Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[gavdalf]

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

That is this case in a nutshell unfortunately, and the little girl is still missing, we cant even state that she may not have wondered off if the doors were unlocked but I don't think we can even establish that. key used, open ,closed who knows

[Gildas]

Peter Claridge posted;

Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster)  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.

Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.

[AnneGuedes]

Peter Claridge posted;

Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster)  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.

Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.

"at first" = when ?
" if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.

[Gildas]

Peter Claridge posted;

Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster)  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.

Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.

"at first" = when ?
" if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.

Anne, I was discussing Peter's theory.

"At first" means the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.

Thank you for letting me know that you do not think Jane saw a carrier.

[AnneGuedes]

Peter Claridge posted;

Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster)  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.

Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.

"at first" = when ?
" if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.

Anne, I was discussing Peter's theory.

"At first" means the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.

Thank you for letting me know that you do not think Jane saw a carrier.

Gildas, I could have expressed badly myself, sorry for that. I don't think Jane (pretended she) saw a carrier IN ORDER TO give GMC an alibi.
To my knowledge the McCann never said Madeleine was abducted after 21h30 (or not).

[Gildas]

Peter Claridge posted;

Two timelines written by Russell O’Brien  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap19 one written by the group (minus Dianne Webster)  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap20 etc.

Peter, your theory is very ingenious and you must have done a lot of research. You obviously know more about the case than I do, so I hesitate to criticise it. However, if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi, why did he not back the sighting immediately. At first, it was believed that Madeleine had been abducted after 9.30, and it was not until later that Gerry backed the sighting.

"at first" = when ?
" if Jane's sighting was to be Gerry's alibi' : I don't think Jane T saw a carrier to give Gerald an alibi.

Anne, I was discussing Peter's theory.

"At first" means the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.

Thank you for letting me know that you do not think Jane saw a carrier.

Gildas, I could have expressed badly myself, sorry for that. I don't think Jane (pretended she) saw a carrier IN ORDER TO give GMC an alibi.
To my knowledge the McCann never said Madeleine was abducted after 21h30 (or not).

Anne, it was generally believed that Madeleine was abducted after 9.30, because it was thought that Matthew had seen her at 9.30. I can't remember what Kate or Gerry said about it.

[AnneGuedes]

Gildas, Matthew never pretended he saw Madeleine.
4th of May, 11:30 am : "he (Matthew) couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping." PJ Files 01 Pages 52 to 57

[Gildas]

Gildas, Matthew never pretended he saw Madeleine.
4th of May, 11:30 am : "he (Matthew) couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping." PJ Files 01 Pages 52 to 57

Anne, I have lot of things to check when I get around to it.  One thing I have to check is the way I remember what was said at the time. The way I remember things is ;

It was first believed that Madeleine was abducted after 9.30, because Matthew had checked at 9.30. I suppose it would be natural to assume he had seen her.

Later, Gerry supported  Jane's sighting.

Reporters asked Matthew, how could Madeleine have been abducted at 9.15, if he had seen her at 9.30. Matthew replied that he had not seen her, because her bed was behind the door.

Remember, there were no PJ files back then, just newspaper reports.

If Gerry had planned Jane's sighting as an alibi, would he not have supported the sighting from the very beginning?

[AnneGuedes]

Gildas, Matthew never pretended he saw Madeleine.
4th of May, 11:30 am : "he (Matthew) couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping." PJ Files 01 Pages 52 to 57

Anne, I have lot of things to check when I get around to it.  One thing I have to check is the way I remember what was said at the time. The way I remember things is ;

It was first believed that Madeleine was abducted after 9.30, because Matthew had checked at 9.30. I suppose it would be natural to assume he had seen her.

Later, Gerry supported  Jane's sighting.

Reporters asked Matthew, how could Madeleine have been abducted at 9.15, if he had seen her at 9.30. Matthew replied that he had not seen her, because her bed was behind the door.

Remember, there were no PJ files back then, just newspaper reports.

If Gerry had planned Jane's sighting as an alibi, would he not have supported the sighting from the very beginning?

Gildas, Gerald McCann planning Jane's sighting sounds (imo) conspirational and totally implausible.
Don't you think that, learning Madeleine had disappeared (around 22h), Matthew wouldn't have immediately claimed he saw her à 21h30 if he had ?  He likely was asked and had to be more specific than "all quiet, all sleeping" (that is, if he really went inside, which is dubious).

[Gildas]

AnneGuedes posted

Gildas, Gerald McCann planning Jane's sighting sounds (imo) conspirational and totally implausible.
Don't you think that, learning Madeleine had disappeared (around 22h), Matthew wouldn't have immediately claimed he saw her à 21h30 if he had ?  He likely was asked and had to be more specific than "all quiet, all sleeping" (that is, if he really went inside, which is dubious).

Anne, I was originally  replying to Peter's  post and questioning his conspiracy theory.

 I am pleased to see you agreeing with me.

[Carana]

Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?

[AnneGuedes]

Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?

Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !

[debunker]

Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?

Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !

How do you know he lied?

[stephen25000]

Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?

Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !

How do you know he lied?

How do you know he told the truth ?

Do you really believe in an investigation, criminal or otherwise, everyone tells  the truth ?

[debunker]

Why let Matt check at all if there was something to cover up?

Didn't they say they were checking on the kids every 30 minutes ? Matt was the only available one. He lied, we know this through his description of the bedroom, but he didn't do it to "cover up", he was just masking a void in the checks !

How do you know he lied?

How do you know he told the truth ?

Do you really believe in an investigation, criminal or otherwise, everyone tells  the truth ?

I don't know that he told the truth.

There are many gradations between a truth and a lie.