UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
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: Admin on August 29, 2013, 02:35:04 AM
-
With all these comings and goings from early on in the evening, parents going to check on the children, casual chats in the street, parents relieving parents in order that they get their dinner, locals coming and going and tourists walking by with their babes in arms, how come Jane Tanner was the only one who saw anything?
Jane saw bundleman, now known as Mr Innocent Tourist, yet seemingly he never saw her in what was perceived by her to be his haste to depart the scene.
How was it even possible to stage an abduction in such a throng of activity?
-
How didn't Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins not see Jane Tanner when she said she saw and passed them before witnessing bundleman at 9.15pm?
-
How didn't Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins not see Jane Tanner when she said she saw and passed them before witnessing bundleman at 9.15pm?
No reasonable answer has ever been given to that question pathfinder
And now there's another to add to it ... how could the innocent father carrying his child across the road fail to notice the three people standing in the street ?
Perhaps he did though ... perhaps that is why Scotland Yard are convinced that it was him Jane Tanner saw at that moment, , and not an abductor
-
Thanks. Did Jeremy Wilkins ever say a time that he thought it was when he was speaking to Gerry?
-
Thanks. Did Jeremy Wilkins ever say a time that he thought it was when he speaking to Gerry?
I seem to remember he wasn't certain and thought it could have been anytime between 8.45pm and 9.15pm.
ETA From Jez Wilkins rogatory statement :
'Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time. '
-
Thanks. How far away from the McCann's was he staying? Did he talk to Gerry just before he arrived back? He said he got back had dinner watched a dvd and went to bed at 11pm.
-
Good point. Someone from the group was coming and going to the apartments nearly every 15 mins and they weren't that far away to hear something. Very risky even with watchers and a quick getaway vehicle.
-
And if this organised gang of paedophiles child abduction experts, were so organised they can leave no trace in the apartment & their prized prey which they seek is sleeping next to 2 smaller & equally vulnerable prey,
Why would they only steal one?
Was Madeleine really that special?
What were these endearing qualities Madeleine had, that her siblings did not?
-
If you want to abduct a kid, and you are a gang, would not an isolated house in the middle of the night be a better option? incapacitate the parents, drive off, you have hours to get away with fewer witnesses, no neighbours, fewer variables etc etc. Also, you would choose a family with a single kid, having other kids present (and in the same bedroom!) just adds to the risk. Plus, knowing they were part of a group increases the risk in terms of group members popping in and keeping tabs on where they all are . Better to pick a family who are on their own. Its just not an obvious set of circumstances. Back to the concept of what is reasonble to beleive and what is beyond credulity
.... minor edit to fit with new thread ...
-
Thanks. How far away from the McCann's was he staying? Did he talk to Gerry just before he arrived back? He said he got back had dinner watched a dvd and went to bed at 11pm.
His apartment was roughly 50m from the McCanns, I think.
I'm pretty sure I read that at mccannfiles.
-
And if this organised gang of paedophiles child abduction experts, were so organised they can leave no trace in the apartment & their prized prey which they seek is sleeping next to 2 smaller & equally vulnerable prey,
Why would they only steal one?
Was Madeleine really that special?
What were these endearing qualities Madeleine had, that her siblings did not?
Madeleine was only special for her parents, family and friends.
She was cute as most little girls of that age on the planet.
There was no reason to steal her, only problems, emotional ones.
-
If you want to abduct a kid, and you are a gang, would not an isolated house in the middle of the night be a better option? incapacitate the parents, drive off, you have hours to get away with fewer witnesses, no neighbours, fewer variables etc etc. Also, you would choose a family with a single kid, having other kids present (and in the same bedroom!) just adds to the risk. Plus, knowing they were part of a group increases the risk in terms of group members popping in and keeping tabs on where they all are . Better to pick a family who are on their own. Its just not an obvious set of circumstances. Back to the concept of what is reasonble to beleive and what is beyond credulity
If I was in an 'organised nonce abduction gang' & wanted to grab a kid, I don't think I'd go to the lengths that are suggested in the possible abduction scenario.
Much easier to get a few untraceable vehicles, overalls, balaclava ,hang around near a play park, grab a kid bundle it into the van, race away, switch vehicles at a pre aranged location, torch the van, switch vehicles again. Job done.
In essence I don't think it's reasonable to think Madeleine was abducted.
-
Good point. Someone from the group was coming and going to the apartments nearly every 15 mins and they weren't that far away to hear something. Very risky even with watchers and a quick getaway vehicle.
