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: John on June 30, 2013, 07:12:52 PM
Title: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 07:12:52 PM
There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.
I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.
The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside. A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: DCI on June 30, 2013, 07:26:42 PM
There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.
I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.
The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside. A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.
This has been my opinion from almost day one, John.
Also Madeleines bed was easier to get to, than having remove one of the twins from a deep based cot. Another little thought, Madeliene may not have woken properly, thinking it was one of her parents, if she was used to being got up to use the tiolet.
I have done this with my children, and grandchildren, and they haven't realised, they had been woken up. I presume most parents have too!
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: faithlilly on June 30, 2013, 07:38:14 PM
There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.
I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.
The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside. A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.
Anything is possible John. The more pertinent question is it probable ?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Puffin on June 30, 2013, 07:39:23 PM
This has been my opinion from almost day one, John.
Also Madeleines bed was easier to get to, than having remove one of the twins from a deep based cot. Another little thought, Madeliene may not have woken properly, thinking it was one of her parents, if she was used to being got up to use the t[ilet.
I have done this with my children, and grandchildren, and they haven't realised, they had been woken up. I presume most parents have too!
A thought, Madeleine would not be frightened if th person she saw was someone she recognized. Didn't need to actually know them, just the fce was familiar. I saw a post a long time ago where someone suggested the abductor told her they were going to see mummy.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: DCI on June 30, 2013, 07:48:59 PM
A thought, Madeleine would not be frightened if th person she saw was someone she recognized. Didn't need to actually know them, just the fce was familiar. I saw a post a long time ago where someone suggested the abductor told her they were going to see mummy.
If it was dark, Puffin, it may have just been a tender voice, and half asleep, kids don't normally take in what is being said, or by who! I would imagine Madeleine to be quite chatty once she knew a person, only my opinion!
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Eleanor on June 30, 2013, 08:03:21 PM
I don't see the problem with sedating Madeleine in her bed just before she is lifted. A soaked pad in a plastic bag in his pocket would do it. And Chloroform is very easy to make from household products. It doesn't smell if it is made correctly.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on June 30, 2013, 08:05:19 PM
There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.
I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.
The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside. A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.
Too many questions here
- If he followed behind, where did he go so that Tanner did not see him? - Tanner would be nearly turning the corner after she spotted man 1 so if man 2 followed she would have spotted him, but why did man 2 waste a second after man 1 had gone to get out the apartment? - If man 2 spotted Tanner coming around the corner, he may have hid but the main question in all of this meticulously preplanned exercise, is why no car was used, but we have an abductor or two wandering around on foot, in the vicinity, one with child not far from the childs own father who may have recognised her pyjamas, and one which apparently some believe walked east and then some time later backtracked east along the same route to be spotted by the Smiths -Why would anyone risk in the first place climbing into a small window and passing a child out when clothing fibres/hair/dna from any of the three might be found, rather than say just break in through the front door with any implement
Occams razor anyone?
Is there any evidence of a second person involved in the first place? Well, when I say evidence, obviously nothing tgus far is actual defacto evidence but speculation/possibilities.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Eleanor on June 30, 2013, 08:09:42 PM
A second abductor could simply have gone in a different direction. But there has to have been two of them because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite position to the one in which she would have been picked up out of bed.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 08:14:10 PM
This has been my opinion from almost day one, John.
Also Madeleines bed was easier to get to, than having remove one of the twins from a deep based cot. Another little thought, Madeliene may not have woken properly, thinking it was one of her parents, if she was used to being got up to use the tiolet.
I have done this with my children, and grandchildren, and they haven't realised, they had been woken up. I presume most parents have too!
Yes, my own experience with my three. An exhausted sleeping child is very hard to rouse at night.
Two reasons for coming to this conclusion about the two abductors (one could have been female of course) are as follows:-
1. The way the man was holding Maddie when seen by Jane Tanner lends itself to the theory that he was handed the child in such a manner through a window.
