Manner of abduction

[j.rob]

I personally think abduction by a total stranger is the least likely explanation. That is obviously just my opinion. And don't forget the Portugese police did not believe that Madeleine had been abducted. They would not have reached that opinion on a whim. They would have looked at the evidence, the parents behaviour and so on.

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best explanations. It is perfectly possible that Madeleine either had an accident in the apartment or reacted to some sort of medication or she could have been ill and chocked on her vomit, for instance, or choked on something else.

All of these are possibilities. IF something like that had happened, one could advance a hypothesis that the parents (and their friends who were also leaving their children unattended) might panic on the basis that there were child protection issues. They might be concerned that their other children would be taken from them if it was judged that they had been negligent in leaving the children unattended.

However, given the behaviour of Kate on the evening that Madeleine was supposed to have disappeared, I think it is likely that the twins, at least, had been sedated. This would account for her putting her finger under their noses to check they were breathing.

And as I have repeatedly stated, if we are to believe the abduction by evil stranger theory, then Kate's behaviour that night does not make sense. You simply would not leave your other children in the room. You would want to be right by them. You would wake them up to check they were ok. You would want them to be medically checked. So many things don't add up.

[icabodcrane]

It's easy for a 3/4 to pull the latch and open the door.
An adult might have preferred a complex way he was not familiar to instead of a simple way he was familiar to.
I don't think that children would. They are more pragmatic.
I do have those shutters, at that age my kids couldn't open them, but they pulled the latch (same locker) easily. The sliding window is easy to slide as long as it isn't blocked (the mecanism is high, only climbing on the bed).

I think you are correct, Anne,  to point out that it is relevant to consider what a three year old  would  do when considering what they  could  do

On Monday night,  between 10.30pm and 11.45pm,  the upstairs neighbour witnessed hearing  a young child crying and becoming increasingly distressed in the McCanns' apartment

Assuming it was Madeleine we are given an indication of how the little girl reacted on waking up to find her parents were not there  ...  she did not go outside to seek them out  ...  she did not open windows or shutters ...  she just cried and became increasingly distressed

That is normal behaviour for a young infant in those circumstances 

However  'precocious' we are  told  Madeleine was,  on that Monday night she behaved in the normal and predictable way most three year olds would  ...  she just cried and cried becoming increasingly distressed

We don't need to question how Madeleine would react  on waking to find her parents not there  ...  we  already  KNOW 

[pathfinder73]

The McCann's have to believe Tannerman is the abductor. That's why that sighting will be kept on their site in case things change for the worse in the future and Smithman is identified and charged.  Smithman will never confess (but he may touch his ear a few times) and will say he is certain that the real abductor was Tannerman/Innocentman (the same pyjamas) and will criticize the findings of the new investigation. And he may well have support from Jane Tanner and others in the tapas group in regards to Tannerman being the real abductor.

[j.rob]

I think you are correct, Anne,  to point out that it is relevant to consider what a three year old  would  do when considering what they  could  do

On Monday night,  between 10.30pm and 11.45pm,  the upstairs neighbour witnessed hearing  a young child crying and becoming increasingly distressed in the McCanns' apartment

Assuming it was Madeleine we are given an indication of how the little girl reacted on waking up to find her parents were not there  ...  she did not go outside to seek them out  ...  she did not open windows or shutters ...  she just cried and became increasingly distressed

That is normal behaviour for a young infant in those circumstances 

However  'precocious' we are  told  Madeleine was,  on that Monday night she behaved in the normal and predictable way most three year olds would  ...  she just cried and cried becoming increasingly distressed

We don't need to question how Madeleine would react  on waking to find her parents not there  ...  we  already  KNOW

This is a good point. However, do we know for certain that neither of the parents were in the apartment for the entire duration of that crying episode? Is that not the evening when the McCanns and their friends were joined by the aerobics teacher at dinner and Kate got upset with Gerry? Was there a suggestion that she went back to the apartment in a strop (she herself says she didn't sleep in the same bed as him that night) and so may have been there for at least some of the crying incident?

