable witnesses, since they have no hidden objectives.
And I reaffirm: if there had never been a death in 5A, which cadaver did the dogs signal and what blood on the exact same spots was it but the only person missing from that place?!
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 09:54:36 AM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: debunker on April 13, 2013, 11:37:44 AM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: faithlilly on April 13, 2013, 12:02:23 PM
@ debunker
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 12:08:07 PM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Hi Faithillly, you pose an interesting question there. However it is my opinion that any alerts in 5a cannot be taken seriously as the apartment was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed there.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Imo the most disturbing finding is Eddie's in the corner of the bedroom, because nothing tangible was found there. It reminds me of the scent of cadaver I couldn't get rid of after being near one (not touching). Nowadays it's a bit different because they work on corpses to mask the scent.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Chinagirl on April 13, 2013, 12:40:26 PM
Nowadays it's a bit different because they work on corpses to mask the scent.
Please explain this and provide a source.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 13, 2013, 12:54:24 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Hi Faithillly, you pose an interesting question there. However it is my opinion that any alerts in 5a cannot be taken seriously as the apartment was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed there.
Up until 26 July.
Were these post-disappearance occupants ever interviewed?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 01:00:41 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Hi Faithillly, you pose an interesting question there. However it is my opinion that any alerts in 5a cannot be taken seriously as the apartment was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed there.
Up until 26 July.
Were these post-disappearance occupants ever interviewed?
Yes, I would be interested in learning whether the subsequent occupants were ever interviewed too, Carana. Can anyone help?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 02:30:07 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Mark Harrison observed all the searches. He doesn't explicitly state an opinion on what he observed.
But there are two things I have always found interesting: Harrison's summary of the searches which as follows:
The timeline of these searches was as follows:
On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.
On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.
On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.
Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.
On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.
On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.
On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.
On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
Notice how selective Harrison is in owning UK participation. Only in those searches he recommended does he say Grime and Eddie took part: the holiday apartments, areas in and around PdL and the Murats' place. That's it.
Both inspections at the villa and (following) at the gym are summarised (without description) as 'PJ exercises'.
And while Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehicles, Harrison's recommendation was that cars owned or driven by Murat should be inspected. A car he hired never made the line-up. Harrison gives no clue who took part in that exercise.
The other thing that's interesting is that, following the inspection at the gym, Harrison issued PJ personnel with instructions on how to conduct a search ...
I'm sure there's a reason ...
ETA:
Here are the searches Harrison recommended:
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
Mark Warner Creche at Praia Da Luz.
This is the location of the last confirmed sighting by a person independent of family members of Madeleine McCann. Although this location was within the original search area it may well benefit from a further search using enhanced detecting methods for human remains. This will depend on the size of any outside grounds and concealed areas inside the building.
McCann's Apartment.
The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's. Murat's House and Garden.
The property has been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however the house and gardens may benefit from a fully invasive specialist search to preclude the presence of Madeleine McCann. A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets. Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence. Deploy the CSI dog to search the house to locate any human blood. This will act in support of the forensic examination already completed. An inhibiting factor will be on areas where Luminol has been used.
Page 2228 :
Deploy geophysical instruments in the house and garden to detect any burial of a body or concealment in voids.
These specialists should be supported by physical search teams exploring and accessing all areas where concealment of a child's body could be made typically 0.5m.
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
Open Area to East of Praia Da Luz.
This open area between the village urban limits and the Boavista golf club to the east and includes a plateau on which sits a trig point and mobile phone mast. This area has been previously searched by officers and dogs walking through the area to check for Madeleine McCann's visible remains. However considering the new scenario of Homicide and concealed deposition this area affords many opportunities to dispose of a body. Within this area there are old empty properties, wells, thick vegetation, pockets of soft sand and natural fissures in the cliffs. Whilst there is no intelligence she is buried or concealed in this land it would be a natural place an offender may choose dose to the Village using the least effort principle. A proportionate response may therefore be considered to conduct a search of this area using a team of Victim Recovery Dogs (VRD) that are specifically trained to located concealed human remains. Prior to undertaking this task it would be beneficial to consult with a Forensic Anthropologist with knowledge of this region of Portugal to give opinion as to the likely state of any remains to be found. Further research could also be conducted with regards to the natural scavenging predators in the area.
An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.
Praia Da Luz Beach and Shoreline.
The beach and shoreline are bounded by high cliffs and shallow waters. The beach has fine granular sand and provides easy digging. However the beach is extensively used by tourists and locals and af?rds minimal areas of cover from view for concealment. It may be considered appropriate to use the VRD dog team supported by geophysical GPR to sweep the beach. This would be
Page 2229 :
a considerable time and cost undertaking and should be weighed in the absence of specific intelligence.
Search Duration.
If all the described assets were deployed it would be likely all assets would complete their searches within one week.
It also exposes a lie of Amaral's in his El Mundo interview that (sic) no one talked about murder.
Oh yes they did, and Harrison even offered to offer to write a report considering other possibilities or scenarios on request.
If he was ever asked, and ever wrote another report, we don't see it on line
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 04:03:13 PM
Notice how selective Harrison is in owning UK participation. Only in those searches he recommended does he say Grime and Eddie took part: the holiday apartments, areas in and around PdL and the Murats' place. That's it.
Both inspections at the villa and (following) at the gym are summarised (without description) as 'PJ exercises'.
Now you mention it, no. I can see no mention of Eddie or Grime in your long and confusing post. Neither is there any other mention of "PJ Exercise".
If you have a point, it's lost on me I'm afraid. Can anyone else translate maybe?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: faithlilly on April 13, 2013, 04:04:31 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Hi Faithillly, you pose an interesting question there. However it is my opinion that any alerts in 5a cannot be taken seriously as the apartment was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed there.
Unless the post abduction occupants had someone in their party who died in the apartment during their holiday I think it's safe to say that the cadaver scent Eddie alerted to in the bedroom was absolutely nothing to do with them.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 04:12:07 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Hi Faithillly, you pose an interesting question there. However it is my opinion that any alerts in 5a cannot be taken seriously as the apartment was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed there.
Unless the post abduction occupants had someone in their party who died in the apartment during their holiday I think it's safe to say that the cadaver scent Eddie alerted to in the bedroom was absolutely nothing to do with them.
Ah, but in McCann-supporter world, they'll talk about transference and so on. Which, incidentally, would probably mean that Eddie wouldn't have stopped barking from the moment he set foot on Portuguese soil if that was a real concern...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 13, 2013, 04:14:16 PM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...
I wondered about that. However, if she died in that apartment and was taken out quickly, how likely is it that Eddie reacted - three months later - to such a short accumulation of smell in an apartment in which dozens of people had been... including all the post-disappearance guests?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common? They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting. Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised. Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.
It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!
Oh? So when did they intend to raise the alarm?
In the morning.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...
I wondered about that. However, if she died in that apartment and was taken out quickly, how likely is it that Eddie reacted - three months later - to such a short accumulation of smell in an apartment in which dozens of people had been... including all the post-disappearance guests?
And don't forget one pre disappearance guest who cut himself shaving, bled for 45 minutes and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood with tissue.
Recorded in the files, somewhere, is the length of time dog and handler spent in each apartment. The other 5 apartments were whistle-stop tours.
But in apartment 5a an inordinate amount of time was spent and a response (eventually) elicited.
Are we really to believe that apartment 5a was the only one where blood was spilt?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
I've often cut myself shaving. Oddly enough this has never led to a trail of blood around the house. Maybe he was shaving with a machete or hedge trimmer and severed an artery?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 04:42:37 PM
So you think Mr Gordon was lying?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 04:44:07 PM
What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common? They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting. Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised. Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.
It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!
Oh? So when did they intend to raise the alarm?
In the morning.
How do you know this? Do you mean the McCanns wanted to stage an abduction that took place while they were all asleep in the apartment, with no alibi to account for their movements at all during the night?
They would have been asleep, much more straight forward than having to fabricate a timeline to include the abduction/childcare scenario that the Smith sighting forced upon them, no need for those unlocked patio doors either.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 04:45:14 PM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...
