So what are the various scenarios available to us?

[sadie]

Sadie Says on June 22, 2013
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. 

Sadie,

Another question about bundleman:

Can we be so sure that he saw Jane Tanner?

Of course he saw her.  He was crossing a road.  He looked both ways.  And she was close and she was moving. 
Of course he saw her. and that is why he turned his head away and almost ran..

I have little doubt that Jane saw him. She didn't get a perfect look at him - it was dark (aside from the street light from the lamp on the corner); he was some distance  away; he was moving briskly; he did not turn his face toward her. But she saw him.

Now let's look at it from Bundleman's perspective. He was walking briskly;  Jane was unilluminated; Jane was not only some distance away, but to his side - and he did not turn his head.

Further, Jane had the benefit of seeing him walk in front of her, right across her path, and as you say, she would be sensitive to male presence. 

But would bundleman catch her out of the corner of his eye, many metres down a dark road to his side, when any turn of the head or unnecessary physical gesture could draw fatal attention?

I'm not so sure..

He was crossing a road, carrying a precious little girl.  He would not have crossed that road without looking ... and she was close. 
Yep he saw her.... and that is why he turned his head away and almost ran


Could he have seen her from inside the patio doors before leaving the apartment, as he perhaps saw Gerry and Jez if he had checked that entrance/exit before leaving from the front?



He couldn't have seen any of them from that patio  window.  High walls and hedges in the way. 

For such a famous detective, you are not doing much in depth research are you Sherlock?   Perhaps your magnifying glass needs cleaning? 

Would Jane have exited the OC entrance by that point? Probably not. And if she had, and he had seen her then,  wouldn't he have waited for her to pass before he left the apartment?

No he would not have seen her.  See the high walls and hedges?

Jane was also on the west side of the street, yes?  After a couple of strides, when he stood down from the kerb as he began to cross the road, she would be 'behind' him, making it even less likely he would see her. She was nowhere in his line of vision.

Was she close or was she far away Sherlock?  You cant have it both ways. 

If VERY close, what you say is true, but she would have had a very good look at him from close by.  If he was further away, then what you are saying is not true.  Her view would be partial side and partial back as he progressed across the road.  From the Cutting edge video, seems she was pretty close.  He turned his head away, it seems 

Just some more thoughts....

If you are going to be my assisatant a little more research and attentioin to detail is needed, please ... Sherlock

What I really would like is YOUR theory of how it happened .... purrleaze

[Carana]

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.

And all the hairs that seemingly never made it to the lab.

[Carana]

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.

What evidence of abduction would you have expected? 

[Carana]

I presume you meant "there was no need.." or ?
Mrs McCann didn't report having played with the shutters and window, she even said she never touched them during that week (planted fingerprints perhaps ?), but Mr McCann, though he broke shutters the first day (according to Mrs McCann), insisted in experimenting whether they could be opened from the outside whereas the TP6 were running around like headless chicken.

Where in the files does it say that she never touched the window?

[Carana]

That's right Anne

There was no reason for the McCanns to take the cots out of the bedroom they were orginally in  (  the one that could be seen from the tapas bar  )  because both  bedrooms had single beds

The McCanns took the cots out of the bedroom that could be seen from the tapas bar and pushed the single beds together to make a double  ...  they could have pushed the two single beds in the other room together and not have to have moved the cots at all   (  and,  crucially,  they could have viewed the children's  bedroom from the tapas bar  )

The children were used to sleeping in the dark, so how would they have seen them from the Tapas Bar without a bright light on and the blinds rolled up?

[sadie]

The children were used to sleeping in the dark, so how would they have seen them from the Tapas Bar without a bright light on and the blinds rolled up?

Also that room had patio doors.  That might have been seen as a bit worrying to the Mccanns.

how do we know that the Mccanns moved the cots, anyway?  Have I missed something?

Would have expected OC peeps to have automatically put the childrens beds in the less attractive room, and that was the room they were in.  Traditionally adults get the master bedroom and kids a secondary one.

[AnneGuedes]

The Paynes had a daughter in their bedroom and a daughter alone in the other bedroom. The Oldfield had no choice, they had only one bedroom.
Nothing says the south bedroom was better or worse than the north one. The beds were similar. They found the cots in the south room. The cleaning lady said one cot was in the south room, the McCanns denied.
If the kids had been in the south room and the abductor had lifted the blinds from the outside, they would have heard the noise.

