Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[sadie]

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

[icabodcrane]

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

[sadie]

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

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

@ debunker

Isn't that rather unfortunate when the only evidence that there was an abduction is Tanner's sighting ?

[debunker]

@ debunker

Isn't that rather unfortunate when the only evidence that there was an abduction is Tanner's sighting ?

There is insufficient evidence to prove anything. That is why no prosecution has been progressed.

[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

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.

[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 ?

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 ?

[DCI]

Bit of an odd statement, from Martin Smith.

"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.

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.

[AnneGuedes]

Bit of an odd statement, from Martin Smith.

"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.

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 ?

[AnneGuedes]

bug !

[gavdalf]

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

[Carana]

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

[icabodcrane]

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

I agree

I also see no convincing evidence to suggest any of the options above  is more likely than the others

[AnneGuedes]

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

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.