Actually, the to'ing and fro'ing to the apartments was more frequent than that
9.00pm Mathew Oldfield is in around the apartments checking
9.05pm Gerry McCann
9.15pm Jane Tanner
9.25pm Russell O'Brien and Mathew Oldfield ( Russell stays in his apartment )
9.40pm Jane Tanner
9.45pm Russell O Brien ( returning from his apartment )
10.00pm Kate McCann
This was an apartment that was patrolled very, very frequently, and with no obvious methodology being employed ... Gerry checking just 5 minutes after Mathew had done so, for instance, and Russell checking just 10 minutes after his partner Jane had
Is it 'likely' therefore that an abductor would select it as the one to take a child from ?
-
Actually, the to'ing and fro'ing to the apartments was more frequent than that
9.00pm Mathew Oldfield is in around the apartments checking
9.05pm Gerry McCann
9.15pm Jane Tanner
9.25pm Russell O'Brien and Mathew Oldfield ( Russell stays in his apartment )
9.40pm Jane Tanner
9.45pm Russell O Brien ( returning from his apartment )
10.00pm Kate McCann
This was an apartment that was patrolled very, very frequently, and with no obvious methodology being employed ... Gerry checking just 5 minutes after Mathew had done so, for instance, and Russell checking just 10 minutes after his partner Jane had
Is it 'likely' therefore that an abductor would select it as one to take a child from ?
Assuming that the checks were made as stated, the window of opportunity just gets smaller and smaller and to me, the smaller it is, the less likely that it ever happened.
-
A new thread. Given the number of people who were walking in the vicinity of Ocean Club Garden or G Block on the night that Madeleine disappeared, how was it even possible to stage an abduction?
-
Actually, the to'ing and fro'ing to the apartments was more frequent than that
9.00pm Mathew Oldfield is in around the apartments checking
9.05pm Gerry McCann
9.15pm Jane Tanner
9:20pm Innocentman.
9.25pm Russell O'Brien and Mathew Oldfield ( Russell stays in his apartment )
9.40pm Jane Tanner
9.45pm Russell O Brien ( returning from his apartment )
10.00pm Kate McCann
This was an apartment that was patrolled very, very frequently, and with no obvious methodology being employed ... Gerry checking just 5 minutes after Mathew had done so, for instance, and Russell checking just 10 minutes after his partner Jane had
Is it 'likely' therefore that an abductor would select it as the one to take a child from ?
I added Innocentman in the 9:20 slot Icabod...
-
I added Innocentman in the 9:20 slot Icabod...
Thanks Cariad ... there were so many people milling around that night it's hard to keep track ... I suppose Jez Wilkins should be added to that list too, seeing as he was strolling the street with a pushchair
-
He would have walked along approach roads as well, not just backwards and forwards along the same bit of street. I forget just how long he pushed that chair for that evening, but presumably he would have covered a fair area in the time, all with no sign of any possible abductor.
-
Whenever I have alluded to the fact that Rua Martins was actually quite a busy thoroughfare in terms of parental traffic and other holiday makers and local residents, anyone actually familiar with PdL has pointed out to me that the place has an exceptionally tranquil feel to it at night and there is hardly anyone wandering around.
I do remember Sadie and Anne making this point to me - perhaps they could clarify.
I certainly agree with Admin and others that according to the picture painted by the rogatory statements, there seem to have been a lot of people on that street on those nights. Any abduction would have to have been very well planned, probably with a plan B and maybe a plan C, to take account for the fact that movements, however carefully watched prior to the night itself, were essentially unpredictable.
I have always said that 'bundleman' walking out across the top of that road - whether he knew Gerry and Jez were standing there or not - was like walking into the lion's den, and could never have been part of any sensible abduction plan.
-
No reasonable answer has ever been given to that question pathfinder
And now there's another to add to it ... how could the innocent father carrying his child across the road fail to notice the three people standing in the street ?
Perhaps he did though ... perhaps that is why Scotland Yard are convinced that it was him Jane Tanner saw at that moment, , and not an abductor
How could JW fail to notice Innocentman ?
-
I have always said that 'bundleman' walking out across the top of that road - whether he knew Gerry and Jez were standing there or not - was like walking into the lion's den, and could never have been part of any sensible abduction plan.
Would you say that Smithman coming from a deserted zone but walking towards a more animated (met 9 persons) one was "part of any sensible abduction plan" ?
Vol II, 469 to 470a - Witness statement of Maria Manuela Martins da Silva 2007.05.08
-
Would you say that Smithman coming from a deserted zone but walking towards a more animated (met 9 persons) one was "part of any sensible abduction plan" ?
Vol II, 469 to 470a - Witness statement of Maria Manuela Martins da Silva 2007.05.08
Definitely not. I wrote at length about this on an earlier thread.