Kate very much downplayed the disagreement that she had with Gerry that night, saying she only mentioned it because it was so unusual. But if you look at the behaviour of Gerry in that little video clip where he is on the airport bus, he does not look like a husband and father who is excited about spending a week with his wife and family. In fact, his words are: 'f..k off - I'm not here to enjoy myself'. Said in front of his wife, nearly four year old daughter and other young children.

You could advance a theory that there was some marital strife going on, which would have impacted negatively on the welfare of the children.

The neighbour in the apartment above said in her police statement that the crying stopped when she heard people entering the apartment. Obviously she assumed this was the McCann parents. But she did not see them, merely noted that someone returned to the apartment and the crying stopped.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? Are there independent witnesses stating that both McCann parents were at the dinner table during this crying episode.

In my opinion this is a crucial period of time in this case.

[pathfinder73]

Yes she was really pissed with Gerry the night before Madeleine went missing (slept in spare bed) and was annoyed when the others didn't invite her and Madeleine to the beach on the afternoon of 3 May. I don't think Kate was a happy chappy that day.

[icabodcrane]

This is a good point. However, do we know for certain that neither of the parents were in the apartment for the entire duration of that crying episode? Is that not the evening when the McCanns and their friends were joined by the aerobics teacher at dinner and Kate got upset with Gerry? Was there a suggestion that she went back to the apartment in a strop (she herself says she didn't sleep in the same bed as him that night) and so may have been there for at least some of the crying incident?

Kate very much downplayed the disagreement that she had with Gerry that night, saying she only mentioned it because it was so unusual. But if you look at the behaviour of Gerry in that little video clip where he is on the airport bus, he does not look like a husband and father who is excited about spending a week with his wife and family. In fact, his words are: 'f..k off - I'm not here to enjoy myself'. Said in front of his wife, nearly four year old daughter and other young children.

You could advance a theory that there was some marital strife going on, which would have impacted negatively on the welfare of the children.

The neighbour in the apartment above said in her police statement that the crying stopped when she heard people entering the apartment. Obviously she assumed this was the McCann parents. But she did not see them, merely noted that someone returned to the apartment and the crying stopped.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? Are there independent witnesses stating that both McCann parents were at the dinner table during this crying episode.

In my opinion this is a crucial period of time in this case.

I agree j rob

I, too,  think Monday night  (  the night of the quiz, and the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying  )  is crucial to events

We should have a thread devoted to it I believe  ...  the obsfucation and collective amnesia of the tapas group alone, regarding that night,  is reason enough to look deeper

[Cariad]

I think you are correct, Anne,  to point out that it is relevant to consider what a three year old  would  do when considering what they  could  do

On Monday night,  between 10.30pm and 11.45pm,  the upstairs neighbour witnessed hearing  a young child crying and becoming increasingly distressed in the McCanns' apartment

Assuming it was Madeleine we are given an indication of how the little girl reacted on waking up to find her parents were not there  ...  she did not go outside to seek them out  ...  she did not open windows or shutters ...  she just cried and became increasingly distressed

That is normal behaviour for a young infant in those circumstances 

However  'precocious' we are  told  Madeleine was,  on that Monday night she behaved in the normal and predictable way most three year olds would  ...  she just cried and cried becoming increasingly distressed

We don't need to question how Madeleine would react  on waking to find her parents not there  ...  we  already  KNOW

I agree. I think most children would be frightened waking up in a holiday apartment and Mum not coming when she called. I can't really picture a child going out in the dark in a strange place to look for her parents and as Icabod pointe out, that wasn't what Madeleine did previously.....

[AnneGuedes]

Just to correct that Mrs McCann slept in the spare bed on Wednesday, not on Tuesday, which was the quizz and crying episode day.