2. As previously discussed, a single abductor would have found it very hard to get out of the window carrying Maddie.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: DCI on June 30, 2013, 08:16:02 PM
A second abductor could simply have gone in a different direction. But there has to have been two of them because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite position to the one in which she would have been picked up out of bed.
Or keeping watch over the side wall, and saw Gerry and Jez talikng and Jane coming up the hill! That could have messed, the best laid plans up.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 08:16:27 PM
A thought, Madeleine would not be frightened if th person she saw was someone she recognized. Didn't need to actually know them, just the fce was familiar. I saw a post a long time ago where someone suggested the abductor told her they were going to see mummy.
...or female?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 30, 2013, 08:17:58 PM
Yes, my own experience with my three. An exhausted sleeping child is very hard to rouse at night.
Two reasons for coming to this conclusion about the two abductors (one could have been female of course) are as follows:-
1. The way the man was holding Maddie when seen by Jane Tanner lends itself to the theory that he was handed the child in such a manner through a window.
2. As previously discussed, a single abductor would have found it very hard to get out of the window carrying Maddie.
The trouble is, on that scenario, there is nothing inside, or outsideby the window, to indicate there was anyone there.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Puffin on June 30, 2013, 08:21:24 PM
Possibly. A child would be less fraught by a woman than a strange man, and as I said, if the woman was a familiar face, someone seen around the complex then the childm if fully awake, would not be upset.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 08:34:26 PM
- If he followed behind, where did he go so that Tanner did not see him? Probably hid behind the wall. - Tanner would be nearly turning the corner after she spotted man 1 so if man 2 followed she would have spotted him, but why did man 2 waste a second after man 1 had gone to get out the apartment? You are assuming of course that it was a man. Does Tanner mention anyone else or didn't she notice? - If man 2 spotted Tanner coming around the corner, he may have hid but the main question in all of this meticulously preplanned exercise, is why no car was used, but we have an abductor or two wandering around on foot, in the vicinity, one with child not far from the childs own father who may have recognised her pyjamas, and one which apparently some believe walked east and then some time later backtracked east along the same route to be spotted by the Smiths. Having a car in the close vicinity is a non starter as a car can be easily traced by any follow-up road blocks. Best to hide it nearby as previously suggested by Sadie some time ago. -Why would anyone risk in the first place climbing into a small window and passing a child out when clothing fibres/hair/dna from any of the three might be found, rather than say just break in through the front door with any implement. Criminals always use the path of least resistance. An unlocked shutter and window was ideal.
Occams razor anyone?
Is there any evidence of a second person involved in the first place? Well, when I say evidence, obviously nothing tgus far is actual defacto evidence but speculation/possibilities.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on June 30, 2013, 08:37:45 PM
Sorry, but they would have no idea whatsoever if the kids bedroom window was locked, IF *they* were watching the only thing thry would know is that the patio doors were left unlocked
The rest of your post is all speculation John
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Eleanor on June 30, 2013, 08:53:03 PM
Personally, I think someone nipped in the gate and went up the steps and in the patio door with their head well down. And then opened the window from inside for any number of reasons. I can think of three off the top of my head. Handed over the child to another person and left by the front door, going off in another direction to the man seen by Jane Tanner.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 08:54:46 PM
Personally, I think someone nipped in the gate and went up the steps and in the patio door with their head well down. And then opened the window from inside for any number of reasons. I can think of three off the top of my head. Handed over the child to another person and left by the front door, going off in another direction to the man seen by Jane Tanner.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 09:02:29 PM
Sorry, but they would have no idea whatsoever if the kids bedroom window was locked, IF *they* were watching the only thing thry would know is that the patio doors were left unlocked
The rest of your post is all speculation John
Don't talk nonsense Redblossom. These people know everything. They would have checked to see if the shutter and window were open before making heir move.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 09:06:32 PM
Personally, I think someone nipped in the gate and went up the steps and in the patio door with their head well down. And then opened the window from inside for any number of reasons. I can think of three off the top of my head. Handed over the child to another person and left by the front door, going off in another direction to the man seen by Jane Tanner.