I wondered about that. However, if she died in that apartment and was taken out quickly, how likely is it that Eddie reacted - three months later - to such a short accumulation of smell in an apartment in which dozens of people had been... including all the post-disappearance guests?
Dozens of people, cleaning of the flats for weeks, drafts aren't the problem. Time is : an hour and a half has been determined as the minimum - for a trained dog's nose.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 04:47:25 PM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...
I wondered about that. However, if she died in that apartment and was taken out quickly, how likely is it that Eddie reacted - three months later - to such a short accumulation of smell in an apartment in which dozens of people had been... including all the post-disappearance guests?
And don't forget one pre disappearance guest who cut himself shaving, bled for 45 minutes and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood with tissue.
Recorded in the files, somewhere, is the length of time dog and handler spent in each apartment. The other 5 apartments were whistle-stop tours.
But in apartment 5a an inordinate amount of time was spent and a response (eventually) elicited.
Are we really to believe that apartment 5a was the only one where blood was spilt?
Gerry thinks it is Madeleine's blood that was found. The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 04:54:51 PM
How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?
Hi Faithillly, you pose an interesting question there. However it is my opinion that any alerts in 5a cannot be taken seriously as the apartment was re-let several times before Eddie and Keela were deployed there.
Unless the post abduction occupants had someone in their party who died in the apartment during their holiday I think it's safe to say that the cadaver scent Eddie alerted to in the bedroom was absolutely nothing to do with them.
Fair enough..... but how about if they had bought a garment from a charity shop that someone had unfortunately died when wearing, then taken said garment on holiday to PT and stored said garment in the wardrobe. I believe there was a situation like this in the Shannon Matthews case concerning a bed.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 04:56:15 PM
While we were in Portugal there were no incidents worthy of record, beyond this man that I have described, however there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood.
from Gordon's statement
Yes. All well and good - I do the same thing. I've never been aware of any of my blood hitting the floor though, it just take pressure from a tissue. If he was dropping the tissues everywhere, he didn't mention it. Furthermore he would have probably mentioned having to wipe blood up if he'd had to in the circumstances.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.
Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.
Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...
I wondered about that. However, if she died in that apartment and was taken out quickly, how likely is it that Eddie reacted - three months later - to such a short accumulation of smell in an apartment in which dozens of people had been... including all the post-disappearance guests?
And don't forget one pre disappearance guest who cut himself shaving, bled for 45 minutes and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood with tissue.
Recorded in the files, somewhere, is the length of time dog and handler spent in each apartment. The other 5 apartments were whistle-stop tours.
But in apartment 5a an inordinate amount of time was spent and a response (eventually) elicited.
Are we really to believe that apartment 5a was the only one where blood was spilt?
At that point if you doubt Martin Grime's words, there's no interest in going on. Personally I find no motive for his lying when he said Eddie (not Keela) was excited at the entrance of the flat. Having trained his dog for years, MG understood there was something inside and let the dog run around freely. MG knew that without some forensic material Eddie's findings were of no use. Remember the task is exhausting for the dog, it can't do it for hours without large periods of rest.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around? Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been). Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: goatboy on April 13, 2013, 05:19:01 PM
Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around? Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been). Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.
I don't think it is unusual to see people carrying sleeping children in such a holiday environment-children stay up later than they normally would and may fall asleep.before they get back to their accommodation. Anyone witnessing Gerry carrying a child like this (assuming he was the person witnessed) would probably assume the child was asleep, not that they would be dead.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 05:19:16 PM
Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around? Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been). Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.
Greetings, peter. I am very interested to debate with others of opposing opinion to mine. You are positing that Gerry McCann "removed" Madeleine and was seen by the Smiths, where do you propose that he took her? Is it your opinion that Madeleine's remains were transported in the Scenic?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 05:23:31 PM
Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars? Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?
Rigor mortis ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Thank you Martha.
Yes, I will move my post to the right thread and delete the one above ...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: xtina on April 13, 2013, 05:33:05 PM
no one can say for definite any way that maddie was in the apartment at all on that night...what ever time it was
apart from the mccs of course
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 05:37:49 PM
Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars? Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?
Rigor mortis ?
Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5
You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not. Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 05:39:45 PM
Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around? Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been). Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.
Greetings, peter. I am very interested to debate with others of opposing opinion to mine. You are positing that Gerry McCann "removed" Madeleine and was seen by the Smiths, where do you propose that he took her? Is it your opinion that Madeleine's remains were transported in the Scenic?
I've absolutely no idea... how could I know?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 05:41:09 PM
Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around? Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been). Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.
Greetings, peter. I am very interested to debate with others of opposing opinion to mine. You are positing that Gerry McCann "removed" Madeleine and was seen by the Smiths, where do you propose that he took her? Is it your opinion that Madeleine's remains were transported in the Scenic?
I've absolutely no idea... how could I know?
I was just interested to hear your opinions, no offence meant.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 05:42:50 PM
Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars? Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?
Rigor mortis ?
Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5
You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not. Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...
Did the Smiths report that the child they saw had what appeared to be rigor mortis?
Yeah, that's likely. "The child was obviously dead but we just exchanged pleasantries and moved on, you know?"
*I hate this damn message board editing system!
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 05:46:18 PM
Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars? Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?
Rigor mortis ?
Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5
You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not. Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...
Did the Smiths report that the child they saw had what appeared to be rigor mortis?
No, they thought the child was sleeping.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 05:48:38 PM
You know the answer very well, Martha ! I bet it would pass nobody's mind (except for a first aider in some catastrophic situation) that a carried child (even with limp arms and legs) could be a corpse. As you mentioned 4 in the morning, I just thought of rigor mortis. Nothing more !
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 05:54:44 PM
Martha : "In which case it's unlikely the child had rigor mortis as suggested by Anne - don't you agree? Martha, I never suggested rigor mortis at 10 pm ! Read above please !
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 05:55:41 PM
Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around? Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.
Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been). Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.
Greetings, peter. I am very interested to debate with others of opposing opinion to mine. You are positing that Gerry McCann "removed" Madeleine and was seen by the Smiths, where do you propose that he took her? Is it your opinion that Madeleine's remains were transported in the Scenic?
I've absolutely no idea... how could I know?
I was just interested to hear your opinions, no offence meant.
Non taken.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 06:01:05 PM
You know the answer very well, Martha ! I bet it would pass nobody's mind (except for a first aider in some catastrophic situation) that a carried child (even with limp arms and legs) could be a corpse. As you mentioned 4 in the morning, I just thought of rigor mortis. Nothing more !
Which brings me back to my original question - why carry an unconcealed corpse through the streets of PdL at 10pm at night when people are likely to be out and about - it seems like a strange thing to do, particularly if you are the child's father and may be id'ed as such from publicity that follows the disappearance.
This is pure speculation. But, as an hypothesis of study, I'd suggest you don't carry a corpse (a concealed corpse would look a bit strange, don't you think ?) for the pleasure of carrying it, whether you're the child's father or not. You must have a motive and a strong one at that, because our societies have institutions that take care of the dead bodies.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 06:05:17 PM
Martha : "In which case it's unlikely the child had rigor mortis as suggested by Anne - don't you agree? Martha, I never suggested rigor mortis at 10 pm ! Read above please !
Frankly I don't know what you're suggesting, perhaps you need to spell it out for me - I'm not very bright. 8-)(--)
Fishing for compliments perhaps ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 06:19:27 PM
You know the answer very well, Martha ! I bet it would pass nobody's mind (except for a first aider in some catastrophic situation) that a carried child (even with limp arms and legs) could be a corpse. As you mentioned 4 in the morning, I just thought of rigor mortis. Nothing more !
Which brings me back to my original question - why carry an unconcealed corpse through the streets of PdL at 10pm at night when people are likely to be out and about - it seems like a strange thing to do, particularly if you are the child's father and may be id'ed as such from publicity that follows the disappearance.
How many times have I seen McCann supporters go on about how it was out of tourist season and therefore unseasonably quiet... I'll answer that: many, many times.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 13, 2013, 06:22:22 PM
So?