[AnneGuedes]

I agree j rob

I, too,  think Monday night  (  the night of the quiz, and the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying  )  is crucial to events

We should have a thread devoted to it I believe  ...  the obsfucation and collective amnesia of the tapas group alone, regarding that night,  is reason enough to look deeper

There is an old thread about that Tuesday night, Icabodcrane, I remember that you pointed to Mrs McCann making a call, likely in the flat. The quizz lady didn't remember her.

[AnneGuedes]

We don't need to question how Madeleine would react  on waking to find her parents not there  ...  we  already  KNOW

Yes, but what if she didn't sleep and heard them leave ?

[icabodcrane]

There is an old thread about that Tuesday night, Icabodcrane, I remember that you pointed to Mrs McCann making a call, likely in the flat. The quizz lady didn't remember her.

Thanks for correcting me Anne  ...  of course it was the Tuesday night   

What really troubles me about that night is that none of the Tapas friends can recall who was absent that night  ...  not even Obrien who remembers spending one night in his apartment  ( looking after a sick child )  is able  to confirm whether it was Tuesday night or not

We know that  someone  wasn't at the table for the entire time the aerobics instructor joined them at the table,  because she recalls there being an empty place  (  that of someone who eaten and left  )   ...  nor does she remember seeing Kate McCann  being there

Kate's whereabouts  during the crying episode   is not beyond question

[Sherlock Holmes]

The McCann's have to believe Tannerman is the abductor. That's why that sighting will be kept on their site in case things change for the worse in the future and Smithman is identified and charged.  Smithman will never confess (but he may touch his ear a few times) and will say he is certain that the real abductor was Tannerman/Innocentman (the same pyjamas) and will criticize the findings of the new investigation. And he may well have support from Jane Tanner and others in the tapas group in regards to Tannerman being the real abductor.

Can you elaborate on this, pathfinder? Why do the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?

And how do we know that Smithman will never confess?

And who is Jane Tanner to say who the real abductor is?

[Benice]

Can you elaborate on this, pathfinder? Why do the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?

And how do we know that Smithman will never confess?

And who is Jane Tanner to say who the real abductor is?

IMO Jane Tanner would be over the moon  to be told  that the man she saw was not the abductor.   Not only does this exonerate her - as it proves she did not lie about saying she saw a man carrying a child, but even more importantly for her  -  she can also stop beating herself up by going down the 'If only' road - because she didn't do anything at the time.         She has said that apart from Madeleine being found, the best news she could hear was that someone had come forward and had been eliminated.

I too am mystified as to why anyone would think the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?

[pathfinder73]

Can you elaborate on this, pathfinder? Why do the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?

And how do we know that Smithman will never confess?

And who is Jane Tanner to say who the real abductor is?

IMO Jane Tanner would be over the moon  to be told  that the man she saw was not the abductor.   Not only does this exonerate her - as it proves she did not lie about saying she saw a man carrying a child, but even more importantly for her  -  she can also stop beating herself up by going down the 'If only' road - because she didn't do anything at the time.         She has said that apart from Madeleine being found, the best news she could hear was that someone had come forward and had been eliminated.

I too am mystified as to why anyone would think the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?

Jane Tanner would be happy if Tannerman is cleared but things may get very interesting if Smithman is identified and charged. IMO Tannerman could become a focus of the defence and the timeline. Matt never saw Madeleine on his check at 9.30pm so this discrepancy could become a part of the defence suggesting that Tannerman (and not Smithman) could have been the abductor with Madeleine (same pyjamas) after Gerry's check who last saw her before she disappeared.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Jane Tanner would be happy if Tannerman is cleared but things may get very interesting if Smithman is identified and charged. IMO Tannerman could become a focus of the defence and the timeline. Matt never saw Madeleine on his check at 9.30pm so this discrepancy could become a part of the defence suggesting that Tannerman (and not Smithman) could have been the abductor with Madeleine (same pyjamas) after Gerry's check who last saw her before she disappeared.

Well this was the old timeline, wasn't it?

How would identifying Smithman as a guilty party bring SY back to the timeline they rejected?