The Smith sighting is even harder to explain in terms of a planned abduction than that of bundleman, because it is very difficult to explain why having someone parading round the town with an abducted child could have been part of an organised plan, possibly involving a group of accomplices. The absence of a car, as many of us have remarked, is a big problem for anyone wanting to argue that Smithman was an abductor, or part of a team of abductors - who all appear to have been carless.
Even if there was a plan and something went wrong - very possible - it is hard to believe that parading through the town would be any kind of plan B.
Where this leaves us I don't know. The question of why Smithman appears to be reluctant to identify himself as an innocent parent, as bundleman did, remains.
-
It's not if Madeleine was already outside the apartment.
-
It's not if Madeleine was already outside the apartment.
What do you mean, pathfinder?
-
There's 3 possibilities:
1. Abduction
2. Madeleine left the apartment
3. She wasn't in there at 8.30pm
-
There's 3 possibilities:
1. Abduction
2. Madeleine left the apartment
3. She wasn't in there at 8.30pm
I'm still not sure exactly what you're referring to when you say she was already outside...
-
It's a possibility and you have to cover every possibility in any investigation. Is this hard to understand?
1. Kate left the door a little open before they left re diary.
2. Gerry on his check at 9.05pm finds the door open which he said was strange to others and he closes It back to a little bit open.
3. Mathew on his check at 9.30pm finds the door open again.
1. An abductor was hiding in the apartment which could explain the moving door.
2. Madeleine left the room sometime after Gerry's check and before Mathew arrived. She opened the door again.
3. Someone was wrong about the door.
4. It was part of a plan to make it look like an abduction.
-
It's a possibility and you have to cover every possibility in any investigation. Is this hard to understand?
1. Kate left the door a little open before they left re diary.
2. Gerry on his check at 9.05pm finds the door open and he closes It back to a little bit open.
3. Mathew on his check at 9.30pm finds the door open again.
1. An abductor was hiding in the apartment which explains the moving door.
2. Madeleine left the room sometime after Gerry's check and before Mathew arrived. She opened the door again.
3. Someone was wrong about the door.
Considering Kate & Gerry couldn't agree with each other (or themselves) as to wether Madeleine was sleeping in her bed or on top of it, it is of no suprise that they can't agree on the position of the bedroom door.
-
It's a possibility and you have to cover every possibility in any investigation. Is this hard to understand?
1. Kate left the door a little open before they left re diary.
2. Gerry on his check at 9.05pm finds the door open which he said was strange to others and he closes It back to a little bit open.
3. Mathew on his check at 9.30pm finds the door open again.
1. An abductor was hiding in the apartment which could explain the moving door.
2. Madeleine left the room sometime after Gerry's check and before Mathew arrived. She opened the door again.
3. Someone was wrong about the door.
If Kate had left the door open a little, would Gerry really know the precise angle at which it was left, so that he could comment on it later ?
As Gerry and MO had both been in into 5A, why would Kate expect the door to be at precisely the same angle as when she left it ?
-
They made a big point about the door. It's clearly written in her diary. Gerry talked about it being half open when he checked.
Pages 891 to 903 Gerald McCann 10 May 2007
"----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."
-
I added Innocentman in the 9:20 slot Icabod...
Assuming Jane got up to do her check at around 9:12-9:15, she would have seen ex-bundleman around a minute after she got up, i.e. 9:13-9:16, not 5 minutes later.
There were quite a few visits by various people, but if someone had been lurking near the dark recess, there's no particular reason that I can think of as to why any of them would have noticed. Heri posted some very interesting photos showing their line of sight.
-
Considering Kate & Gerry couldn't agree with each other (or themselves) as to wether Madeleine was sleeping in her bed or on top of it, it is of no suprise that they can't agree on the position of the bedroom door.
Funnily the state of the bed tells neither in nor on, therefore a third story.
-
Definitely not. I wrote at length about this on an earlier thread.
The Smith sighting is even harder to explain in terms of a planned abduction than that of bundleman, because it is very difficult to explain why having someone parading round the town with an abducted child could have been part of an organised plan, possibly involving a group of accomplices. The absence of a car, as many of us have remarked, is a big problem for anyone wanting to argue that Smithman was an abductor, or part of a team of abductors - who all appear to have been carless.
Even if there was a plan and something went wrong - very possible - it is hard to believe that parading through the town would be any kind of plan B.
Where this leaves us I don't know. The question of why Smithman appears to be reluctant to identify himself as an innocent parent, as bundleman did, remains.
