Jane Tanners sighting. Did the abductor have an accomplice who waited nearby?

[sadie]

Sadie - are you aware of ANY "sightings" of watchers that have not been officially investigated and ruled out by the PJ?  Any at all?

How could the PJ rule out somebody that several witnesses have seen, if they dont even know the man?

Com on C.Edwards, get that thinking cap on.

[DevilsAdvocate]

No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips

Would that not have been covered in such a well planned abduction ? For example and simplification purposes, getaway driver watches bundleman enter through the front door as you suggest, waits for approx. 3 minutes to allow bundleman enter the bedroom, pick up the child and leave the apartment via the front door again to be met with the vehicle in position in the car park ?

Agreed, at the entrance to the car park,  ... but he couldn't get there could he?  Gerry and Jez in the way ... and Jeez he suddenly saw Bundleman appear with Madeleine

Jane Tanner witnessing it ... was too much ... and he immediately turned tail and scarpered in the vehicle

I like the fact that his headlights would have temporarily illuminated the scener, showing JT the colours of the pyjamas

It all fits like a jigsaw.

The entrance to the car park is not on the same street where Gerry & Jez were chatting so why would it bear any relevance to a getaway driver.
In addition what direction did the supposed getaway vehicle travel from and what direction did it exit to in your theory ?

[sadie]

Almost without doubt, the front door was used both for entry and exit.

That dark, deeply recessed, hidden place was Gods gift to a burglar or an abductor.



With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction

So a highly skilled abductor, or team, casually hung about the OC in broad daylight staring up at the McCanns apartment for any passerby to see. Do you really think that's plausible ?

There are enough witnesses on record to have little doubt that the apartment WAS being watched.

Including a very observant and intelligent young girl who used to live in that apartment.  She was very intrigued to see a man up by the back (alleyway ) wall staring at it.

[sadie]

No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips

Would that not have been covered in such a well planned abduction ? For example and simplification purposes, getaway driver watches bundleman enter through the front door as you suggest, waits for approx. 3 minutes to allow bundleman enter the bedroom, pick up the child and leave the apartment via the front door again to be met with the vehicle in position in the car park ?

Agreed, at the entrance to the car park,  ... but he couldn't get there could he?  Gerry and Jez in the way ... and Jeez he suddenly saw Bundleman appear with Madeleine

Jane Tanner witnessing it ... was too much ... and he immediately turned tail and scarpered in the vehicle

I like the fact that his headlights would have temporarily illuminated the scener, showing JT the colours of the pyjamas

It all fits like a jigsaw.

The entrance to the car park is not on the same street where Gerry & Jez were chatting so why would it bear any relevance to a getaway driver.
In addition what direction did the supposed getaway vehicle travel from and what direction did it exit to in your theory ?

Agreed once again; it was just around the corner.

But the car had to go up past Gerery and jez and Jane to reach there ... or take a massive detour.(nearly half a kilometre) and having seen Jane witness bundleman with ?Madeleine, he wasn't going to risk that.  Was he?

[AnneGuedes]

No man would walk around carrying a stolen child. 

I only agree with this, just adding (no man) "not out of his mind".
What is this story about my supporting Amaral ? Are you serious ?

[sadie]

With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction

"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.

Anna you haven't been reading .. or more likely you dont like the possible truth. 


No man would walk around carrying a stolen child. 


The getaway vehicle could not get there because of Gerry and Jez ... and even worse because Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction


The getaway driver took fright and bu^^^red off in the other direction, leaving poor old bundleman (the sod) in the lurch.


It is quite obvious that you and your cronies are trying to move the position of where Jez thought that the chat took place ... and the reason for that? ...  to purposely undermine my theory and support Amaral ?

Why are you so determined to rubbish a quite likely scenario? 


What is your agenda?




Now how long are you going to keep this going round and round in a circular argument?  That is called wumming

Anne

What is this story about my supporting Amaral ? Are you serious ?

