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

[John]

Lets not get wrapped up in accusations.  I hardly ever keep texts on my phone, I routinely delete them as soon as I have read them.  If there is anything of consequence I transfer it to another media so I don't see how someone deleting texts on their phone can in any way be construed as suspicious.

[John]

To recap on the content of this thread, it has been suggested that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as a getaway driver for this individual.

I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.

What are you views on this?

[sika]

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.

Oh dear! 8-)(--)

[AnneGuedes]

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.

I agree with you : it's not plausible GMC (or any one) would interrupt his dinner to walk a corpse, covered or uncovered. But the reason isn't people were still out. PDL, in May, is visited mainly by families with yet unschooled kids, most have dinner at home or don't get back home late. The carrier was actually unlucky to meet a family in a dark street.  The reason isn't also the media scrutiny : around 10, nobody would have anticipated a huge invasion of media alerted in the UK. It's not plausible because GMC had finished dinner ! All had, except Russell whom the alert made leave half of his beefsteak.

[icabodcrane]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

[gilet]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).

Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.

And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.

It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.

[icabodcrane]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).

Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.

And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.

It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.

I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't  participate

[gilet]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).

Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.

And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.

It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.

I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't  participate

Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.

I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.

"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"

[Luz]

It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.

I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.

What are you views on this?

An abductor (and accomplice) on foot?!! are you kidding? Who would be the mad man that would be promenading around the village with an abducted child on his extended (according to J. Tanner) arms? 
It was May, most houses around the Ocean Club were inhabited, and in Portugal we keep the windows open.

[icabodcrane]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).

Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.

And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.

It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.

I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't  participate

Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.

I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.

"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"

Well you will have to bracket the McCanns themselves into the 'blind' category

In her book,  Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow  (  other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it )  was that it had been opened as a possible escape route  or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent

No mention at all from Kate of a possible accomplice

[AnneGuedes]

For all the criticism you lay at my door about abusing people on here, you are completely unable to make posts or comments without a side order of snide comment, aren't you?

I don't give a stuff that you and your fellow McCann supporters don't understand why intelligent people (yeah, there you go, open goal for a cheap shot) doubt the McCanns.  To my way of thinking, you supporters all act like a brainwashed cult with an instruction manual of excuses to trot out when encountering an unbeliever.  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 crap excuse that you lot think passes for a logical answer as you all use a hive mind to make up your excuses and mould them to fit your version of reality.  Anyone with independent thought looks at responses like that and many more as simple demonstration of a lack of critical thought.

C.Edwards, how do you explain there having pros and [ censored word] after so many years ? Pros exist because [ censored word] do, and reciprocally. Such exhausting manichaeism could be an end in itself and those who are neither pros nor [ censored word] simply feeding passions !

[gilet]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).

Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.

And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.

It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.

I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't  participate

Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.

I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.

"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"

Well you will have to bracket the McCanns themselves into the 'blind' category

In her book,  Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow  (  other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it )  was that it had been opened as a possible escape route  or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent

No mention at all from Kate of a possible accomplice

Seriously are you suggesting what you have posted? That "Kate McCann offers "the only other explanation" that it had been used opened as a possible escape route or as a red herring?

I would love you to offer a quote for that but am pretty certain you never will because this is what Kate actually wrote,

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children’s bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he’d either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn’t been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits."

Nowhere does she claim those are the only possibilities as you have stated.

Just because others are not mentioned does not mean that she is blind to them as possibilities. She may not have considered an accomplice, may simply have not remembered to add that detail or may even have added it originally but on request from an editor to reduce content have removed it. You simply do not know and are making a definitive claim while having no evidence to support it. I am open to all possibilities even if they may not be the most obvious.

You, on the other hand, have simply dismissed the possibility of an accomplice who panicked with no logical reason given to dismiss it. That is evidence of blindness on your part.

[icabodcrane]

When considering the abductor theory the only reason for  the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window

We know,  following forensic evidence,  that no-one either climbed through,  or out of that window  ...  so why was it open ?

