The facts: Madeleine McCann is alive and well or a long time deceased.

[John]

If the window was used, as seems likely, how did Gerry's ignorance contribute to the alleged abduction ?

he didn't know that the shutters can be locked in the down position yet still allow them to be expanded to let air into the room with the window open.

[John]

The abductor was not to know that it would take so long for a search to be organised involving the police so why take the chance of wandering around the town for 45 minutes...it just doesn't add up.

On the other hand, two similar looking men were seen carrying a young girl around PDL within a space of 45 minutes yet not one of them saw fit to come forward. Very strange?   >@@(*&)

[icabodcrane]

The abductor was not to know that it would take so long for a search to be organised involving the police so why take the chance of wandering around the town for 45 minutes...it just doesn't add up.

On the other hand, two similar looking men were seen carrying a young girl around PDL within a space of 45 minutes yet not one of them saw fit to come forward. Very strange?   >@@(*&)

There is no way that the man Jane Tanner says she saw  ...  and the man the Smith family say they saw  almost an hour later were one and the same

That is one of the most nonsense theories put forward in this case

It simply makes no  sense

[Benice]

The story is not convoluted, it's very simple really. The story is Madeleine was abducted, the window was open to prove it was an abduction and not a walk and wandered and Tanner had to see Gerry and the abductor together, at a time when there was an independent witness present, as it gave Gerry an alibi  just in case Martin Smith came forward to identify him.

So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever)  - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed -  the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced?     You really think they were that stupid??

As Gerry could have no idea that Jez Wilkins was going to turn up - then when did he find the time after that chance meeting to hatch a plot with JT (who he hardly knew) - and convince her to lie and say she had seen them and then immediately afterwards had seen the abductor - to give G an alibi?      And then after going to all that trouble,  why did he ruin the whole 'story' by saying HE hadn't seen JT - thus casting doubt on his own alibi?

I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?

I can't believe anyone would think that K&G would do all this complicated plotting and planning with windows shutters, arranging alibi stories with JT and all the others having to lie for them,  when they could have so easily thought up a much simpler and much safer plan to protect themselves without involving another soul.   

And anyway, why would they decide to have a cover-up story which 'commenced'  at 10.00 at night, at the end of a long activity filled day when they would all be tired?     Like all the rest of this 'theory'  -  that makes no sense at all.

If you think this is all ''very simple really'' Faith, then I beg to differ -  in fact this particular elephant in the room just gets bigger and bigger. imo.

[sadie]

Faith

The story is not convoluted, it's very simple really. The story is Madeleine was abducted, the window was open to prove it was an abduction and not a walk and wandered and Tanner had to see Gerry and the abductor together, at a time when there was an independent witness present, as it gave Gerry an alibi  just in case Martin Smith came forward to identify him.

So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever)  - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed -  the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced?     You really think they were that stupid??

As Gerry could have no idea that Jez Wilkins was going to turn up - then when did he find the time after that chance meeting to hatch a plot with JT (who he hardly knew) - and convince her to lie and say she had seen them and then immediately afterwards had seen the abductor - to give G an alibi?      And then after going to all that trouble,  why did he ruin the whole 'story' by saying HE hadn't seen JT - thus casting doubt on his own alibi?

I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?

I can't believe anyone would think that K&G would do all this complicated plotting and planning with windows shutters, arranging alibi stories with JT and all the others having to lie for them,  when they could have so easily thought up a much simpler and much safer plan to protect themselves without involving another soul.   

And anyway, why would they decide to have a cover-up story which 'commenced'  at 10.00 at night, at the end of a long activity filled day when they would all be tired?     Like all the rest of this 'theory'  -  that makes no sense at all.

If you think this is all ''very simple really'' Faith, then I beg to differ -  in fact this particular elephant in the room just gets bigger and bigger. imo.

Brilliant analyses Benice ... and clearly put.

[AnneGuedes]

So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever)  - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed -  the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced?     You really think they were that stupid??

Nobody said the forced shutters etc. were part of a cover up plan. They didn't need to smash the shutters since the misled family and friends had no opportunity of checking whether it was true or not.
To the police they only said they had left the shutters, the window, the curtains closed and they found them open. They didn't offer any explanation for what was the job of the police to investigate.