PdL was very very quiet even in June/July 2010, when we visited
Have never stayed anywhere quieter ... very nice place tho
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: gilet on April 13, 2013, 08:12:30 PM
However, I can spot a fabricated timeline when I see one; the person seen carrying a sleeping child by the Smith family was Gerry McCann! Honest.
The simple fact that you have shown no evidence whatsoever for your suppostion (libellous claim) that the timelines were fabricated and that you have ignored the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen means that your claim to be posting honestly is probably very wide of the mark.
When you post some evidence then perhaps you will be taken seriously.
The reality is that your suppositions (libels) do nothing to take this debate further.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 08:25:36 PM
Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars? Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?
Rigor mortis ?
Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5
You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not. Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...
Did the Smiths report that the child they saw had what appeared to be rigor mortis?
No, they thought the child was sleeping.
In which case it's unlikely the child had rigor mortis as suggested by Anne - don't you agree?
To be honest (who does that remind you of) my complete lack of knowledge on the subject of rigor mortis means that I could not possibly comment. However, I can spot a fabricated timeline when I see one; the person seen carrying a sleeping child by the Smith family was Gerry McCann! Honest.
So Madeleine was alive when Gerry was carrying her through the streets of PdL in your view then?
No, she was dead.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 08:29:47 PM
However, I can spot a fabricated timeline when I see one; the person seen carrying a sleeping child by the Smith family was Gerry McCann! Honest.
The simple fact that you have shown no evidence whatsoever for your suppostion (libellous claim) that the timelines were fabricated and that you have ignored the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen means that your claim to be posting honestly is probably very wide of the mark.
When you post some evidence then perhaps you will be taken seriously.
The reality is that your suppositions (libels) do nothing to take this debate further.
Would you care to post the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen by the Smith family... you do understand the concept of evidence don't you?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 08:36:06 PM
Martin Smith (to his credit) canvassed the views of the whole party with him that night before giving his second statement.
All Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 08:36:50 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 08:42:00 PM
Martin Smith (to his credit) canvassed the views of the whole party with him that night before giving his second statement.
All Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
You can't bypass the fact Martin S went to the gardaí to share his doubt whereas none of the others stated the carrier wasn't Gerald MC.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 08:43:37 PM
Martin Smith (to his credit) canvassed the views of the whole party with him that night before giving his second statement.
All Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Not true, they said they would be unable to identify the man. Nice try
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 13, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 08:49:12 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
Why is it "interesting"? She could have been taken to any one of a dozen, if not a hundred, places. Why the obsession with "it can't have happened the way YOU [ censored word ]s think if you can't come up with a location"?
I have always maintained that if you dropped me in Praia da Luz and gave me, say, 2 hours I could come up with dozens of amazing places to conceal all sorts of things including, regrettably, a dead toddler-sized object. It wouldn't be necessary to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the area.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 08:50:08 PM
Martin Smith (to his credit) canvassed the views of the whole party with him that night before giving his second statement.
All Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Not true, they said they would be unable to identify the man. Nice try
After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
(Martin Smith)
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 08:54:23 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
Why is it "interesting"? She could have been taken to any one of a dozen, if not a hundred, places. Why the obsession with "it can't have happened the way YOU [ censored word ]s think if you can't come up with a location"?
I have always maintained that if you dropped me in Praia da Luz and gave me, say, 2 hours I could come up with dozens of amazing places to conceal all sorts of things including, regrettably, a dead toddler-sized object. It wouldn't be necessary to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the area.
It was you who just used the word "[ censored word ]s", not me.
I was just trying to stimulate debate.
Readers, make up your own minds.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 09:01:33 PM
Martin Smith (to his credit) canvassed the views of the whole party with him that night before giving his second statement.
All Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.
Not true, they said they would be unable to identify the man. Nice try
They didn't say it wasn't Gerry McCann, they said they would be unable to identify the man!
After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
(Martin Smith)
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 09:06:49 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 09:10:12 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
I see. So where is the not just "available" as you say, but concretely irrefutable, evidence of Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of Praia da Luz?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 09:16:49 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
In his first statement, Mr Smith himself said that he didn't believe he would be able to identify the man again from photographs.
What do you suppose might have changed that?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 09:23:09 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
I see. So where is the not just "available" as you say, but concretely irrefutable, evidence of Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of Praia da Luz?
Tell you what Rachel, you provide me with the evidence of abduction first then I'll come right back at you with the evidence thet it was Gerry as seen by the Smith family; I'll put the kettle on
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 09:28:07 PM
You haven't answered my question, peter claridge. Seeing as you have been trumpeting claims of Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL, I quite reasonably asked you for concrete and irrefutable evidence to back up your trumpets. You have not done so.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 09:36:32 PM
You haven't answered my question, peter claridge. Seeing as you have been trumpeting claims of Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL, I quite reasonably asked you for concrete and irrefutable evidence to back up your trumpets. You have not done so.
The evidence Rachel Granada is contained in the statements and the timelines provided by the group and a certain process that the leaving no stone unturned McCann's have failed to carry out.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 13, 2013, 09:36:55 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
In his first statement, Mr Smith himself said that he didn't believe he would be able to identify the man again from photographs.
What do you suppose might have changed that?
When he saw TV footage of Gerry McCann getting off the plane carrying Sean in the exact way 'the abductor' had been carrying the little girl, his memory was jogged ... a sort of, "oh my God ... it's HIM !" i SUPPOSE
It is is just the sort of recollection prompt that crimewatch type reconstructions are intended to achieve, for instance
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 09:41:41 PM
So peter claridge is positing that Gerry McCann was carrying Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when pressed further about where she was taken from there, declines to comment.
Interesting.
But I did comment... I said I've no idea were he took her, what's interesting about that.
You have plenty to say about Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL yet won't qualify that with anything sensible about where he took said corpse.
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
In his first statement, Mr Smith himself said that he didn't believe he would be able to identify the man again from photographs.
What do you suppose might have changed that?
When he saw TV footage of Gerry McCann getting off the plane carrying Sean in the exact way 'the abductor' had been carrying the little girl, his memory was jogged ... a sort of, "oh my God ... it's HIM !" i SUPPOSE
It is is just the sort of recollection prompt that crimewatch type reconstructions are intended to achieve, for instance
It's the same as Jane Tanner stating that she could identify the abductor by his style of walking.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
You haven't answered my question, peter claridge. Seeing as you have been trumpeting claims of Gerry McCann parading a corpse through the streets of PDL, I quite reasonably asked you for concrete and irrefutable evidence to back up your trumpets. You have not done so.
The evidence Rachel Granada is contained in the statements and the timelines provided by the group and a certain process that the leaving no stone unturned McCann's have failed to carry out.
Huh? Can we have that in plain English, please?
Edited to add; You seem confident to say that Gerry McCann was parading Madeleine's corpse through the streets of PDL yet when asked to clarify this about where Gerry was heading with the corpse, you clam up.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 13, 2013, 09:42:41 PM
@ Peter
Quote
Tell you what Rachel, you provide me with the evidence of abduction first then I'll come right back at you with the evidence thet it was Gerry as seen by the Smith family; I'll put the kettle on For starters:
Jane Tanners sighting
Caroline Carpenters audible identification <<< this may be another Madeleine but she was in exactly the Right sort of place at exactly the right time.
And after 75 years life, I have never met a Madeleine ... so it is not a common name
The Smiths sighting
Add to this the string of 8 abductions in PT. One every two years.
One in Figueira, Only 7 miles away ... just over two and a half years before Madeleines abduction ... a pretty 7 y.o fair haired girl
One in Silves, 18 miles away, just over 4 months before ... a 3 y.o pretty little blond girl ... just like Madeleine. This abduction failed
Then Madeleine 4+ months afterwards.
The PT authorities announcing that there was nothing to implicate the Mccanns, therefor an abduction
S.Y. stating that it was an abduction
What other indicators/proof do you need?
