Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[Heriberto Janosch]

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.   

[icabodcrane]

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  ? 

 

[Heriberto Janosch]

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.

[Chinagirl]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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'  ?

[Gildas]

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.

[Carana]

@ Gildas

You said Kate. Did you mean Jane?

[Chinagirl]

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.

[Gildas]

@ Gildas

You said Kate. Did you mean Jane?

Yes, that is correct, Carana, I did intend to say Jane.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[Luz]

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.

[Carana]

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?

[AnneGuedes]

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'  ?

Would also an abductor carry a child the way Jane T describes, ie like a fireman carries a victim ?

[Gildas]

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

[debunker]

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'  ?

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"?