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

[Redblossom]

The curtains were shut, avoiding light from a low lamp to come out and there was no light on the balcony. The door was opening on an always lit corridor.

Exactly, as shown here from 13 to 18 mins, patio side in pitch black, front door side lit, and no visual whatsoever from the Tapas bar, and as said before, AS IF any of the group would have had their eyes on it every second
 8-)(--)

From 3.35, no visual from the tapas bar

From 13.50, again, no visual

[Angelo222]

Having looked at those videos I do agree that the patio area was darker than I first thought.  There is a street lamp opposite the small gate but as can be seen it only illuminates part of the lower steps.  The front door however is recessed into and under the apartment block around a corner and behind a wall. It is an area which only a resident would visit and would therefore not normally be seen by a passer by.

To return to the theme of this thread, an accomplice exiting the apartment via the childrens bedroom window would have been able to see over the wall and spot the approaching Jane Tanner and then make his or her escape after Tanner had gone into the apartment block. They were just lucky that Jez didn't spot them.

[Carana]

There are lights (for filming purposes?) reflected in the transparent wind shelters to film Brunty.

"This place is shut now for the winter".

Was the transparent wind-shield awning specially cleaned prior to Brunty's clip in winter? Or was it simply rolled down prior to a spring clean?

I wouldn't take that clip as "proof" of the lighting conditions re visibiiltiy of 5A in early May.

[Carana]

If there was an accomplice, what's to say that that person had not gone ahead? In either direction. E.g., to start up a car?

[Redblossom]

Having looked at those videos I do agree that the patio area was darker than I first thought.  There is a street lamp opposite the small gate but as can be seen it only illuminates part of the lower steps.  The front door however is recessed into and under the apartment block around a corner and behind a wall. It is an area which only a resident would visit and would therefore not normally be seen by a passer by.

To return to the theme of this thread, an accomplice exiting the apartment via the childrens bedroom window would have been able to see over the wall and spot the approaching Jane Tanner and then make his or her escape after Tanner had gone into the apartment block. They were just lucky that Jez didn't spot them.

Yes, very lucky, and also very lucky that they left no evidence after climbing through such window. Also very lucky not to be spotted before or after when the Moyes who lived on top of Mrs Fenn,were walking  up the street around the same time, and around the same corner, and were on their balcony at 9.15 having a drink and overlooking the street and Tapas Bar and saw and heard nothing at all. These must have been a bunch of lucky scarlet pimpernels.

[Redblossom]

If there was an accomplice, what's to say that that person had not gone ahead? In either direction. E.g., to start up a car?

Gone ahead? And left the carrier standing there or following behind? If any car was used it would have been in the car park or right outside for a quick getaway asap. Not chosing instead to walk around to be spotted and potentially stopped! Including 45 minutes later! As some believe. If Madeleine was bundled into a car, no one noticed, and no one, ergo, would be taking number plates down. Its nonsense. None of it adds up, but whats new.


As for your post on Martin Brunts video, you are clutching at straws. The Mccanns would not have been staring non stop at their patio doors because they did not expect their kids to wake up, they felt safe, and certainly did never expect a burglar or abductor otherwise they never wouldnt have left them open in the first place. And even if they did they would likely see or hear nothing! Clean or dirty plastic sheeting! How many times?

[AnneGuedes]

Imagine Matthew had listened to the window at 9:30 and alerted then or had entered the flat but confirmed the undone and empty bed wasn't Madeleine's and alerted, the TP9, with the help they would get from the OC staff, had around 30 minutes to meet Smithcarrier a quarter of a mile away !

[Redblossom]

Imagine Matthew had listened to the window at 9:30 and alerted then or had entered the flat but confirmed the undone and empty bed wasn't Madeleine's and alerted, the TP9, with the help they would get from the OC staff, had around 30 minutes to meet Smithcarrier a quarter of a mile away !

Exactly, and MOs visit IMO in its entirity is strange,  not to mention the Mccanns never did visual checks, so why was he sent inside that night?

[Angelo222]

If there was an accomplice, what's to say that that person had not gone ahead? In either direction. E.g., to start up a car?

I missed you reply earlier but a good point.  However, I don't think that is what happened if there had been an accomplice who was the one who climbed into the bedroom.  Had an accomplice gone ahead he or she would have seen the activity in the street and would have warned the carrier to stay hidden.