Wake up at the back there 8(0(*
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 13, 2013, 09:47:28 PM
Tell you what Rachel, you provide me with the evidence of abduction first then I'll come right back at you with the evidence thet it was Gerry as seen by the Smith family; I'll put the kettle on For starters:
Jane Tanners sighting
Caroline Carpenters audible identification <<< this may be another Madeleine but she was in exactly the Right sort of place at exactly the right time.
And after 75 years life, I have never met a Madeleine ... so it is not a common name
The Smiths sighting
Add to this the string of 8 abductions in PT. One every two years.
One in Figueira, Only 7 miles away ... just over two and a half years before Madeleines abduction ... a pretty 7 y.o fair haired girl
One in Silves, 18 miles away, just over 4 months before ... a 3 y.o pretty little blond girl ... just like Madeleine. This abduction failed
Then Madeleine 4+ months afterwards.
The PT authorities announcing that there was nothing to implicate the Mccanns, therefor an abduction
S.Y. stating that it was an abduction
What other indicators/proof do you need?
Wake up at the back there 8(0(*
Bless
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 13, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
@)(++(*
Did you get that cuppa tea?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: John on April 13, 2013, 11:10:49 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses, all of a sudden the Tapas 9 evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 13, 2013, 11:20:39 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night all of a sudden their evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
You havn't 'proven' that it was not Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw
I happen to agree with it being very unlikely that Gerry McCann was walking the streets of PDL with Madeleine in his arms at 10pm that night ... and therefore very unlikely that it was him the Smiths saw
Nevertheless, Mr Smith is 80% certain that it was Gerry he saw that night, and his opinion, whilst being questionable, cannot be dismissed as definatively, and provably, innacurate
It just can't
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 11:21:48 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses, all of a sudden the Tapas 9 evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
Yeah, you'll have to run that one by me again. I must have missed that bit... I don't know how many times we have to tell you this. For every independent witness you claim places Gerry there at 10pm, there's another that doesn't. You cannot rely on any of the timings, the Smith sighting *could* have been Gerry, it's indisputable.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 13, 2013, 11:24:26 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night all of a sudden their evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
You havn't 'proven' that it was not Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw
I happen to agree with it being very unlikely that Gerry McCann was walking the streets of PDL with Madeleine in his arms at 10pm that night ... and therefore very unlikely that it was him the Smiths saw
Nevertheless, Mr Smith is 80% certain that it was Gerry he saw that night, and his opinion, whilst being questionable, cannot be dismissed as definatively, and provably, innacurate
It just can't
Quote
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
(Peter Claridge)
That's good.
You won't be arguing with the PJ final report then:
Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 11:25:20 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses, all of a sudden the Tapas 9 evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
Yeah, you'll have to run that one by me again. I must have missed that bit... I don't know how many times we have to tell you this. For every independent witness you claim places Gerry there at 10pm, there's another that doesn't. You cannot rely on any of the timings, the Smith sighting *could* have been Gerry, it's indisputable.
Whatever you say C Ed..... but the McCanns were never even arrested. How can you spin that? THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 11:28:07 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses, all of a sudden the Tapas 9 evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
Yeah, you'll have to run that one by me again. I must have missed that bit... I don't know how many times we have to tell you this. For every independent witness you claim places Gerry there at 10pm, there's another that doesn't. You cannot rely on any of the timings, the Smith sighting *could* have been Gerry, it's indisputable.
Whatever you say C Ed..... but the McCanns were never even arrested. How can you spin that? THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED.
...YET
Hey, OJ wasn't convicted of the Nicole Brown Simpson murder. Strange things happen. I really don't get this argument that because someone hasn't had legal action taken against them, they can't be suspected of having done something.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 11:30:58 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses, all of a sudden the Tapas 9 evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
Yeah, you'll have to run that one by me again. I must have missed that bit... I don't know how many times we have to tell you this. For every independent witness you claim places Gerry there at 10pm, there's another that doesn't. You cannot rely on any of the timings, the Smith sighting *could* have been Gerry, it's indisputable.
Whatever you say C Ed..... but the McCanns were never even arrested. How can you spin that? THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED.
...YET
Hey, OJ wasn't convicted of the Nicole Brown Simpson murder. Strange things happen. I really don't get this argument that because someone hasn't had legal action taken against them, they can't be suspected of having done something.
....YET. What are waiting for then?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 13, 2013, 11:34:39 PM
You see Rachel everything I post on here is based on available evidence, as there is no evidence of where Gerry deposited Madeleine's body I am unable to comment.
So why are you posting that it was Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw when even the Smiths aren't sure. Is this what passes for evidence in your world Peter?
Isn't it wonderful too how the McCann critics have spent the last three days dissing the Tapas 9's evidence and the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses, all of a sudden the Tapas 9 evidence is now in vogue? So predictable. @)(++(*
Yeah, you'll have to run that one by me again. I must have missed that bit... I don't know how many times we have to tell you this. For every independent witness you claim places Gerry there at 10pm, there's another that doesn't. You cannot rely on any of the timings, the Smith sighting *could* have been Gerry, it's indisputable.
Whatever you say C Ed..... but the McCanns were never even arrested. How can you spin that? THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED.
...YET
Hey, OJ wasn't convicted of the Nicole Brown Simpson murder. Strange things happen. I really don't get this argument that because someone hasn't had legal action taken against them, they can't be suspected of having done something.
....YET. What are waiting for then?
Haven't we been here before? Is this a short term memory issue?
We're waiting for evidence that's considered incriminating enough to be worth charging them, fairly obviously?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Rachel Granada on April 13, 2013, 11:40:03 PM
LOL! What is this fabled evidence, then, C ED? Face facts, if they were so guilty the combined might of the PT and UK police would have snared them. Only they didn't because to echo the words of the PT Attorney General "there was no evidence of the practice of any crime".
Is that clear enough for you?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 14, 2013, 01:25:23 AM
...the moment I begin to prove that Gerry McCann could not possibly have been down the town that night by reference to independent witnesses...
John, could you please finish proving (I'm no believer) !
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Gildas on April 14, 2013, 10:11:06 AM
Debunker posted:
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Debunker, where did you get the figure of 90% from ? I have been calculating probabilities using this figure, but I remember reading somewhere that Eddie was 100% reliable. I would like to work out the reliability when two dogs are involved, but it would be a waste of time, if the initial figure were incorrect.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: C.Edwards on April 14, 2013, 10:31:54 AM
It's not about the size of the mountain if the evidence - sorry, I keep forgetting - admissible evidence is circumstantial. If the AG currently doesn't think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction, he's not going to get them charged until he feels there is. I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Before you say, "this is the same AG who found no practise of any crime, etc." yes, it is the same one. The same one who also said this in his archiving summary but it tends to be ignored/forgotten about by those of you who have pink candyfloss in your eyes.
Quote
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Carana on April 14, 2013, 11:04:43 AM
Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.
Debunker, where did you get the figure of 90% from ? I have been calculating probabilities using this figure, but I remember reading somewhere that Eddie was 100% reliable. I would like to work out the reliability when two dogs are involved, but it would be a waste of time, if the initial figure were incorrect.
Concerning Eddie: From Grime's profile: In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs.
From his report: 'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
From elsewhere in that report: 'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat eating bacon sandwiches. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
In his profile he refers to cases, but in the report he clarifies that he is referring to 200 case searches.
What is referring to by "false positives"? My understanding is that he means Eddie had never reacted to meat-based foodstuffs (e.g., a bacon sandwich) or roadkill. Reacting to any decomposing human material within his training parameters would not be a false positive (e.g. the post-sex tissues in Jersey).
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 14, 2013, 11:17:26 AM
Carana:
In his profile he refers to cases, but in the report he clarifies that he is referring to 200 case searches.
I would dispute that that is 'clarification'.
I think that case searches is synonymous with cases.
For example, the combined effort to find Madeleine could be regarded as a single case or a single case search.
Beyond dispute, in the arguido interviews, it was put to Kate and Gerry that 'Eddie had never been wrong in over 200 cases'.
ETA: You can't equate case searches with cases, but you can the other way.