The probability of having in the same area at the same time two reluctant Innocentmen seems practically null. What if Smithman hardly could be another Innocentman and hardly Abductorman ?
-
Funnily the state of the bed tells neither in nor on, therefore a third story.
So many lies, it's impossible to believe a word they say.
It makes it hard to create an accurate timeline of events.
-
They made a big point about the door. It's clearly written in her diary. Gerry talked about it being half open when he checked.
Pages 891 to 903 Gerald McCann 10 May 2007
"----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."
They did make a big point about the door, but the account was also changed more than once - perfectly understandable given the trauma and confusion. There are many possibilities as to when Madeleine could have left the apartment, but to analyse them according to what happened with the door is too flimsy. The position the door was in and how that supposedly changed as the evening progressed is something that was not and could not ever have been reliably recorded.
-
They did make a big point about the door, but the account was also changed more than once - perfectly understandable given the trauma and confusion. There are many possibilities as to when Madeleine could have left the apartment, but to analyse them according to what happened with the door is too flimsy. The position the door was in and how that supposedly changed as the evening progressed is something that was not and could not ever have been reliably recorded.
I don't see how you can dismiss the sightly ajar/half open/slightly ajar again/half open again bedroom door as not worth bothering about
The whole point of the twice changed door position is that it might be physical evidence that an intruder was in the apartment as early as 9.00pm .... indeed, the McCanns have claimed that is precisely what it is
What do you find unreliable about their claims ?
-
What was the final definitive version, as recounted by Kate in her book what she wrote ?
-
Mr McCann underlined 3 critical points in the first conversation he had with the PJ officers :
1) the half way open bedroom door
2) Ms Tanner's sighting
3) Mrs McCann finding everything wide open : shutters, window, curtains.
-
I don't see how you can dismiss the sightly ajar/half open/slightly ajar again/half open again bedroom door as not worth bothering about
The whole point of the twice changed door position is that it might be physical evidence that an intruder was in the apartment as early as 9.00pm .... indeed, the McCanns have claimed that is precisely what it is
What do you find unreliable about their claims ?
I just think that the position of a door as described in a verbal account by one witness - as opposed, say , to a photograph or CCTV footage of that door being open at a given time - is too flimsy a piece of evidence or a clue.
-
I don't see how you can dismiss the sightly ajar/half open/slightly ajar again/half open again bedroom door as not worth bothering about
The whole point of the twice changed door position is that it might be physical evidence that an intruder was in the apartment as early as 9.00pm .... indeed, the McCanns have claimed that is precisely what it is
What do you find unreliable about their claims ?
Yes, they certainly seem to suggest the positioning of the door had some quite important significance.
Add to that didn't one of them suggest they sensed someone had been in the apartment,
Then there was the "why didn't you come when we were crying last night mummy", trying to imply someone had been in & disturbed the kids on a kind of practice run for abduction.
-
I just think that the position of a door as described in a verbal account by one witness - as opposed, say , to a photograph or CCTV footage of that door being open at a given time - is too flimsy a piece of evidence or a clue.
How flimsy was the door?
-
With regard to the door, there are also too many variables.
Several people were in, and were alleged to have been in, the apartment, and also there were the alleged gusts of wind.
There is no way of saying which one of these people or things was responsible for the moving door.
-
How flimsy was the door?
The front door to the apartment seems to have been quite substantial, in keeping with the design of a lot of doors in this part of the Mediterranean.
If you scroll down to the picture entitled 'The Wardrobe' you can see the bedroom door there. Looks like a relatively cheap plywood door not unlike the doors to the wardrobe.
Not a great pic - perhaps someone has a clearer one.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html
-
I just think that the position of a door as described in a verbal account by one witness - as opposed, say , to a photograph or CCTV footage of that door being open at a given time - is too flimsy a piece of evidence or a clue.
The position of the door in itself is not an issue. The issue is that the witness said the door wasn't as he had left it.
-
The front door to the apartment seems to have been quite substantial, in keeping with the design of a lot of doors in this part of the Mediterranean.
If you scroll down to the picture entitled 'The Wardrobe' you can see the bedroom door there. Looks like a relatively cheap plywood door not unlike the doors to the wardrobe.
Not a great pic - perhaps someone has a clearer one.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html
Atlantic Ocean.
cupboards doors are about half thinner than doors.
-
Atlantic Ocean.
cupboards doors are about half thinner than doors.
Thanks for the correction, Anne.
I thought that the southern Portuguese coast would have been considered the Mediterranean..
-
Why didn't Gerry do a check of the apartment if he sensed something wrong? Surprised he didn't say he thought Murat was in there. They seemed certain he was guilty.