Quite possibly Eleanor. They could have been watching Gerry exit after his 9.05pm check.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Eleanor on June 30, 2013, 09:14:35 PM
Quite possibly Eleanor. They could have been watching Gerry exit after his 9.05pm check.
the abductor could have been in the appartment before Gerry arrived to check at 9pm. It was possible to hide in the wardrobe or behind the door. Gerry was hardly expecting someone to be there.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 30, 2013, 09:23:06 PM
The only interest of abductor2 is to explain the opened shutters/window/curtains. But, John, the window wasn't large enough to pass a child in the horizontal position. And remember is was chilly and windy ! JW, who wasn't far behind JT, saw no one, heard no car.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on June 30, 2013, 09:43:55 PM
Don't talk nonsense Redblossom. These people know everything. They would have checked to see if the shutter and window were open before making heir move.
My point was they might have known the patio doors were unlocked IF they had been watchng movements,but would have had no idea at all if the kids bedroom window was locked, or unlocked, so your original comment about an unlocked shutter and window to the kids bedroom as ideal, is speculative, as they could NOT have known, ergo my post was not nonsense
As I said before, why would the bedroom window be ideal as opposed to the patio doors, besides, leaving more evidence climbing through a window, the patio doors side was pitchblack and no one could see ehat was going on there, as opposed to a well lit front door in a public place
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: faithlilly on June 30, 2013, 10:31:50 PM
Think you might have that the wrong way round Red?? The front door wasn't by any means public and in fact was well hidden within a recess in the building and behind a reasonably high wall whereas the patio was lit by both the resort ambient lighting and that coming from inside the apartment.
The curtains were shut, avoiding light from a low lamp to come out and there was no light on the balcony. The door was opening on an always lit corridor.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 01:32:29 AM
The curtains were shut, avoiding light from a low lamp to come out and there was no light on the balcony. The door was opening on an always lit corridor.
The curtains were shut, Anne?
Have you ever managed to exit a patio sliding door and anywhere near pull the curtains to? Cos i cant do that. My bet is that they were three quarters (approx) shut
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 01:39:21 AM
Thanx for confirming the fact that the front door was effectively hidden from all but those who wished to enter Sadie. 8((()*/
As far as the lighting of the patio at apartment 5a was concerned just ask yourself the question. Could the apartment be seen from the direction of the tapas at night and as the photos which have been posted by Sadie previously show..... it can. Thus it was lit by ambient light.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 01:47:43 AM
The curtains were shut, avoiding light from a low lamp to come out and there was no light on the balcony. The door was opening on an always lit corridor.
Exactly, as shown here from 13 to 18 mins, patio side in pitch black, front door side lit, and no visual whatsoever from the Tapas bar, and as said before, AS IF any of the group would have had their eyes on it every second 8-)(--)
From 3.35, no visual from the tapas bar
From 13.50, again, no visual
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 03:09:20 PM
Having looked at those videos I do agree that the patio area was darker than I first thought. There is a street lamp opposite the small gate but as can be seen it only illuminates part of the lower steps. The front door however is recessed into and under the apartment block around a corner and behind a wall. It is an area which only a resident would visit and would therefore not normally be seen by a passer by.
To return to the theme of this thread, an accomplice exiting the apartment via the childrens bedroom window would have been able to see over the wall and spot the approaching Jane Tanner and then make his or her escape after Tanner had gone into the apartment block. They were just lucky that Jez didn't spot them.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Carana on July 01, 2013, 03:23:08 PM
There are lights (for filming purposes?) reflected in the transparent wind shelters to film Brunty.
"This place is shut now for the winter".
Was the transparent wind-shield awning specially cleaned prior to Brunty's clip in winter? Or was it simply rolled down prior to a spring clean?
I wouldn't take that clip as "proof" of the lighting conditions re visibiiltiy of 5A in early May.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Carana on July 01, 2013, 03:25:38 PM
If there was an accomplice, what's to say that that person had not gone ahead? In either direction. E.g., to start up a car?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 07:16:34 PM
Having looked at those videos I do agree that the patio area was darker than I first thought. There is a street lamp opposite the small gate but as can be seen it only illuminates part of the lower steps. The front door however is recessed into and under the apartment block around a corner and behind a wall. It is an area which only a resident would visit and would therefore not normally be seen by a passer by.