I am sorry, I missed a question mark out, now in place... but the truth is that Amaral has stated that there was NO abduction, and has strongly intimated that the Mccanns have killed Madeleine in that apartment.  He has attempted to verify this by stating that there is no way that an abduction could have happened  And you guys seem to be pushing to prove that it couldn't have happened

 ... so you seem to be supporting Amaral; that seems your main purpose. 

Are you?

[C.Edwards]

Sadie, no-one can say that your hypothesis is wrong as none of us were there, but you post as though your theory about how things happened is completely proven/accepted and that's just not the case.  You are as welcome as any of us to put forward theories, but none of us is able to state with certainty what happened.  Your posts come across as though your theory is not just possible, but probable.

As do others on your side of the argument (Peter Claridge for eg) but I don't see you complaining.

Sorry, must have missed your post complaining about Sadie's post(s) then. Can you just point them out in the spirit of fairness otherwise you'd look like a gigantic hypocrite right now... ;-)

[Angelo222]

Sadie's take on the mystery man is most interesting.  The very first observation about this man is without doubt the fact that nobody ever came forward to explain that it was they whom Tanner and the Smiths saw that evening.  That for me speaks volumes.

Is it just coincidence that both sightings described the man as not looking like a typical tourist??

I believe Sadie might just be onto something when she suggests that the abduction of Maddie nearly went horribly wrong when three of the Ocean Club residents just happened to be outside the apartment at 9.15 with at least one of them (Jane Tanner) nearly bumping into him.  Such a near thing??

[C.Edwards]

Sadie's take on the mystery man is most interesting.  The very first observation about this man is without doubt the fact that nobody ever came forward to explain that it was they whom Tanner and the Smiths saw that evening.  That for me speaks volumes.

Is it just coincidence that both sightings described the man as not looking like a typical tourist??

I believe Sadie might just be onto something when she suggests that the abduction of Maddie nearly went horribly wrong when three of the Ocean Club residents just happened to be outside the apartment at 9.15 with at least one of them (Jane Tanner) nearly bumping into him.  Such a near thing??

Whereas it's obvious the Smiths saw someone (big group of them all saw the man) it's highly debatable - or at least unproven - if Tanner did. It's totally unproven that it was the same person even if Tanner did see someone.

That someone hasn't come forward to identify themselves as being the people/person sighted could be for any one/combination of the following:

1. It was an abductor, therefore doesn't wish to be identified
2. The person Tanner saw was a figment of her imagination
3. The person does not realise they were the person seen
4. The person does not want to be involved for whatever reason

It hardly "speaks volumes" to me as there are too many variables.

[Carana]

Whether one agrees with his theory or not, some of the most interesting photos of PDL that I've seen are Heri's.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/HERI.htm

[AnneGuedes]

With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction

"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.

Anna you haven't been reading .. or more likely you dont like the possible truth. 


No man would walk around carrying a stolen child. 


The getaway vehicle could not get there because of Gerry and Jez ... and even worse because Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction


The getaway driver took fright and bu^^^red off in the other direction, leaving poor old bundleman (the sod) in the lurch.


It is quite obvious that you and your cronies are trying to move the position of where Jez thought that the chat took place ... and the reason for that? ...  to purposely undermine my theory and support Amaral ?

Why are you so determined to rubbish a quite likely scenario? 


What is your agenda?




Now how long are you going to keep this going round and round in a circular argument?  That is called wumming

Anne

What is this story about my supporting Amaral ? Are you serious ?

I am sorry, I missed a question mark out, now in place... but the truth is that Amaral has stated that there was NO abduction, and has strongly intimated that the Mccanns have killed Madeleine in that apartment.  He has attempted to verify this by stating that there is no way that an abduction could have happened  And you guys seem to be pushing to prove that it couldn't have happened

 ... so you seem to be supporting Amaral; that seems your main purpose. 

Are you?

I'm not, I don't know him !
I'm not supporting the McCanns as well, I don't know them !