[sadie]

The Paynes had a daughter in their bedroom and a daughter alone in the other bedroom. The Oldfield had no choice, they had only one bedroom.
Nothing says the south bedroom was better or worse than the north one. The beds were similar. They found the cots in the south room. The cleaning lady said one cot was in the south room, the McCanns denied.
If the kids had been in the south room and the abductor had lifted the blinds from the outside, they would have heard the noise.

Ummmm?  Am not sure you got your facts right there Anne.  where did you get them from?

The south bedroom had better wardrobes IIRC, a bigger window/patio door, a more pleasant out look.  Most people would see that as the master bedroom, I think Anne.

[AnneGuedes]

Only a double bed (much more comfortable than two joined single beds) would have justified to put the kids on the side of the building they had absolutely no eye/ear control of.

[AnneGuedes]

Where in the files does it say that she never touched the window?

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it.
Of course she could have touched the window just for the sake of touching !

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you are going to be my assisatant a little more research and attentioin to detail is needed, please ... Sherlock

What I really would like is YOUR theory of how it happened .... purrleaze

Thanks for your corrections, Sadie. I have given my magnifying glass a good polish.

Now, I am still not quite convinced, however, that he definitely saw Jane.

First of all, Jane - not that we can rely on her eyesight for everything - seemed to be sure that she didn't see his face, which presumably she would have done, even just a glimpse of it, if he had turned his head. She said several times that he was looking forwards.

Could he have bent forward from further back, peeking into the road before corssing, so as not to be seen looking? Perhaps. But why, having seen the danger, would he have walked out into such a treacherous road? this is the question that bothers me.

It is hard enough to imagine why he would choose to illuminate and expose himself by walking across that road, even if he didn't see anyone before he started crossing; even more so if he did.

If I understand your theory correctly, he was crossing over towards where the car would be. Quite a dangerous rendezvous point, in view of the T9 and others emerging from the OC entrance. And apparently no plan B to meet at another place in the likely event of their bumping into people on Rua Martins.

Wouldn't there have been better options for meeting places?

Sherlock will ponder this one a bit longer....

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just wanted to clarify something, Sadie, regarding what I said about bundleman being 'behind' Jane.

I didn't mean she was literally behind him. She was still some way down the road when he was crossing. I meant that she was behind him in his line of vision, in other words, he would have had to turn his head around over his shoulder to see her, after a few steps into the road. The fact that he didn't do that suggested to me that he did not see her.

Perhaps this has no implications for your theory anyway, because the main point is who wetpants may have seen, not bundleman. But I still think it is important to try to work out what exactly bundleman himself was doing. If there was another team member at this stage, some of their movements can be inferred by looking at Bundleman's.

[sadie]

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it.
Of course she could have touched the window just for the sake of touching !

What are you getting at Anne?

Doesn't make sense to me.  Soz

[sadie]

Just wanted to clarify something, Sadie, regarding what I said about bundleman being 'behind' Jane.

I didn't mean she was literally behind him. She was still some way down the road when he was crossing. I meant that she was behind him in his line of vision, in other words, he would have had to turn his head around over his shoulder to see her, after a few steps into the road. The fact that he didn't do that suggested to me that he did not see her.

Perhaps this has no implications for your theory anyway, because the main point is who wetpants may have seen, not bundleman. But I still think it is important to try to work out what exactly bundleman himself was doing. If there was another team member at this stage, some of their movements can be inferred by looking at Bundleman's.

He saw her, alright.  He had to look both ways to cross the road and she was only about the length of a sitting room away when they first encounterd aach other, going by the Cutting edge video.  He looked away.  He had to keep his face out of view ... and he almost ran.

He saw her.

[Sherlock Holmes]

He saw her, alright.  He had to look both ways to cross the road and she was only about the length of a sitting room away when they first encounterd aach other, going by the Cutting edge video.  He looked away.  He had to keep his face out of view ... and he almost ran.

He saw her.

I see what you mean, Sadie. He had to make sure she didn't see his face.

But it doesn't answer the question of why crossing that hazardous road was in the plan in the first place...