So what are the various scenarios available to us?

[John]

So what are the various scenarios available to us?

Was Madeleine abducted or did she die as a result of an unfortunate accident as alleged by Gonçalo Amaral?

Was it an impossibility that the Smiths could ever have seen Gerry McCann that evening?

[Rachel Granada]

Have you seen the file that was passed to the Portuguese Attorney General, stephen?

[stephen25000]

Have you seen the file that was passed to the Portuguese Attorney General, stephen?

I read it some time ago.

Now Rachel tell me what proof is there of an abductor.

I'm all ears.

[Rachel Granada]

I read it some time ago.

Now Rachel tell me what proof is there of an abductor.

I'm all ears.

I very much doubt that you saw the file that was passed to the PT AG.

"No indications of the practice of any crime", unless you have forgotten the words.

What makes you think that you know better than the Portuguese Attorney General?  "Dogs don't lie" perchance?

[stephen25000]

I very much doubt that you saw the file that was passed to the PT AG.

"No indications of the practice of any crime", unless you have forgotten the words.

What makes you think that you know better than the Portuguese Attorney General?  "Dogs don't lie" perchance?

I haven't forgotten the words.

Now let's try again, what evidence is there of abduction ?

Since you know damn well if there was no abduction, the buck, as it should, passes to the Mccanns.

No where else.

[Rachel Granada]

I haven't forgotten the words.

Now let's try again, what evidence is there of abduction ?

Since you know damn well if there was no abduction, the buck, as it should, passes to the Mccanns.

No where else.

Nice swerve there, steve!

Now let's try again.  Did you see the entire case file that was passed to the PT AG, and if you weren't privy to the entire case file what makes you think that you know better than the Portuguese Attorney General?

[Benice]

I haven't forgotten the words.

Now let's try again, what evidence is there of abduction ?

Since you know damn well if there was no abduction, the buck, as it should, passes to the Mccanns.

No where else.

You keep saying there is no evidence.  The correct statement is no evidence was found.  That doesn't mean it never existed.  Even Amaral commented on the shortcomings of the forensic officers.

Other evidence is:-

Shutters left closed and then found to be open
Window left closed and then found to be open
A sighting by Jane Tanner
A sighting by the Smiths.

[Rachel Granada]

You keep saying there is no evidence.  The correct statement is no evidence was found.  That doesn't mean it never existed.  Even Amaral commented on the shortcomings of the forensic officers.

Other evidence is:-

Shutters left closed and then found to be open
Window left closed and then found to be open
A sighting by Jane Tanner
A sighting by the Smiths.

Benice, there is also the sheer impossibility of the logistics that the McCanns are involved in Madeleine's fate.   Madeleine was at the creche that day and was last seen at 5.30 IIRC?  That left just 4.5 hours for the "cover up"to be put into place.  Just impossible.

[stephen25000]

You keep saying there is no evidence.  The correct statement is no evidence was found.  That doesn't mean it never existed.  Even Amaral commented on the shortcomings of the forensic officers.

Other evidence is:-

Shutters left closed and then found to be open
Window left closed and then found to be open
A sighting by Jane Tanner
A sighting by the Smiths.

The first two hearsay and unproven.

Tanner, now that one's a joke. The women with X-ray eyes, who can see in the near dark.

Mr. Smith, now who did he think he saw ?

[Rachel Granada]

No swerving, just keeping to the facts.

Where is the proof of abduction.

As a bye, but you already know this, the CFO list what happens as 'type of crime unknown'.

Now that includes other possibilities , whether you like it or not.

I posed two fairly straightforward questions.  1) Were you privy to the entire case file as seen by the PT AG and 2) what makes you think you know better than the PT AG.

So far you have swerved these questions.  Readers, form your own conclusions.

[Benice]

The first two hearsay and unproven.

Tanner, now that one's a joke. The women with X-ray eyes, who can see in the near dark.

Mr. Smith, now who did he think he saw ?

Of course it's not hearsay - it is what the witness KM saw.  Corroberrated by a member of the hotel staff.

Jane Tanner is not blind and saw a man carrying a child walking across the road in front of her close enough to be able to describe what she saw.   

With so many similarities, I think the Smiths saw the same person.

[stephen25000]

Of course it's not hearsay - it is what the witness KM saw.  Corroberrated by a member of the hotel staff.

Jane Tanner is not blind and saw a man carrying a child walking across the road in front of her close enough to be able to describe what she saw.   

With so many similarities, I think the Smiths saw the same person.

Utter cobblers.

You do not know that km could have opened the windows herself.

jane tanner viewed at best in twilight.

The only evasion I see here is clear AND THE FOLLOWING SAYS IT ALL.

NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION.

[Benice]

Now, pray tell, how do you know km didn't open the window and played with the shutters ?

Jane Tanner claimed she saw a man in the twilight.

How good is your vision in those conditions ?

By all accounts, the Mccanns and associates trampled the apartment, so don't blame the local police.

Put the blame for what happened solely where it belongs, the Mccanns.

How do you know KM DID open the window and play with the shutters?  And why would she do that?

My vision is irrelevant, Jane Tanner saw what she saw - and there was need for her to lie about it. 

I don't agree that when your child has been abducted you automatically morph into police officers.    The McCanns and their friends behaved exactly how normal people would behave in those circumstances.   On the other hand the Police officers who should have known better did NOT behave in the way THEY should have.  Far from it.

[sadie]

Now, pray tell, how do you know km didn't open the window and played with the shutters ?

Jane Tanner claimed she saw a man in the twilight.

How good is your vision in those conditions ?

By all accounts, the Mccanns and associates trampled the apartment, so don't blame the local police.

Put the blame for what happened solely where it belongs, the Mccanns.

Thanks to John excellent images in the thread "sadies theory"

We can see Jane Tanners route (green arrow) immediately prior to her seeing bundleman.   Also, if we look carefully, we can see a foreshortened lamp post, which closely illuminated bundlemans body and possibly some of his face.  Also illuminated ?Madeleine.

See the green dots?  Well the lampost is immediately below and between the two RH green dots ... seen from above so extremely foreshortened..  On the corner of the pavement and shining straight onto bundleman and Madeleine, as he crossed the road





Another image of it, but taken looking from the north in a southerly direction., so it is sort of opposite to the GE map above.   

The lampost is almost at the left of the image and immediately to the left of the bushy tree..  You may have to magnify this image to see the lampost.

 

Bundleman, presumably expecting a get-away driver and pick up on Jane Tanner corner, left OC via the car park entrance (centre foreground) and walked to the left (easterly direction).   Jane Tanner came up the road from the right.  Upon seeing Jane Tanner, Bundleman carried on walking straight across the road in front of him.  He was well illuminated all the way. 

Jane, as a woman on her own after dark, would have been watching him like a hawk


The lighting would have been pretty good Stephen

[John]

Of course it's not hearsay - it is what the witness KM saw.  Corroberrated by a member of the hotel staff.

Jane Tanner is not blind and saw a man carrying a child walking across the road in front of her close enough to be able to describe what she saw.   

With so many similarities, I think the Smiths saw the same person.

Big problem with the Smith sighting compared to the Tanner one.  The man Martin Smith saw reminded him of Gerry McCann but Gerry didn't have long shoulder length hair similar to the man described by Tanner.  Thus the two couldn't have been the same man.