That is to say that individual searches within a case cannot be counted as 'cases', but you can the other way.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 14, 2013, 11:25:30 AM
It's not about the size of the mountain if the evidence - sorry, I keep forgetting - admissible evidence is circumstantial. If the AG currently doesn't think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction, he's not going to get them charged until he feels there is. I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Before you say, "this is the same AG who found no practise of any crime, etc." yes, it is the same one. The same one who also said this in his archiving summary but it tends to be ignored/forgotten about by those of you who have pink candyfloss in your eyes.
Quote
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
There are things about this 'document' that dont read right to me. I have tried to google it, to check, but every website except two is Jill Haverns, aimoo, or Joana Morais. It is reputed that at least one of those alters facts. I do not know whether this is true, but I dont trust them.
The google page is flooded with Jill Havern pages and Joana Morais pages ... WHAT IS GOING ON?
Interestingly the only other two sites do not work. These are:
1) Regrets and Ramblings, which I do trust .... but it takes you to another page? Despite Google specifying it, there is nothing about this document on that page. So why is there nothing on this page about this document when Google seems to think there is? [Bren if you are reading, pls could you confirm, or otherwise, whether this document should have been there. Catkins and Cath have my email address. ]
2) https://99.153.248.206:8888/freenet.../maddie.../pj-final-report.html which opens to "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"
So no-one can get an independant, as opposed to anti, copy of this document
JUST WHAT IS GOING ON? Seems. once again, evidence is being supressed .. or altered
I hope I am wrong ... cos it is extemely dangerous to us all if I am right ... so many "facts" are being altered.... think Pat Brown especially.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: faithlilly on April 14, 2013, 11:26:40 AM
In his profile he refers to cases, but in the report he clarifies that he is referring to 200 case searches.
I would dispute that that is 'clarification'.
I think that case searches is synonymous with cases.
For example, the combined effort to find Madeleine could be regarded as a single case or a single case search.
Beyond dispute, in the arguido interviews, it was put to Kate and Gerry that 'Eddie had never been wrong in over 200 cases'.
ETA: You can't equate case searches with cases, but you can the other way.
That is to say that individual searches within a case cannot be counted as 'cases', but you can the other way.
Ok. Perhaps clarification wasn't the best term.
I suppose it clarified matters for me as I'd wondered for ages whether he meant "case" in the sense of "instance" (200 opportunities to alert), 200 specific searches within a criminal investigation* or 200 criminal investigations.
ETA: or within a far fewer amount of criminal cases... Not just one.
But 200 opportunities to alert seemed too low and 200 investigations seemed too high.
I'd agree that it's ambiguous and the initial PJ team seem to have assumed that he meant 200 separate criminal investigations and that Eddie (RIP) had somehow contributed to solving them all.
Aside from what Grime actually meant by "case" - all he seems to have been saying is that the dog hadn't falsely alerted to a recent leftover pork chop or a dead hedgehog.
Grime wasn't clear and the PJ were under pressure. Grime was also not clear that Eddie would react to decomposing human substances which didn't necessarily involve a corpse.
As an aside, I'd found an article the other day (which I can no longer find) in which Eddie's nose was supposed to have led to 200 convictions...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 14, 2013, 12:30:25 PM
It's not about the size of the mountain if the evidence - sorry, I keep forgetting - admissible evidence is circumstantial. If the AG currently doesn't think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction, he's not going to get them charged until he feels there is. I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Before you say, "this is the same AG who found no practise of any crime, etc." yes, it is the same one. The same one who also said this in his archiving summary but it tends to be ignored/forgotten about by those of you who have pink candyfloss in your eyes.
Quote
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
There are things about this 'document' that dont read right to me. I have tried to google it, to check, but every website except two is Jill Haverns, aimoo, or Joana Morais. It is reputed that at least one of those alters facts. I do not know whether this is true, but I dont trust them.
The google page is flooded with Jill Havern pages and Joana Morais pages ... WHAT IS GOING ON?
Interestingly the only other two sites do not work. These are:
1) Regrets and Ramblings, which I do trust .... but it takes you to another page? Despite Google specifying it, there is nothing about this document on that page. So why is there nothing on this page about this document when Google seems to think there is? [Bren if you are reading, pls could you confirm, or otherwise, whether this document should have been there. Catkins and Cath have my email address. ]
2) https://99.153.248.206:8888/freenet.../maddie.../pj-final-report.html which opens to "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"
So no-one can get an independant, as opposed to anti, copy of this document
JUST WHAT IS GOING ON? Seems. once again, evidence is being supressed .. or altered
I hope I am wrong ... cos it is extemely dangerous to us all if I am right ... so many "facts" are being altered.... think Pat Brown especially.
Sadie, doubts and mysteries in this case are more than sufficient ! How can we ponder the few facts correctly if we wonder whether such translation (as crucial as the AG final document) is biased ? I'm not sure I understand what worries you, don't you have access to the AG Portuguese original document (21 JUL 2008) ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 14, 2013, 01:13:54 PM
I do, but I have to trouble someone in PT who is seriously ill ... and I am not going to do that.
Unfortunately there is a language problem too >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: ferryman on April 14, 2013, 01:16:09 PM
In his profile he refers to cases, but in the report he clarifies that he is referring to 200 case searches.
I would dispute that that is 'clarification'.
I think that case searches is synonymous with cases.
For example, the combined effort to find Madeleine could be regarded as a single case or a single case search.
Beyond dispute, in the arguido interviews, it was put to Kate and Gerry that 'Eddie had never been wrong in over 200 cases'.
ETA: You can't equate case searches with cases, but you can the other way.
That is to say that individual searches within a case cannot be counted as 'cases', but you can the other way.
Ok. Perhaps clarification wasn't the best term.
I suppose it clarified matters for me as I'd wondered for ages whether he meant "case" in the sense of "instance" (200 opportunities to alert), 200 specific searches within a criminal investigation or 200 criminal investigations.
But 200 opportunities to alert seemed too low and 200 investigations seemed too high.
I'd agree that it's ambiguous and the initial PJ team seem to have assumed that he meant 200 separate criminal investigations and that Eddie (RIP) had somehow contributed to solving them all.
Aside from what Grime actually meant by "case" - all he seems to have been saying is that the dog hadn't falsely alerted to a recent leftover pork chop or a dead hedgehog.
Grime wasn't clear and the PJ were under pressure. Grime was also not clear that Eddie would react to decomposing human substances which didn't necessarily involve a corpse.
As an aside, I'd found an article the other day (which I can no longer find) in which Eddie's nose was supposed to have led to 200 convictions...
Yes, I remember you suggesting cases as a synonym of instances once before.
For me, what precludes that, is the words before, operational deployment and ...
To me, that is amenable to only one interpretation, two hundred separate cases.
And the other thing making me disinclined to give Grime benefit of doubt is his other claims, demonstrably untrue ...
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 14, 2013, 01:32:06 PM
I do, but I have to trouble someone in PT who is seriously ill ... and I am not going to do that.
Unfortunately there is a language problem too >@@(*&)
All I can do for you is to check how the passages you're doubting were translated. I can also translate them in French, if you're francophone.
Another Portuguese speaking friend has very kindly sent them to me, but they are refusing to allow me to paste them here. However he says that the translation appears to correspond with yours.
Please accept my apology
sadie
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Redblossom on April 15, 2013, 08:27:38 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
His not sayng he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: amaraltheofficeboy on April 15, 2013, 08:30:22 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
fascinating questions - do you have the answers, in fact can anyone answer those pertinent points?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 15, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
Is it because if he'd have checked at the window he would have seen it open due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
Is it because if he'd have entered the bedroom he would have noticed that Madeleine wasn't there due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
See above
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 15, 2013, 08:37:19 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
His not sayng he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though.
1) The window was supposed to be open, it would have been criminal from him not to alert about that (let's suppose he was asked to have checked on the MC kids to avoid neglect accusations). 2) He hoped to have the cake and eat it : internal check to skip the window issue and listening check to skip the Madeleine issue. 3) The poor guy was trapped with this undone bed under the window.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: amaraltheofficeboy on April 15, 2013, 08:39:53 PM
just to clarify - are you or are you not anne guedes@aacg ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Redblossom on April 15, 2013, 08:43:34 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 15, 2013, 08:44:20 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Luz on April 15, 2013, 08:54:25 PM
This I call harassment. The pros just cab't avoid it!