[Redblossom]

I missed you reply earlier but a good point.  However, I don't think that is what happened if there had been an accomplice who was the one who climbed into the bedroom.  Had an accomplice gone ahead he or she would have seen the activity in the street and would have warned the carrier to stay hidden.

Exactly.

[Angelo222]

Gone ahead? And left the carrier standing there or following behind? If any car was used it would have been in the car park or right outside for a quick getaway asap. Not choosing instead to walk around to be spotted and potentially stopped! Including 45 minutes later! As some believe. If Madeleine was bundled into a car, no one noticed, and no one, ergo, whole be taking number plates down. Its nonsense. None of it adds up, but whats new.


As for your post on Martin Brunts video, you are clutching at straws. The Mccanns would not have been staring non stop at their patio doors because they did not expect their kids to wake up, they felt safe, and certainly did never expect a burglar or abductor otherwise they never wouldnt have left them open in the first place. And even if they did they would likely see or hear nothing! Clean or dirty plastic sheeting! How many times?

It doesn't work like that in real life Red.  Leaving a car in view would have been asking for trouble.  The bit about walking around the town is sheer fantasy I agree as had that occurred then many more people would have seen them.  As nobody saw a man carrying a child anywhere else between 9.15 and 10pm we can assume therefore that the Smiths sighting was a red herring.

[Carana]

Gone ahead? And left the carrier standing there or following behind? If any car was used it would have been in the car park or right outside for a quick getaway asap. Not chosing instead to walk around to be spotted and potentially stopped! Including 45 minutes later! As some believe. If Madeleine was bundled into a car, no one noticed, and no one, ergo, would be taking number plates down. Its nonsense. None of it adds up, but whats new.


As for your post on Martin Brunts video, you are clutching at straws. The Mccanns would not have been staring non stop at their patio doors because they did not expect their kids to wake up, they felt safe, and certainly did never expect a burglar or abductor otherwise they never wouldnt have left them open in the first place. And even if they did they would likely see or hear nothing! Clean or dirty plastic sheeting! How many times?

Disagree.

- Someone could have gone on ahead to a nearby carpark to get the car unlocked and ready to move off. (The OP was asking the question if someone had lagged behind. I presume it was in the scenario that JT's man was carrying Madeleine.)

- Re the view in Brunty's report, the TV lighting and the state of the transparent awning (which appears grey) and the relative darkness, may not at all reflect the conditions at the time. If the view on that evening was really no better than Brunty's pic, then I'd agree that it is probably unlikely that anyone would notice a dscreet figure entering via the patio. If the view was more distinct than in that still, then there would have been a risk of being seen.

[Redblossom]

It doesn't work like that in real life Red.  Leaving a car in view would have been asking for trouble.  The bit about walking around the town is sheer fantasy I agree as had that occurred then many more people would have seen them.  As nobody saw a man carrying a child anywhere else between 9.15 and 10pm we can assume therefore that the Smiths sighting was a red herring.

I dont see any problem with a car in the car park for a couple minutes and no one seeing it. I think one or both of the sightings that night were probably red herrings. The Smith sighting though is quite credible,more so in many ways than Tanners sighting.The Smiths saw a four yr old blonde girl, Tanner saw a pair of legs.

[Redblossom]

Disagree.

- Someone could have gone on ahead to a nearby carpark to get the car unlocked and ready to move off. (The OP was asking the question if someone had lagged behind. I presume it was in the scenario that JT's man was carrying Madeleine.)

- Re the view in Brunty's report, the TV lighting and the state of the transparent awning (which appears grey) and the relative darkness, may not at all reflect the conditions at the time. If the view on that evening was really no better than Brunty's pic, then I'd agree that it is probably unlikely that anyone would notice a dscreet figure entering via the patio. If the view was more distinct than in that still, then there would have been a risk of being seen.

Whatever Carana, you can nit pit on many subjects, suggest possibilities, might have beens, suggest the moon is made of cheese, after all no one knows, things that get no one anywhere, in the end you are ignoring the main question, why would anyone see anything unless they were *looking* all the time, impossible in any case/ridiculous, and as I described  in my previous post, why look in the first place? if you thought there was a danger of anything you WOULD STAY HOME or get a sitter
 8-)(--)

[AnneGuedes]

And the Smithcarrier was spotted by 9 pairs of eyes, all unaware of Madeleine McCann's existence.