Could there have been an accomplice following behind whom Tanner didn't see?

[John]

There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.

I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.

The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside.  A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.

[DCI]

There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.

I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.

The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside.  A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.

This has been my opinion from almost day one, John.

Also Madeleines bed was easier to get to, than having remove one of the twins from a deep based cot.
Another little thought, Madeliene may not have woken properly,  thinking it was one of her parents, if she was used to being got up to use the tiolet.

I have done this with my children, and grandchildren, and they haven't realised, they had been woken up.
I presume most parents have too!

[faithlilly]

There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.

I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.

The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside.  A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.

Anything is possible John. The more pertinent question is it probable ?

[Puffin]

This has been my opinion from almost day one, John.

Also Madeleines bed was easier to get to, than having remove one of the twins from a deep based cot.
Another little thought, Madeliene may not have woken properly,  thinking it was one of her parents, if she was used to being got up to use the t[ilet.

I have done this with my children, and grandchildren, and they haven't realised, they had been woken up. I presume most parents have too!

A thought, Madeleine would not be frightened if th person she saw was someone she recognized.  Didn't need to actually know them, just the fce was familiar.  I saw a post a long time ago where someone suggested the abductor told her they were going to see mummy. 

[DCI]

A thought, Madeleine would not be frightened if th person she saw was someone she recognized.  Didn't need to actually know them, just the fce was familiar.  I saw a post a long time ago where someone suggested the abductor told her they were going to see mummy.

If it was dark, Puffin, it may have just been a tender voice, and half asleep, kids don't normally take in what is being said, or by who! I would imagine Madeleine to be quite chatty once she knew a person, only my opinion!

[Eleanor]

I don't see the problem with sedating Madeleine in her bed just before she is lifted.  A soaked pad in a plastic bag in his pocket would do it.  And Chloroform is very easy to make from household products.
It doesn't smell if it is made correctly.

[Redblossom]

There have been several debates recently which have included the possibility that there were two people involved in the abduction.

I want to look at the scenario whereby two abductors went to the childrens bedroom window, pushed up the shutter and slid open the window before one of them climbed in.

The one inside only had to select his victim, lift her from her bed and hand her to the accomplice waiting outside.  A little anaesthetic or similar ensured she would not wake and start hollering.

Too many questions here

- If he followed behind, where did he go so that Tanner did not see him?
- Tanner would be nearly turning the corner after she spotted man 1 so if man 2 followed she would have spotted him, but why did man 2 waste a second after man 1 had gone to get out the apartment?
-  If man 2 spotted Tanner coming around the corner, he may have hid but the main question in all of this meticulously preplanned exercise, is why no car was used, but we have an abductor or two wandering around on foot, in the vicinity, one with child not far from the childs own father who may have recognised her pyjamas, and one which apparently some believe walked east and then some time later backtracked east along the same route to be spotted by the Smiths
-Why would anyone risk in the first place climbing into a small window and passing a child out when clothing fibres/hair/dna from any of the three might be found,  rather than say just break in through the front door with any implement

Occams razor anyone?

Is there any evidence of a second person involved in the first place? Well, when I say evidence, obviously nothing tgus far is actual defacto evidence but speculation/possibilities.

[Eleanor]

A second abductor could simply have gone in a different direction.  But there has to have been two of them because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite position to the one in which she would have been picked up out of bed.

[John]

This has been my opinion from almost day one, John.

Also Madeleines bed was easier to get to, than having remove one of the twins from a deep based cot.
Another little thought, Madeliene may not have woken properly,  thinking it was one of her parents, if she was used to being got up to use the tiolet.

I have done this with my children, and grandchildren, and they haven't realised, they had been woken up.
I presume most parents have too!

Yes, my own experience with my three.  An exhausted sleeping child is very hard to rouse at night.

Two reasons for coming to this conclusion about the two abductors (one could have been female of course) are as follows:-

1.  The way the man was holding Maddie when seen by Jane Tanner lends itself to the theory that he was handed the child in such a manner through a window.

2. As previously discussed, a single abductor would have found it very hard to get out of the window carrying Maddie.

[DCI]

A second abductor could simply have gone in a different direction.  But there has to have been two of them because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite position to the one in which she would have been picked up out of bed.

Or keeping watch over the side wall, and saw Gerry and Jez talikng and Jane coming up the hill! That could have messed, the best laid plans up.

[John]

A thought, Madeleine would not be frightened if th person she saw was someone she recognized.  Didn't need to actually know them, just the fce was familiar.  I saw a post a long time ago where someone suggested the abductor told her they were going to see mummy.

...or female?

[stephen25000]

Yes, my own experience with my three.  An exhausted sleeping child is very hard to rouse at night.

Two reasons for coming to this conclusion about the two abductors (one could have been female of course) are as follows:-

1.  The way the man was holding Maddie when seen by Jane Tanner lends itself to the theory that he was handed the child in such a manner through a window.

2. As previously discussed, a single abductor would have found it very hard to get out of the window carrying Maddie.

The trouble is, on that scenario, there is nothing inside, or outsideby the window, to indicate there was anyone there.

[Puffin]

...or female?

Possibly.  A child would be less fraught by a woman than a strange man, and as I said, if the woman was a familiar face, someone seen around the complex then the childm if fully awake, would not be upset.

[John]

Too many questions here

- If he followed behind, where did he go so that Tanner did not see him?  Probably hid behind the wall.
- Tanner would be nearly turning the corner after she spotted man 1 so if man 2 followed she would have spotted him, but why did man 2 waste a second after man 1 had gone to get out the apartment? You are assuming of course that it was a man. Does Tanner mention anyone else or didn't she notice?
-  If man 2 spotted Tanner coming around the corner, he may have hid but the main question in all of this meticulously preplanned exercise, is why no car was used, but we have an abductor or two wandering around on foot, in the vicinity, one with child not far from the childs own father who may have recognised her pyjamas, and one which apparently some believe walked east and then some time later backtracked east along the same route to be spotted by the Smiths. Having a car in the close vicinity is a non starter as a car can be easily traced by any follow-up road blocks. Best to hide it nearby as previously suggested by Sadie some time ago.
-Why would anyone risk in the first place climbing into a small window and passing a child out when clothing fibres/hair/dna from any of the three might be found,  rather than say just break in through the front door with any implement. Criminals always use the path of least resistance. An unlocked shutter and window was ideal.

Occams razor anyone?

Is there any evidence of a second person involved in the first place? Well, when I say evidence, obviously nothing tgus far is actual defacto evidence but speculation/possibilities.

[Redblossom]

Sorry, but they would have no idea whatsoever if the kids bedroom window was locked, IF *they* were watching the only thing thry would know is that the patio doors were left unlocked

The rest of your post is all speculation John