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Redblossom on April 15, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: amaraltheofficeboy on April 15, 2013, 08:56:00 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
She was acting, the whole scene was set up to explain away the fact that Jes Wilkin's didn't see her walk by... and the excuse that they came up with was it didn't matter that Jes didn't see her. Problem solved (cough)
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 15, 2013, 09:05:40 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
Is it because if he'd have checked at the window he would have seen it open due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
Is it because if he'd have entered the bedroom he would have noticed that Madeleine wasn't there due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
See above
It's quite striking when you put it like that
... Matthew Oldfield took the exact actions that were necessary for him to 'miss' the fact that Madeleine had already been abducted
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 15, 2013, 09:14:43 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
Is it because if he'd have checked at the window he would have seen it open due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
Is it because if he'd have entered the bedroom he would have noticed that Madeleine wasn't there due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
See above
It's quite striking when you put it like that
... Matthew Oldfield took the exact actions that were necessary for him to 'miss' the fact that Madeleine had already been abducted
These actions also didn't exist until after the alarm was raised courtesy of the Smith sighting!
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 15, 2013, 10:42:16 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 15, 2013, 10:47:21 PM
just to clarify - are you or are you not anne guedes@aacg ?
Amaralseilàoque, this is an obsession or what ? Ask Gilet, he knows everything.
thankyou for your reply
So there are two French women called Anne Guedes who both live in Portugal and have posted about Madeleine in exactly the same way?
The art of wasting one's time ! There's a British Anne Guedes who lives in Lisbon. She's my cousin. She hardly knows the MC case, I don't think it's her. There are many others I don't know. Do you pretend to see my Identity Card ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 15, 2013, 10:55:21 PM
I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night. I have some questions about this.
- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.
- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?
- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?
Is it because if he'd have checked at the window he would have seen it open due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
Is it because if he'd have entered the bedroom he would have noticed that Madeleine wasn't there due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?
See above
It's quite striking when you put it like that
... Matthew Oldfield took the exact actions that were necessary for him to 'miss' the fact that Madeleine had already been abducted
One thing is to fake listening no crying at all. Another to pretend Madeleine was sleeping tight since JT had seen her being carried away fifteen minutes earlier. MO did no cover up. He tried to help (himself as well, since he left his kid alone).
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 15, 2013, 11:14:17 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 15, 2013, 11:22:21 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
I don't agree at all and I wonder what makes you so affirmative, because those TP7 had no reason whatsoever to cover up any crime. They told some untruths, very likely, but for good reasons or what they honestly but rapidly thought were good reasons : trying to orientate the PJ towards an abduction they believe had occurred (because of the shutters/window), trying to avoid accusations of neglect (saving their skin as well). Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 15, 2013, 11:36:24 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
I don't agree at all and I wonder what makes you so affirmative, because those TP7 had no reason whatsoever to cover up any crime. They told some untruths, very likely, but for good reasons or what they honestly but rapidly thought were good reasons : trying to orientate the PJ towards an abduction they believe had occurred (because of the shutters/window), trying to avoid accusations of neglect (saving their skin as well). Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
You would have lied about a sighting of an abductor, lied about carrying out checks on other peoples children. You'd only have done this if there was something more sinister to cover up. The group minus Dianne Webster were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that evening before leaving for the tapas bar.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 15, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
I don't agree at all and I wonder what makes you so affirmative, because those TP7 had no reason whatsoever to cover up any crime. They told some untruths, very likely, but for good reasons or what they honestly but rapidly thought were good reasons : trying to orientate the PJ towards an abduction they believe had occurred (because of the shutters/window), trying to avoid accusations of neglect (saving their skin as well). Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
You would have lied about a sighting of an abductor, lied about carrying out checks on other peoples children. You'd only have done this if there was something more sinister to cover up. The group minus Dianne Webster were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that evening before leaving for the tapas bar.
I'm interested in your theory peter ... any chance you could give us a brief summing up of what you think might, theoretically, have happened ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 16, 2013, 12:05:30 AM
Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
You would have lied about a sighting of an abductor, lied about carrying out checks on other peoples children. You'd only have done this if there was something more sinister to cover up. The group minus Dianne Webster were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that evening before leaving for the tapas bar.
No I wouldn't have lied about sighting an abductor if I hadn't, not for moral reasons but basically because I wouldn't have sound convincing ! But If I had seen some unexpected person, I might have taken the opportunity and made a few corrections in order to have things run. Yes I would have pretended I checked kids for the sake of not adding more suffering to the group, being sure that all parents were good parents (even if thinking that 2 of them were lacking imagination). Now what if I had discovered later I was wrong... That's a dilemma. A real one.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2013, 12:29:19 AM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
I don't agree at all and I wonder what makes you so affirmative, because those TP7 had no reason whatsoever to cover up any crime. They told some untruths, very likely, but for good reasons or what they honestly but rapidly thought were good reasons : trying to orientate the PJ towards an abduction they believe had occurred (because of the shutters/window), trying to avoid accusations of neglect (saving their skin as well). Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
You would have lied about a sighting of an abductor, lied about carrying out checks on other peoples children. You'd only have done this if there was something more sinister to cover up. The group minus Dianne Webster were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that evening before leaving for the tapas bar.
I'm interested in your theory peter ... any chance you could give us a brief summing up of what you think might, theoretically, have happened ?
Yep, I would love to hear Peters theory.
He knows that Jane Tanner didn't leave the table.
He knows that Matthew, Gerry, Kate and Russell fabricated their checks on the children
I wonder what else he knows?
Peter
Quote
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
Jeez yuo know such a lot. Were you there Peter?
Psst .... were you the watcher/getaway driver ?
You can tell me; I wont tell anyone 8(0(* 8**8:/:
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: peter claridge on April 16, 2013, 12:45:56 AM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
I don't agree at all and I wonder what makes you so affirmative, because those TP7 had no reason whatsoever to cover up any crime. They told some untruths, very likely, but for good reasons or what they honestly but rapidly thought were good reasons : trying to orientate the PJ towards an abduction they believe had occurred (because of the shutters/window), trying to avoid accusations of neglect (saving their skin as well). Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
You would have lied about a sighting of an abductor, lied about carrying out checks on other peoples children. You'd only have done this if there was something more sinister to cover up. The group minus Dianne Webster were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that evening before leaving for the tapas bar.
I'm interested in your theory peter ... any chance you could give us a brief summing up of what you think might, theoretically, have happened ?
The best place to start is with the Smith sighting and work backwards from there. Unfortunately this does point to Madeleine being dead before that evenings meal commenced. The loose cannon of the group is Dianne Webster and her statements need to be read side by side with the others of the group. In brief it was Gerry who was seen by the Smith family this forced an early raising of the alarm, in effect Gerry became the abductor. They were now forced into producing a timeline that had to provide evidence not only of checking but an oppurtunity for abduction and most important of all an alibi for Gerry. It is this alibi provided by Jane Tanner's sighting making use of the genuine meeting between Gerry and Jes Wilkin's plus the claim of the open bedroom shutters/window that causes their timeline to descend into something of a farce. We get unlocked patio doors to allow a 9.30 just listening check from inside the McCann's apartment by Mathew Oldfield designed specifically to not discover the open window and a missing Madeliene that Tanner's sighting would now imply (I would also point out that Mathew's claim that he could see the twins was that they weren't there and had to be rapidly returned after the alarm), Russell O'Briens claim that his daughter was ill was merely to cover for his extended absence from the table. The early checks by Gerry and Mathew are also there to explain their absence from the table (see Dianne Webster). When time allows I'll do a complete breakdown of the timelines provided by the group linked to their statements which clearly show how the story evolves and the complicity of all minus Dianne Webster (she is later on brought up to speed for the rogatory interviews).
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 16, 2013, 12:52:11 AM
Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.
I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view. Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.