To return to the theme of this thread, an accomplice exiting the apartment via the childrens bedroom window would have been able to see over the wall and spot the approaching Jane Tanner and then make his or her escape after Tanner had gone into the apartment block. They were just lucky that Jez didn't spot them.
Yes, very lucky, and also very lucky that they left no evidence after climbing through such window. Also very lucky not to be spotted before or after when the Moyes who lived on top of Mrs Fenn,were walking up the street around the same time, and around the same corner, and were on their balcony at 9.15 having a drink and overlooking the street and Tapas Bar and saw and heard nothing at all. These must have been a bunch of lucky scarlet pimpernels.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 07:21:59 PM
If there was an accomplice, what's to say that that person had not gone ahead? In either direction. E.g., to start up a car?
Gone ahead? And left the carrier standing there or following behind? If any car was used it would have been in the car park or right outside for a quick getaway asap. Not chosing instead to walk around to be spotted and potentially stopped! Including 45 minutes later! As some believe. If Madeleine was bundled into a car, no one noticed, and no one, ergo, would be taking number plates down. Its nonsense. None of it adds up, but whats new.
As for your post on Martin Brunts video, you are clutching at straws. The Mccanns would not have been staring non stop at their patio doors because they did not expect their kids to wake up, they felt safe, and certainly did never expect a burglar or abductor otherwise they never wouldnt have left them open in the first place. And even if they did they would likely see or hear nothing! Clean or dirty plastic sheeting! How many times?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 07:30:10 PM
Imagine Matthew had listened to the window at 9:30 and alerted then or had entered the flat but confirmed the undone and empty bed wasn't Madeleine's and alerted, the TP9, with the help they would get from the OC staff, had around 30 minutes to meet Smithcarrier a quarter of a mile away !
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 07:48:09 PM
Imagine Matthew had listened to the window at 9:30 and alerted then or had entered the flat but confirmed the undone and empty bed wasn't Madeleine's and alerted, the TP9, with the help they would get from the OC staff, had around 30 minutes to meet Smithcarrier a quarter of a mile away !
Exactly, and MOs visit IMO in its entirity is strange, not to mention the Mccanns never did visual checks, so why was he sent inside that night?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 07:55:49 PM
If there was an accomplice, what's to say that that person had not gone ahead? In either direction. E.g., to start up a car?
I missed you reply earlier but a good point. However, I don't think that is what happened if there had been an accomplice who was the one who climbed into the bedroom. Had an accomplice gone ahead he or she would have seen the activity in the street and would have warned the carrier to stay hidden.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 08:01:15 PM
I missed you reply earlier but a good point. However, I don't think that is what happened if there had been an accomplice who was the one who climbed into the bedroom. Had an accomplice gone ahead he or she would have seen the activity in the street and would have warned the carrier to stay hidden.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 08:06:25 PM
Gone ahead? And left the carrier standing there or following behind? If any car was used it would have been in the car park or right outside for a quick getaway asap. Not choosing instead to walk around to be spotted and potentially stopped! Including 45 minutes later! As some believe. If Madeleine was bundled into a car, no one noticed, and no one, ergo, whole be taking number plates down. Its nonsense. None of it adds up, but whats new.
As for your post on Martin Brunts video, you are clutching at straws. The Mccanns would not have been staring non stop at their patio doors because they did not expect their kids to wake up, they felt safe, and certainly did never expect a burglar or abductor otherwise they never wouldnt have left them open in the first place. And even if they did they would likely see or hear nothing! Clean or dirty plastic sheeting! How many times?
