Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[icabodcrane]

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?

What we do know is that he would not commit to being the last person to see Madeleine  ...  although he could be expected to have been,  given that he was the last person to look into the McCann children's bedroom at 9.30pm

We are meant to  believe, though, that Madeleine had already been abducted at that point  ...  so we have Oldfied making a  'visual' check  that does not include any  'vision'  of Madeleine

 

[C.Edwards]

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?

What we do know is that he would not commit to being the last person to see Madeleine  ...  although he could be expected to have been,  given that he was the last person to look into the McCann children's bedroom at 9.30pm

We are meant to  believe, though, that Madeleine had already been abducted at that point  ...  so we have Oldfied making a  'visual' check  that does not include any  'vision'  of Madeleine

 

It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in.  Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.

Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much!  I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...

[Gildas]

C Edwards posted;

It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in.  Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.

Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much!  I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...

Mr Edwards, I understand what you are saying, but if they had created an alibi for Gerry, why did they not use it immediately.

[Carana]

I'm a simple soul.

In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?

[C.Edwards]

C Edwards posted;

It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in.  Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.

Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much!  I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...

Mr Edwards, I understand what you are saying, but if they had created an alibi for Gerry, why did they not use it immediately.

Well maybe they did?  Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar?  Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time?  I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water.  In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline.  Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely.  I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.

[C.Edwards]

I'm a simple soul.

In the event of a conspiracy, should Matt have said that he'd seen her or that he had not seen her?

Depends on what the conspiracy was, I suppose!  I can see that Matt saying he'd seen her at 9:30 would have caused a problem with the published timeline as it would rule out Tanner having seen the abductor when she said she did (she's stuck with the timings because of Jez Wilkins).  Had Wilkins not seen Gerry then I imagine the "sighting" would have been moved back to nearer 10pm.

[Carana]

Well maybe they did?  Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar?  Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time?  I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water.  In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline.  Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely.  I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.

What would the point of that have been? JT and GM on their own?

[C.Edwards]

Well maybe they did?  Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar?  Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time?  I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water.  In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline.  Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely.  I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.

What would the point of that have been? JT and GM on their own?

Plausibility.  No point claiming Tanner had seen GM at whenever o'clock if, by chance,  waiter or barperson happened to just notice the time and that JT was at the table all night, for example.

[Gildas]

C Edwards posted;

It does, with hindsight, appear very convenient that the person that "would* have been able to help pinpoint the time the alleged abduction happened (by either seeing Madeline there or not) happened to not see her as he didn't go in.  Not suspicious in itself, of course, but very convenient for anyone wanting to keep things vague.

Of course if he *had* seen her then bang goes Tanner's sighting. That wouldn't have helped much!  I bet this had to be discussed during the timeline creation meeting...

Mr Edwards, I understand what you are saying, but if they had created an alibi for Gerry, why did they not use it immediately.

Well maybe they did?  Tanner's alleged sighting could be argued to be an alibi of sorts. She says she saw him there at a certain point - maybe Wilkins was the wildcard and Tanner was supposed to simply cross paths with Gerry McCann on the way back to the Tapas bar?  Once Wilkins fortuitously appeared, they no longer needed the Tanner sighting to establish Gerry as being somewhere at a certain time?  I really don't know. It's all very confused and I think they benefit from that confusion. If more precise records were available (cctv for example) then it may well have blown a lot of the confusion out of the water.  In the absence of such proof we're left to only pick holes in a somewhat sketchy timeline.  Some people accept it as plausible/proved and that's their prerogative entirely.  I don't think it's particularly hateful or libellous to question that timeline though.

OK, Mr Edwards,  Its just that we had been discussing a theory that the timelines had been created to give Gerry an alibi.

[faithlilly]

If the Smith sighting was tied in with Tanner's sighting and Tanner had seen Gerry at the same time as her 'bundleman' then Tanner's sighting rules out Gerry as the man the Smith's saw. Or that seems to have been the plan.

[Gildas]

And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?

Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time

[Gildas]

And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?

Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time

Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean...?  Which independent witness?  Seen by whom?

Gerry, Jez (the independent witness) and the abductor seen by Jane.

[stephen25000]

And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?

Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time

Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean...?  Which independent witness?  Seen by whom?

Gerry, Jez (the independent witness) and the abductor seen by Jane.

What abductor ???

It's just a 'thesis'.

Och aye.

[Gildas]

And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?

Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time

Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean...?  Which independent witness?  Seen by whom?

Gerry, Jez (the independent witness) and the abductor seen by Jane.

What abductor ???

It's just a 'thesis'.

Och aye.

Stephen, I was posting in the context of the alibi. Maybe I should  have typed "abductor" or perhaps "the man carrying the child whom Kate and Gerry claim is the abductor, but I don't think he is really ,  but for the the alibi to work it is presumed that he is the abductor"

[stephen25000]

And the advantage of saying she saw Gerry and Jez talking together at 9.15-ish was...?

Martha,Could it be that Gerry, the abuctor and an independent witness were seen at the same time

Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean...?  Which independent witness?  Seen by whom?

Gerry, Jez (the independent witness) and the abductor seen by Jane.

What abductor ???

It's just a 'thesis'.

Och aye.

Stephen, I was posting in the context of the alibi. Maybe I should  have typed "abductor" or perhaps "the man carrying the child whom Kate and Gerry claim is the abductor, but I don't think he is really ,  but for the the alibi to work it is presumed that he is the abductor"

Fair enough.