She agreed to go back for the Mccann reconstruction documentary. She obviously did not know what was awaiting her.
I've a feeling JT transferred in time and space her sighting. She did it for honest reasons, certainly not to cover up. She knew cynical comments made on her memory improving with time. She must have found it unjust and yet she might have had a terrible doubt.
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
I don't agree at all and I wonder what makes you so affirmative, because those TP7 had no reason whatsoever to cover up any crime. They told some untruths, very likely, but for good reasons or what they honestly but rapidly thought were good reasons : trying to orientate the PJ towards an abduction they believe had occurred (because of the shutters/window), trying to avoid accusations of neglect (saving their skin as well). Really, had I been one of the TP in a foreign totally ignored country (they were in a resort, close to 100% British), I would have reacted their way.
You would have lied about a sighting of an abductor, lied about carrying out checks on other peoples children. You'd only have done this if there was something more sinister to cover up. The group minus Dianne Webster were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that evening before leaving for the tapas bar.
I'm interested in your theory peter ... any chance you could give us a brief summing up of what you think might, theoretically, have happened ?
The best place to start is with the Smith sighting and work backwards from there. Unfortunately this does point to Madeleine being dead before that evenings meal commenced. The loose cannon of the group is Dianne Webster and her statements need to be read side by side with the others of the group. In brief it was Gerry who was seen by the Smith family this forced an early raising of the alarm, in effect Gerry became the abductor. They were now forced into producing a timeline that had to provide evidence not only of checking but an oppurtunity for abduction and most important of all an alibi for Gerry. It is this alibi provided by Jane Tanner's sighting making use of the genuine meeting between Gerry and Jes Wilkin's plus the claim of the open bedroom shutters/window that causes their timeline to descend into something of a farce. We get unlocked patio doors to allow a 9.30 just listening check from inside the McCann's apartment by Mathew Oldfield designed specifically to not discover the open window and a missing Madeliene that Tanner's sighting would now imply (I would also point out that Mathew's claim that he could see the twins was that they weren't there and had to be rapidly returned after the alarm), Russell O'Briens claim that his daughter was ill was merely to cover for his extended absence from the table. The early checks by Gerry and Mathew are also there to explain their absence from the table (see Dianne Webster). When time allows I'll do a complete breakdown of the timelines provided by the group linked to their statements which clearly show how the story evolves and the complicity of all minus Dianne Webster (she is later on brought up to speed for the rogatory interviews).
Thanks Peter ( please come back with linked timeline/witness statement analysis when you have the time )
I have wondered if, perhaps, whatever happened, happened some time before the 'window of opportunity' allowed by the Tapas group
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2013, 01:14:28 AM
Yeah I would really like to hear Peters theory
As I said before:
sadie
Quote
Yep, I would love to hear Peters theory.
He knows that Jane Tanner didn't leave the table.
He knows that Matthew, Gerry, Kate and Russell fabricated their checks on the children
I wonder what else he knows?
Peter
Quote
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
sadie
Quote
Jeez yuo know such a lot. Were you there Peter?
Psst .... were you the watcher/getaway driver ?
You can tell me; I wont tell anyone 8(0(* 8**8:/:
Yep, I would really like to hear Peters theory with timelines and everything as Isabod suggested. Looking forward to your analysis.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2013, 10:59:26 PM
Come on Peter. How about it?
Peter
Quote
Jane Tanner didn't see anything, she didn't leave the table until the alarm was raised. Total fabrication as are Mathews checks as are for that matter Gerry's, Russell's and Kate's. The timelines that they produced are a direct result of the Smith sighting.
Icabod asked you to give your timeline and your thoughts. I too would be very interested to hear them. You seem to know so much
What is your theory as Jane Tanner didn't even leave the table? And every claim that Gerry, Russell, Matt, kate made didn't happen. Did they all lie?
Would be fascinating to hear all about what really did happen
Come on Peter, be a sport 8((()*/
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 16, 2013, 11:53:11 PM
Getting back to the original question asked by the OP
... can anyone come up with a single reason as to why Madeleine could not have gone missing between 9.30pm and 10pm ?
I can't think of one
There is no reason, I can see, to dismiss the fact that the child could have disappeared at any time between 9.05pm ( when Gerry says he last saw her ) and 10pm ( when Kate says she found her missing )
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 17, 2013, 12:14:48 AM
There are least two reasons
1) Jane Tanner witnessed bundleman carrying ?Madeleine
2) Mrs Caroline Carpenter heard a man whispering /murmuring "Madeleine, Madeleine". She was in the vicinity of where bundleman walked to, and she was there at the correct sort of time
So two witnesses. These should not have been ignored.
Jane Tanner would have been treated as a GOLDEN WITNESS by almost any police Force in the World But Amaral rubbished ALL the British witnesses. Had he taken her sighting on board along with Mrs Carpenters audio witnessing, then there would have been a very different result.
Madeleine would probably have been home within hours.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: gavdalf on April 17, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
didn't JT description of bundleman eventually morph into Murat? I seem to recall from somewhere and was he then made an aquido?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on April 17, 2013, 03:01:10 PM
1) Jane Tanner witnessed bundleman carrying ?Madeleine
2) Mrs Caroline Carpenter heard a man whispering /murmuring "Madeleine, Madeleine". She was in the vicinity of where bundleman walked to, and she was there at the correct sort of time
So two witnesses. These should not have been ignored.
Jane Tanner would have been treated as a GOLDEN WITNESS by almost any police Force in the World But Amaral rubbished ALL the British witnesses. Had he taken her sighting on board along with Mrs Carpenters audio witnessing, then there would have been a very different result.
Madeleine would probably have been home within hours.
About the Caroline Carpenter 'audio evidence'
I've searched and searched the files and I cannot find her witness statement ( I found her husband's, but that is just hearsay )
Where and when did she give this evidence about hearing the whispered 'Madeleine' ?
What time was it when she heard the whisper ?
Where was she when she heard it ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Redblossom on April 17, 2013, 08:03:55 PM
Sadie, you said, in response to the question, could Madeleine have been taken between 9.30 and 10pm :
Quote
There are least two reasons
1) Jane Tanner witnessed bundleman carrying ?Madeleine
2) Mrs Caroline Carpenter heard a man whispering /murmuring "Madeleine, Madeleine". She was in the vicinity of where bundleman walked to, and she was there at the correct sort of time
So two witnesses. These should not have been ignored.
Jane Tanner would have been treated as a GOLDEN WITNESS by almost any police Force in the World But Amaral rubbished ALL the British witnesses. Had he taken her sighting on board along with Mrs Carpenters audio witnessing, then there would have been a very different result.
Madeleine would probably have been home within hours.
Unquote
1) Jane Tanner did not see bundleman after 9.30 though did she? She saw him around 9.15 or so whilst seeing Gerry Mccann and Mr Wilkins, having their chat. By 9.30 one was back in the restaraunt and the other was at home.
2) Do you know that Mr or Mrs Carpenter was interviewed by the PJ immediately that night, so that if Mr Amaral had listened to them, Madeleine would have been home within hours?
3) How do you know that Mrs Carpenter, if indeed she did hear this, must have been hearing an abductor, and not one or other person who was going to check up on her? The Carpenters left the restaraunt between 9.15 and 9.30.... Perhaps they heard either Gerry or Matt Oldfield?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 18, 2013, 12:34:26 AM
Bl^dy L, I left the first line out.
Old age.
It should have started with the words
"The reason why Madeleine could NOT have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00 are ":
Quote
There are least two reasons
1) Jane Tanner witnessed bundleman carrying ?Madeleine
2) Mrs Caroline Carpenter heard a man whispering /murmuring "Madeleine, Madeleine". She was in the vicinity of where bundleman walked to, and she was there at the correct sort of time
So two witnesses. These should not have been ignored.
Jane Tanner would have been treated as a GOLDEN WITNESS by almost any police Force in the World But Amaral rubbished ALL the British witnesses. Had he taken her sighting on board along with Mrs Carpenters audio witnessing, then there would have been a very different result.
Madeleine would probably have been home within hours.