It doesn't work like that in real life Red. Leaving a car in view would have been asking for trouble. The bit about walking around the town is sheer fantasy I agree as had that occurred then many more people would have seen them. As nobody saw a man carrying a child anywhere else between 9.15 and 10pm we can assume therefore that the Smiths sighting was a red herring.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Carana on July 01, 2013, 08:11:01 PM
Gone ahead? And left the carrier standing there or following behind? If any car was used it would have been in the car park or right outside for a quick getaway asap. Not chosing instead to walk around to be spotted and potentially stopped! Including 45 minutes later! As some believe. If Madeleine was bundled into a car, no one noticed, and no one, ergo, would be taking number plates down. Its nonsense. None of it adds up, but whats new.
As for your post on Martin Brunts video, you are clutching at straws. The Mccanns would not have been staring non stop at their patio doors because they did not expect their kids to wake up, they felt safe, and certainly did never expect a burglar or abductor otherwise they never wouldnt have left them open in the first place. And even if they did they would likely see or hear nothing! Clean or dirty plastic sheeting! How many times?
Disagree.
- Someone could have gone on ahead to a nearby carpark to get the car unlocked and ready to move off. (The OP was asking the question if someone had lagged behind. I presume it was in the scenario that JT's man was carrying Madeleine.)
- Re the view in Brunty's report, the TV lighting and the state of the transparent awning (which appears grey) and the relative darkness, may not at all reflect the conditions at the time. If the view on that evening was really no better than Brunty's pic, then I'd agree that it is probably unlikely that anyone would notice a dscreet figure entering via the patio. If the view was more distinct than in that still, then there would have been a risk of being seen.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 08:15:00 PM
It doesn't work like that in real life Red. Leaving a car in view would have been asking for trouble. The bit about walking around the town is sheer fantasy I agree as had that occurred then many more people would have seen them. As nobody saw a man carrying a child anywhere else between 9.15 and 10pm we can assume therefore that the Smiths sighting was a red herring.
I dont see any problem with a car in the car park for a couple minutes and no one seeing it. I think one or both of the sightings that night were probably red herrings. The Smith sighting though is quite credible,more so in many ways than Tanners sighting.The Smiths saw a four yr old blonde girl, Tanner saw a pair of legs.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Redblossom on July 01, 2013, 08:19:59 PM
- Someone could have gone on ahead to a nearby carpark to get the car unlocked and ready to move off. (The OP was asking the question if someone had lagged behind. I presume it was in the scenario that JT's man was carrying Madeleine.)
- Re the view in Brunty's report, the TV lighting and the state of the transparent awning (which appears grey) and the relative darkness, may not at all reflect the conditions at the time. If the view on that evening was really no better than Brunty's pic, then I'd agree that it is probably unlikely that anyone would notice a dscreet figure entering via the patio. If the view was more distinct than in that still, then there would have been a risk of being seen.
Whatever Carana, you can nit pit on many subjects, suggest possibilities, might have beens, suggest the moon is made of cheese, after all no one knows, things that get no one anywhere, in the end you are ignoring the main question, why would anyone see anything unless they were *looking* all the time, impossible in any case/ridiculous, and as I described in my previous post, why look in the first place? if you thought there was a danger of anything you WOULD STAY HOME or get a sitter 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 08:21:28 PM
And the Smithcarrier was spotted by 9 pairs of eyes, all unaware of Madeleine McCann's existence.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 08:28:45 PM
Could also be that one of the abductors was in the apartment and was disturbed by Gerry at about 9.05pm and before he or she had a chance to open the window and shutters to hand Madeleine out the window. Could be that Gerry and Jez were spotted chatting down the street so escaping via the window was the only option.