[C.Edwards]

I think it is very significant that no one ever came forward to eliminate themselves from being the man seen by either the Smiths or JT.  No one innocently walking the streets of PdL on night of 3rd May carrying a child could fail to appreciate the significance of their actions and I would struggle to think of a legitimate reason why such a person would prefer not to tell the police about it.

It is indisputable that this could be explained by:
a) Tanner saw no-one and was simply mistaken or lied for whatever reason and
b) The Smiths saw Gerry

Alternatively the Smith and Tanner sightings would pretty much have to be the same person (unlikely in my opinion due to the time difference, but that is only my opinion) as the chances of two people being seen and not contacting the authorities would be miniscule, so that person would have to be the alleged abductor.

There is no more evidence for one argument than there is the other. It's down to personal choice as to which you find more plausible.  Due to the discrepancies in Gerry's, Jez's and JT's statements, I find it more plausible that Tanner saw no-one and the Smiths saw Gerry. Others will have alternative opinions, I don't have any problem with that.

[Carana]

I think it is very significant that no one ever came forward to eliminate themselves from being the man seen by either the Smiths or JT.  No one innocently walking the streets of PdL on night of 3rd May carrying a child could fail to appreciate the significance of their actions and I would struggle to think of a legitimate reason why such a person would prefer not to tell the police about it.

Well, GA's theory seems to be that JT was lying (for a reason which I've still not understood) and that the entire Irish family were convinced that it was Gerry (which seems to have grown arms and legs from being an honest doubt on the part of MS and his wife upon seeing Gerry, newly arguidofied, descending the plane steps, to a certainty by the entire family).


But why wouldn't an innocent person step forward?

All kinds of possibilities.

The person:
- may have left the next day or soon after and didn't realise that there was any mistaken identity issue. JT's bundleman didn't appear in the press for some time. And the papers were then full of RM - he could have thought that the PJ had got the right person.

- wasn't sure of the reported time, height, road... whatever.

- was there illegally and didn't want the hassle.

- could (at least in JT's sighting) have been a butch-looking woman, assumed to be a man. Fairly unlikely, I would have thought, but not impossible.

[C.Edwards]

I'd love to know why you find it plausible that Gerry McCann would interrupt his dinner to walk through the streets of PdL with an uncovered corpse in his arms, at a time when people would still be out and about and when it would be obvious that he would be under exteme media scrutiny the next day, and also within minutes of his wife raising the alarm - but I guess we'll never know why you think the way you do.

For all the criticism you lay at my door about abusing people on here, you are completely unable to make posts or comments ...........moderated...................


I've seen the same tired arguments and excuses rolled out for years and whereas some of them have merit (no, I'm not going to make your lives easier by telling you which), many others don't and require huge leaps of (il)logic in order to excuse words or deeds of the McCanns and/or their friends.

If you tried asking 100 random people on the street why anyone would delete text messages or call records from their phone, I would bet a lot of money that in excess of 90% would say, "they've got something to hide".

If I ask a group of McCann supporters the same question, they'd almost all say words to the effect of, "oh the phone memory would have been full. My phone's like that: always filling up. Calls don't come through if I don't clean it out, obviously that person was expecting an important call so had to free up phone memory."

The point is that this is the standard ........moderated.........  Anyone with independent thought looks at responses like that and many more as simple demonstration of a lack of critical thought.

[Carana]

Lost the quote marks, sorry.

 C Edwards:

If you tried asking 100 random people on the street why anyone would delete text messages or call records from their phone, I would bet a lot of money that in excess of 90% would say, "they've got something to hide".

If I ask a group of McCann supporters the same question, they'd almost all say words to the effect of, "oh the phone memory would have been full. My phone's like that: always filling up. Calls don't come through if I don't clean it out, obviously that person was expecting an important call so had to free up phone memory."


Who are you referring to? The McCanns? If so, any idea which model of phone and subscription they had?