Thanks for alerting me 8((()*/
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 18, 2013, 12:54:12 AM
Quote
1) Jane Tanner did not see bundleman after 9.30 though did she? She saw him around 9.15 or so whilst seeing Gerry Mccann and Mr Wilkins, having their chat. By 9.30 one was back in the restaraunt and the other was at home.
She saw bundleman at about 9.20pm IIRC
Quote
2) Do you know that Mr or Mrs Carpenter was interviewed by the PJ immediately that night, so that if Mr Amaral had listened to them, Madeleine would have been home within hours?
Amaral didn't bother to even see them or visit Apartment 5A until after they left. Without looking their statement up, I cannot remember when the PJ interviewed them, but I doubt it was that night. They didn't arrive on the scene for hours and no-one would have known at that stage that The Carpenters had heard anything
Quote
3) How do you know that Mrs Carpenter, if indeed she did hear this, must have been hearing an abductor, and not one or other person who was going to check up on her? The Carpenters left the restaraunt between 9.15 and 9.30.... Perhaps they heard either Gerry or Matt Oldfield?
It was en route and towards their apartment, Redblossom. Surely you are not still pounding at the fact that Gerry or Matt had killed Madeleine? How could they have disposed of the body, and appeareed normal at the table. Just think about it
I dont intend wading thru all the processos to prove you wrong, but I feel pretty confident That their time at the table was well accounted for in the various staff and guests statements.
Are you suggesting that after Gerrys chat with Jez, he doubled back and picked up Madeleine to dump her body? Come on. Next you will be wittering on that they cut her body up into tiny bits and stored it iisn the fridge, then fed it to some pigs ...a la Amaral and a la Cristavao. Both Criminals
By the way are you HardlLineMarxist? Did I have coffee with you at Bennetts trial?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Redblossom on April 18, 2013, 08:37:16 PM
Sadie, I must admit I have no idea how you make such enormous mental leaps, for example, my suggesting, and it was not with any negative connotation, that the time was about right when the Carpenters left the restaraunt for them to possibly be in the vicinity when either Gerry Mccann, Jeremy Wilkins, Matt Oldfield and Russell O'Brien were there and one of them may have mentioned Madeleine's name. It was an 'idea' not an accusation of anything.
As for your comment 'Surely you are not still pounding at the fact that Gerry or Matt had killed Madeleine'
I have never pounded this, let alone 'still' pounding it, so you must have got me mixed up with someone else.
As for your ridiculous other leap of imagination that I will soon be saying they cut up a body, well it is for you to think about why you said that, it's nothing to do with me. @)(++(*
PS If Mrs Carpenter heard this, and it was a vague memory, perhaps she heard it on another night instead. There is anecdotal evidence that she was being chased after by her parents around the flats one night. And IIRC Gerry Mccann did say something about the kids running round the alleys one night.
Also if you get a second, perhaps you can tell me why any abductor would be calling out Madeleine's name, I am curious.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: DCI on April 24, 2013, 07:19:05 PM
So this chap heard about the abduction at around 10.15, from MW staff.
Witness Statement
Date: 2007-05-16
Paul Raymond Wright
Occupation: Hotel Owner
Place of Work: "Duque de Holanda" Bar, P da L
He comes to the process as a witness. He does not speak Portuguese and is helped by an interpreter.
He has lived in P da L for 25 years.
He heard about the events being investigated, on the night of 3rd May at about 22.15, from a Mark Warner employee, who went to his restaurant to say that Madeleine had disappeared and to ask for help in looking for her
He arrived at the scene of the events at about 23.45, there were already many people and police officers.
When asked, he says that he knows Robert Murat by sight, for almost eight or ten years. He did not see Murat on the scene on the night of the events - but remembers seeing him on different occasions.
Nothing more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: sadie on April 25, 2013, 07:29:30 PM
Matt was the Mccanns best friend IIRC and he and his family had the next apartment.
Seems he left his apartment via the back, a few steps along that alleyway, around the corner and up 5A steps. In thru the patio door. I am not sure about this but I think it showed him coming from the alleyway on the Cutting Edge Youtube video
PLs correct me if I am wrong.
Hope this helps
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: Redblossom on April 25, 2013, 07:36:48 PM
The Oldfields were not the closest friends of thr Mccans, the Paynes were.
Matt did NOT go to the Mccanns apartment via the back of his flat via his patio door as he and his wife testified they left their back doors locked all the time
Quote After leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was crying, that done with the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's daughter was ill, with vomiting.
To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be. Unquote
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: AnneGuedes on April 25, 2013, 11:38:50 PM
Mrs Caroline Carpenter heard a man whispering /murmuring "Madeleine, Madeleine". She was in the vicinity of where bundleman walked to, and she was there at the correct sort of time
Unfortunately Mrs Carpenter who, according to her husband, heard someone (not specifically a man) calling "Madeleine", wasn't interviewed. Is there a reason why she would invent this ? It was between 9:15 and 9:30. The only person who could have called Madeleine was her father. Yet at this time she taken away by the carrier..
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 16, 2013, 10:20:41 AM
There was a 55 minute window when an abduction was possible ... so why is a man carrying a child at 9.15pm ( in a holiday resort where sleepy kids are picked up from the creche in late evening ) highly likely to have been an 'abductor' ?
Where JT saw bundleman was not on any route to, or from, the creche or the restaurant. With the exception of one house (the one with the big pyramid in its garden) there were no houses or apartments for about 250 yards, apart from OC itself.
That man would not carry his own child, on such a cold blustery night, for such a distance without any cover or footwear. The child would have been awake, shivering and howling at the cold, had he done so. That child, unless she came from OC, must have been drugged.
That was almost certainly Madeleine
This, of course, was supported by Stephen Carpenters statement that his wife Caroline had heard the name "Madeleine, Madeleine" murmured as they neared their apartment after eating. The Carpenters were in the right sort of place, at the right sort of time, to have heard this.
Pls check the statements; might have been Carolines statement, or Stephens .. not sure which
I've bumped this thread because it is interesting how insistant some members were that the man Jane saw was 'the abductor'
sadie's post above, for instance, gives a detailed explanation as to how the man Jane saw couldn't possibly be just a father taking his child home from the night creche
It is an example, I think, of why we should be more open minded to all posibilities in this case
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: imustpointout on October 16, 2013, 10:36:57 AM
"I think you might be right John
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we are told that another 'anonymous' man has been identified as an entirely innocent father carrying his own child
Having dotted those two i's Scotland Yard can get on with closing this case by pinning it on a dead paedophile via the 'german connection'
Sorry to sound cynical"
That is an example of being open minded in this case.
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 09, 2013, 11:18:23 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Madeleine was abducted at about 9.15, and I feel that it is more likely that she was abducted between 9.30 and 10. Yet, it appears that no one considers this a possibility.
Is there any reason why Madeleine could not have been abducted between 9.00 and 10.00 ?
I just noticed that Gildas was online and was reminded of this thread
Given that Scotland Yard have recently confirmed that they agree with the proposition that Gildas proposed, I thought it was time to bump the thread
It raises so many questions now that we know Jane Tanner did NOT see an 'abductor' at 9.15pm on that fateful night ... how could she have imagined the child was wearing the same pj's as Madeleine ? ... why was the door to the children's bedroom open wider at 9.10pm than the McCanns had left it at 8.30pm ? ... why were the McCanns so certain that Jane had seen the 'abductor' that they suppressed e fits of an alternative sighting ?
Scotland Yard dismissing the linch-pin on which the McCanns' 'prefered' abduction scenario hinged, changes everything, doesn't it ?
Title: Re: Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 01:16:23 AM
I've bumped this thread because it is interesting how insistant some members were that the man Jane saw was 'the abductor'
sadie's post above, for instance, gives a detailed explanation as to how the man Jane saw couldn't possibly be just a father taking his child home from the night creche
It is an example, I think, of why we should be more open minded to all posibilities in this case
The story did not match before because Matt Oldfield came at 9.30 and did not find draft or open window, which he should have found if kidnapper went out with Madeleine at 9.15