The most logical explanation is that the abductor   (  who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key )  opened the window shutters,  scooped up the sleeping child,  and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside

Other than to accommodate that theory,  I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved

Of course,  this theory  (  the passing of the child through the window )   opens the debate to further questions

If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ...  thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?

The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved  (  one to restrain/hold  the child whilst the other drives quickly away ) 

If Jane Tanner was mistaken,  that it still a possibility   ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )

If she is correct,  however,  and witnessed the abductor,  alone and on foot,  then the 'accomplice'  theory makes little sense   (  and the open window remains a mystery )

Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).

Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.

And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.

It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.

I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't  participate

Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.

I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.

"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"

Well you will have to bracket the McCanns themselves into the 'blind' category

In her book,  Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow  (  other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it )  was that it had been opened as a possible escape route  or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent

No mention at all from Kate of a possible accomplice

Seriously are you suggesting what you have posted? That "Kate McCann offers "the only other explanation" that it had been used opened as a possible escape route or as a red herring?

I would love you to offer a quote for that but am pretty certain you never will because this is what Kate actually wrote,

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children’s bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he’d either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn’t been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits."

Nowhere does she claim those are the only possibilities as you have stated.

Just because others are not mentioned does not mean that she is blind to them as possibilities. She may not have considered an accomplice, may simply have not remembered to add that detail or may even have added it originally but on request from an editor to reduce content have removed it. You simply do not know and are making a definitive claim while having no evidence to support it. I am open to all possibilities even if they may not be the most obvious.

You, on the other hand, have simply dismissed the possibility of an accomplice who panicked with no logical reason given to dismiss it. That is evidence of blindness on your part.

I posted what Kate McCann  offered  as possble explanations for the open window  ...  I quoted the  only explanations she offered 

She made no mention of a possible accomplice. That is not say she does not think it is a possibility,  I suppose,  but not one worth mentioning it seems

I agree with her apparent dismissal of the  'accomplice'  theory  ...  and I certainly see no merit in the  'accomplice who wasn't even there'  theory

[Luz]

Anne, you are right, there is no argument unless at least two are willing to discuss.

Sometimes I felt that this has been premeditated - because in fact, whoever is counselling those two know that as long as there is arguments within the populace, they are "off the hook", so to speak.

I look at myself and I don't understand what keeps me coming to these places. In my mind that little child is dead, and I am just disgusted that the truth is not revealed as I am disgusted that other lives had been distraught by this. I can't accept that a little child has disappeared and there are still people that are using it to make a living.

Gilet & al. insult the portuguese and especially Mr. Amaral not recognizing that he gave up his career in order to tell what the parents would not tell. He was not dismissed, he requested his dismissal, in order to write the book. He was, at the time the best PJ detective in the country. Just weeks before his self dismissal he made the biggest apprehension of drugs in Europe. Half an year after the book he attended a charity event in the north of Portugal promoted by the royalty of Europe, whose minimum was €500, to gather funds for children in Africa (I suspect that's where his book's royalties went to). He was involved in a crime that never happened, by a murderess liar, as was proved this month in a Court of Faro - the Court considered all detectives innocent since there was no crime.
Going around saying that he is guilty is a lie. How could he be guilty of signing the records of the day that didn't contain an account of a torture if it never happened?!

What did the MacCann do for their daughter?

[Luz]

It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.

I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.

What are you views on this?

An abductor (and accomplice) on foot?!! are you kidding? Who would be the mad man that would be promenading around the village with an abducted child on his extended (according to J. Tanner) arms? 
It was May, most houses around the Ocean Club were inhabited, and in Portugal we keep the windows open.

Funny isn't it?  You think an abductor would be mad for promenading around the village with an abducted child but have no problem whatsoever imagining Gerry McCann walking around town at the same time with an uncovered corpse!

You said that, not me. How do you know it was Mr. McCann?! 

Tell us MARTHA, how do you know it was Mr. McCann? I understand it might be difficult, but...