Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[peter claridge]

What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common?
They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting.  Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised.
Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.

It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!

[debunker]

What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common?
They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting.  Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised.
Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.

It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!

IN your humble opinion.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.

[AnneGuedes]

What have the checks of Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Mathew Oldfield, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann got in common?
They were all fabricated after the Smith family sighting.  Of the five, Jane Tanner never even left the table until after the alarm was raised.
Russell O'Brien's daughter wasn't ill. Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking the 3 shutters at 9.00 and he didn't carry out any of his claimed 9.30 check, Gerry McCann wasn't checking at 9.15 and had been away from the table for at least 20 minutes when he encountered Jez and Kate McCann wasn't carrying out a check when she raised the alarm.

It was never their intention to raise the alarm whilst dining at the Tapas bar!

So many "wasn't" ! What was then in YHO ?

[Gildas]

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.

I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.

The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew  chosen to do this check.  On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there?  I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.

[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.

I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.

The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew  chosen to do this check.  On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there?  I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.

If there was a conspiracy it would probably appear more plausible to a conspiracy-creator to have a non-McCann "discover" the missing Madeleine...

[Luz]

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.

I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.

The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew  chosen to do this check.  On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there?  I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.

What about 12 bottles of wine at dinner on top of whatever they took prior?! (just guessing)
Do they look professional criminals? I think not...not even amateurs, despite those ridiculous poses of Mr. Gerry over his wider agenda.
For me they were just a group of immature, careless people that suffered a major, ultimate accident and, immaturely and foolishly are trying to get over with. They started a lie and now don't know how to get out of it. They are totally intertwined into the web they weaved.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

I think that Jane's story was totally unexpected. Gerald couldn't "refuse" it, even if he saw neither Jane nor the abductor because it was the only presumption of abduction. Of course it implied Matthew went through the patio doors. The Matthew lie about the 21:30 checking has to do with possible neglect accusations (imo). It's not in the first timeline (presumption). Matthew described half his bedroom (2 windows) and half Russell's one (green curtains). Besides only one twin was visible according to the SP's photos and the bed undone under the window would have led anyone to get inside the bedroom to make sure Madeleine was there.

The couples checked only their own children. What puzzles me is, if there were a conspiracy, why was Matthew  chosen to do this check.  On the other hand, if Matthew WAS in the apartment, why was he there?  I have my own theory about this, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions.

Matthew wasn't chosen, he was the only possibility since Russell had to stay with his daughter. Matthew might have or not suggested listening at the shutters as he had done at 9. But, if he did so, it had to be changed into his entry into the flat since listening blew up the lifted shutters/open window required for abduction at Jane carrier time.
If you admit the TP7 were convinced after learning about the shutters/window and searching around that Madeleine couldn't but have been abducted, then you'll understand part of their untruths had the unique objective to pressure the PJ in this way.

[AnneGuedes]

What about 12 bottles of wine at dinner on top of whatever they took prior?! (just guessing)
They started a lie and now don't know how to get out of it. They are totally intertwined into the web they weaved.

12 bottles is a myth, though they drank substantially.
If they're caught into the web they contributed to weave, serenity requires helping them.

[Luz]

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.

So for you, the dogs that are the most objective subjects as testimonies are dismissed?
You don't believe they signaled cadaver odour or blood, is that it?

Well, for me, the dogs are the only reliable witnesses, since they have no hidden objectives.
And I reaffirm: if there had never been a death in 5A, which cadaver did the dogs signal and what blood on the exact same spots was it but the only person missing from that place?!

[debunker]

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.

So for you, the dogs that are the most objective subjects as testimonies are dismissed?
You don't believe they signaled cadaver odour or blood, is that it?

Well, for me, the dogs are the only reliable witnesses, since they have no hidden objectives.


And I reaffirm: if there had never been a death in 5A, which cadaver did the dogs signal and what blood on the exact same spots was it but the only person missing from that place?!

Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.

[AnneGuedes]

Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.

Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.

[debunker]

Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.

Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.

Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.

[faithlilly]

@ debunker

How do you explain that the dogs alerted to only items and property connected to the McCanns ?

[AnneGuedes]

Dogs are at best only 90% accurate in ideal circumstances, less in the real world. Because two alerts/non-alerts are required, the maximum for such an ID is 80%. Dogs also make serial errors.

Some dogs are better than others in doing specific tasks, like human beings.

Agreed. None are better than 90% IRL.

Do you agree it builds a solid presumption about Madeleine dying in the flat ? This doesn't imply she died accidentally "on her own". A burglar might have unintentionally killed her trying to avoid her screaming. Then he would have disposed of her body, well aware he had left DNA on her. Of course he would have had to stay in the flat at least one hour...