I will add this though. The fact that the window was left open and the shutter fully up would appear or preclude the presence of a second person at the apartment. A second person would have been able to closed the window slightly and drop the shutters before escaping thereby not drawing attention to the apartment.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Carana on July 01, 2013, 08:39:43 PM
Whatever Carana, you can nit pit on many subjects, suggest possibilities, might have beens, suggest the moon is made of cheese, after all no one knows, things that get no one anywhere, in the end you are ignoring the main question, why would anyone see anything unless they were *looking* all the time, impossible in any case/ridiculous, and as I described in my previous post, why look in the first place? if you thought there was a danger of anything you WOULD STAY HOME or get a sitter 8-)(--)
I'm not "nit pit[ting]", as you put it. I'd agree that it's unlikely that anyone in the group concentrated on watching the apartments: there didn't seem to be any need to. However, it wouldn't take much for someone chatting to someone with a view towards the apartments to perhaps notice a shadowy figure going in through the patio door. It's possible that an intruder could have bent down to be less conspicuous, but it still seems risky. And even more risky to walk out with a bundle in your arms. A possibility is that someone walked in one way and went out the other.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 08:48:10 PM
I dont see any problem with a car in the car park for a couple minutes and no one seeing it. I think one or both of the sightings that night were probably red herrings. The Smith sighting though is quite credible,more so in many ways than Tanners sighting.The Smiths saw a four yr old blonde girl, Tanner saw a pair of legs.
Yes, a pair of legs showing from below the knees, bare feet and wearing pyjama bottoms similar in color and pattern to those which Madeleine had been wearing!! Quite a coincidence eh?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 08:52:45 PM
Only one person thought that it might be Gerry enough to report it ... and that was based merely on the way he held his son. A method of carrying that we all used with our kids.
The whole thing is fatuous
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: faithlilly on July 02, 2013, 11:30:41 AM
Only one person thought that it might be Gerry enough to report it ... and that was based merely on the way he held his son. A method of carrying that we all used with our kids.
The whole thing is fatuous
Martin Smith's wife agreed.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 11:53:13 AM
Only one person thought that it might be Gerry enough to report it ... and that was based merely on the way he held his son. A method of carrying that we all used with our kids.
The whole thing is fatuous
If two "independent" persons had the same feeling, could it be false memory ? Martin Smith noted in his first statement that the carrier's way of carrying wasn't comfortable. When Mr McCann went down the steps, though he was carrying his son as everybody would have, he was not as "comfortable" as he had been on the ground. This might have been the "madeleine" (the little cake of Proust's first experience of affective reminiscence) which jogged his memory. The involuntary memory provides an unanticipated link between an experience in the past and one in the present.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Carana on July 02, 2013, 12:17:47 PM
If two "independent" persons had the same feeling, could it be false memory ? Martin Smith noted in his first statement that the carrier's way of carrying wasn't comfortable. When Mr McCann went down the steps, though he was carrying his son as everybody would have, he was not as "comfortable" as he had been on the ground. This might have been the "madeleine" (the little cake of Proust's first experience of affective reminiscence) which jogged his memory. The involuntary memory provides an unanticipated link between an experience in the past and one in the present.
The only person who apparently agreed with him was his wife (even though she didn't make a separate statement)
The others in the group didn't agree.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 01:03:51 PM
The only person who apparently agreed with him was his wife (even though she didn't make a separate statement)
The others in the group didn't agree.
It is not "apparently", Carana, Mr Smith said so and had no reason to lie. His wife thought that stating was unnecessary. They weren't sure 100%, it was just a lead, nothing more.
Mr Smith doesn't say the other members of the family didn't agree (meaning had an another idea) he said the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. The way of carrying Madeleine hadn't been a madeleine for them. Who, among the Smiths, had been the closest to this man or saw this man the longest ?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Chinagirl on July 02, 2013, 01:10:02 PM
The way of carrying Madeleine hadn't been a madeleine for them.
What does this mean?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 01:24:38 PM
"madeleine" (cake) here is a metonymy. Marcel Proust's madeleine triggered a reminiscence that no forced memorisation would bring back.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Mrs. B on July 02, 2013, 02:08:01 PM
Mr. Smith said: During that time I spoke with all of my family members who were with me on the 3rd of May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife."
That means that the other people in the group did NOT agree with him & his wife.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 02:13:44 PM
Mr. Smith said: During that time I spoke with all of my family members who were with me on the 3rd of May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife."
That means that the other people in the group did NOT agree with him & his wife.