[Benice]

Nobody said the forced shutters etc. were part of a cover up plan. They didn't need to smash the shutters since the misled family and friends had no opportunity of checking whether it was true or not.
To the police they only said they had left the shutters, the window, the curtains closed and they found them open. They didn't offer any explanation for what was the job of the police to investigate.

Make your mind up Anne, according to recent posts the McCanns lied about the windows and shutters, claiming they had been smashed/jemmied/forced.     Now you're saying they only said that to their friends and families   

What could they possibly achieve by lying to their friends and families?   That makes no sense.

[AnneGuedes]

Make your mind up Anne, according to recent posts the McCanns lied about the windows and shutters, claiming they had been smashed/jemmied/forced.     Now you're saying they only said that to their friends and families   

What could they possibly achieve by lying to their friends and families?   That makes no sense.

Read my post again, Benice, I never said the story was told to others than the people close to them in the UK. And I said why they did so, imo.

[Angelo222]

So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever)  - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed -  the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced?     You really think they were that stupid??

As Gerry could have no idea that Jez Wilkins was going to turn up - then when did he find the time after that chance meeting to hatch a plot with JT (who he hardly knew) - and convince her to lie and say she had seen them and then immediately afterwards had seen the abductor - to give G an alibi?      And then after going to all that trouble,  why did he ruin the whole 'story' by saying HE hadn't seen JT - thus casting doubt on his own alibi?

I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?

I can't believe anyone would think that K&G would do all this complicated plotting and planning with windows shutters, arranging alibi stories with JT and all the others having to lie for them,  when they could have so easily thought up a much simpler and much safer plan to protect themselves without involving another soul.   

And anyway, why would they decide to have a cover-up story which 'commenced'  at 10.00 at night, at the end of a long activity filled day when they would all be tired?     Like all the rest of this 'theory'  -  that makes no sense at all.

If you think this is all ''very simple really'' Faith, then I beg to differ -  in fact this particular elephant in the room just gets bigger and bigger. imo.

A good post Benice.  The claim that Gerry was the man the Smiths saw or that Jane made up the story of seeing a man carrying a child falls down on credibility alone. 

[AnneGuedes]

There is no way that the man Jane Tanner says she saw  ...  and the man the Smith family say they saw  almost an hour later were one and the same

That is one of the most nonsense theories put forward in this case

It simply makes no  sense

A reconstruction could have proven it.

[sadie]

A reconstruction could have proven it.

HOW ?

And why didn't Amaral do it at the time?   The Mccanns were willing at that time and until early september

But it all changed after Amarals crew lied to Gerry when he was made an arquido.
His lot told Gerry that the dogs had proved that they (the Mccanns) had carried Madeleine in the hire car.

Gerry knew that to be untrue.  At that stage, the Mccanns realised that they were definitely being fixed up.

[faithlilly]

HOW ?

And why didn't Amaral do it at the time?   The Mccanns were willing at that time and until early september

But it all changed after Amarals crew lied to Gerry when he was made an arquido.
His lot told Gerry that the dogs had proved that they (the Mccanns) had carried Madeleine in the hire car.

Gerry knew that to be untrue.  At that stage, the Mccanns realised that they were definitely being fixed up.

Rebelo was co-ordinator at the time of the reconstruction request and wasn't he, according to you supporters, appalled at Amaral's handling of the case so what did they have to fear from him ?

[AnneGuedes]

His lot told Gerry that the dogs had proved that they (the Mccanns) had carried Madeleine in the hire car.

Gerry knew that to be untrue. 

I agree with that. A big relief for the McCanns and a fatal mistake from the PJ (difficulty to admit a funerary ritual could be bypassed ?).

[DCI]

Did it change or was there simply more added to it ?

No. Your statement was from the 4th May, mine was from 8th May. You complain about the McCann's and Tapas group, changing their statements. Whats the difference? You can't have it both ways!

[faithlilly]

No. Your statement was from the 4th May, mine was from 8th May. You complain about the McCann's and Tapas group, changing their statements. Whats the difference? You can't have it both ways!

She didn't change it, she added to it. Gerry saying he used his key in his first statement then the patio doors in his second is 'changing' his statement.

Do you see the difference ?