Who said they agreed or rather had the same feeling ?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Mrs. B on July 02, 2013, 02:20:48 PM
Who said they agreed or rather had the same feeling ?
The only person who agreed with Mr. Smith, i..e shared his feelings, was his wife, the others didn't. This is simple English as spoken by an English person.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 02:24:30 PM
The only person who agreed with Mr. Smith, i..e shared his feelings, was his wife, the others didn't. This is simple English as spoken by an English person.
Is that supposed to answer the question ?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Mrs. B on July 02, 2013, 02:35:39 PM
Yes, it means what it means, nothing more, nothing less, so that should answer your question.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 03:05:09 PM
Imagine Matthew had listened to the window at 9:30 and alerted then or had entered the flat but confirmed the undone and empty bed wasn't Madeleine's and alerted, the TP9, with the help they would get from the OC staff, had around 30 minutes to meet Smithcarrier a quarter of a mile away !
That's right. What on earth was Smithcarrier doing parading around the town?
No getaway car
No judgement
Doesn't sound too professional to me...
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: sadie on August 15, 2013, 07:00:28 PM
That's right. What on earth was Smithcarrier doing parading around the town?
No getaway car
No judgement
Doesn't sound too professional to me...
Have just answered your questions in the Sadies Theory thread. The getaway driver scarpered in fright.
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 16, 2013, 12:47:06 AM
Fright ? Of two men chatting tennis and kiddies missing a lady friend passing one meter far and a faceless carrier around the corner ? Fright ? Of the discovery of the open shutters on the next check ? Fright ? Of the Smith family bound to cross a carrier and restore his face ?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: sadie on August 16, 2013, 01:00:04 AM
Fright ? Of two men chatting tennis and kiddies missing a lady friend passing one meter far and a faceless carrier around the corner ? Fright ? Of the discovery of the open shutters on the next check ? Fright ? Of the Smith family bound to cross a carrier and restore his face ?
What a strange answer Anne
One of your specials?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on August 18, 2013, 08:26:54 PM
A second abductor could simply have gone in a different direction. But there has to have been two of them because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite position to the one in which she would have been picked up out of bed.
Now we are saying that one of the abductors could have been going in another direction? Why not bundleman as well?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on August 18, 2013, 08:36:22 PM
- If he followed behind, where did he go so that Tanner did not see him? - Tanner would be nearly turning the corner after she spotted man 1 so if man 2 followed she would have spotted him, but why did man 2 waste a second after man 1 had gone to get out the apartment? - If man 2 spotted Tanner coming around the corner, he may have hid but the main question in all of this meticulously preplanned exercise, is why no car was used, but we have an abductor or two wandering around on foot, in the vicinity, one with child not far from the childs own father who may have recognised her pyjamas, and one which apparently some believe walked east and then some time later backtracked east along the same route to be spotted by the Smiths -Why would anyone risk in the first place climbing into a small window and passing a child out when clothing fibres/hair/dna from any of the three might be found, rather than say just break in through the front door with any implement
Occams razor anyone?
Is there any evidence of a second person involved in the first place? Well, when I say evidence, obviously nothing tgus far is actual defacto evidence but speculation/possibilities.
Quite
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on August 18, 2013, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from Elanor today at 8.14 in ' So what are the various scenarios available to us':
'If he had gone in the opposite direction he would almost immediately have come to a much larger main road.'
To which Sadie replies: Exactly. On the ball as ever Eleanor. 8((()*/
So was another direction an option, Elanor, or not?
Title: Re: Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?
Post by: sadie on August 18, 2013, 09:52:40 PM
Elanor says in June - see a couple of posts above - that one of the abductors could have gone in the other direction.
Now she is saying that that is not likely
I'm just trying to clarify which it is
Jeepers Sherlock, your glasses need a good polish too 8(>((. She was talking about the lifter going the other way IIRC. Surely you understood that. The lifter was just vanishing ?back to the Staff Quarters.
Bundleman was going for pick up, to whizz Madeleine away and once he got to that corner and was witnessed by Jane he had no other option than to cross that road at JT corner