Proof of abduction

[ShiningInLuz]

There is no external CCTV, because the OC complex is in public access land.

There is no CCTV in the Tapas area.  If there was, we would know the comings and goings of the T9 and others.

I am not certain, but I doubt there is CCTV in the OC reception.  I would have thought the PJ would have scooped that up if there was, though maybe the importance of that did not surface until it was too late.

[Robittybob1]

From my recollection going back to the time Madeleine went missing, and being involved in quite a few internet forums and following the story in the press, I cannot remember there being any CCTV images produced from the Mark Warner complex. It is my belief that they didn't have CCTV or if they did, it was restricted to areas of security and were no use for monitoring the coming and going of residents and guests.

Amy Tierney was a member of the crèche staff I think. Also was the person who was able to print out the initial pictures of Madeleine for the PJ?

But she appears to have had an office in the Tapas building in which she had a private printer. 

[The Singularity]

But she appears to have had an office in the Tapas building in which she had a private printer.

Yes from what I can remember she was able to print out photos of Madeleine. Do you think that this young lady is significant and in what regards?

[jassi]

This printer was part of her camera kit and was for her private snaps. It was probably kept in her bedroom.
I think Russell said that she went and fetched her printer, not that they went to her office.

[G-Unit]

This printer was part of her camera kit and was for her private snaps. It was probably kept in her bedroom.
I think Russell said that she went and fetched her printer, not that they went to her office.

Ah, dear Russell. He didn't even know who she was, he thought it was Cat (the girl he saw probably twice a day or more when he dropped his daughter off)

 ‘We were searching for a printer and Kat, one of the Nannies, said she had a printer’.  I’m pretty sure it was Kat..‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”....I mean, Kat was there and Leanne was there, but whether it was actually their printer or lead, I’m not sure.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

[Miss Taken Identity]

This has been an interesting thread to read. The proof of abduction theory will always be a point of contention. From my perspective, there is no proof of an abduction. Even the shutters, whether they were open or closed still doesn't support or dismiss the abduction theory. Whether the shutters were even open seems to be another point of contention.

The problem here is the contaminated crime scene. That's not to put blame on anyone for this because the PJ were looking for a missing girl and it is unlikely at that early stage of the investigation they considered the apartment a crime scene. Plus it didn't help that people were coming in and out. That didn't really help the investigation when it became clear that it was a likely crime scene.

This isn't clear to you? ok ... Kate KNEW instantly that Maddie was ABDUCTED. instantly she announced it! then they all go back to search the apartment where the twins were left and still asleep to hopefully find that:
1 Maddie shook off the gang and returned from the abductors
2 the abductor was in no good hurry and decided to stay on a while hiding in the apartment..
You see my point? why would they search all over the apartment if they already KNEW she was ABDUCTED.. hmm? 

...and then why not someone run to reception shouting my daughter has been abducted?   help phone the poilice !!!all very calm and had a good look round messing up the apartment  and those'abductors' fingerprints that were no where to be found all got wiped with the 'searching' Oh dear what a bummer.

[Robittybob1]

This printer was part of her camera kit and was for her private snaps. It was probably kept in her bedroom.
I think Russell said that she went and fetched her printer, not that they went to her office.

Worth looking at.  So you think she went off site and picked up a printer.

[Robittybob1]

Yes from what I can remember she was able to print out photos of Madeleine. Do you think that this young lady is significant and in what regards?

It was a previous work situation I experienced.  The company had an office where all the CCTV cameras could be monitored.  Amy sees the shutters up but others don't, so was this on CCTV.  She also goes to the apartment quicker than expected if the alert came from her being at the night creche.

[jassi]

Worth looking at.  So you think she went off site and picked up a printer.

From ROB's rogatory interview

1578    “’Kate’s camera was checked’'”
 Reply    “Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.

[Robittybob1]

Ah, dear Russell. He didn't even know who she was, he thought it was Cat (the girl he saw probably twice a day or more when he dropped his daughter off)

 ‘We were searching for a printer and Kat, one of the Nannies, said she had a printer’.  I’m pretty sure it was Kat..‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”....I mean, Kat was there and Leanne was there, but whether it was actually their printer or lead, I’m not sure.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

Leanne Wagstaff
"On the night of the disappearance she was not working and had gone to a bar with colleagues. When she was heading for the bar from home at about 22.30 she saw her colleague Amy in the garden with a torch, searching for something.

She immediately asked what was happening and was told that a girl had disappeared. At first she thought it was a joke, but then she also began to search. She say that she searched everywhere."

Fails to mention printing off the photos.

[The Singularity]

This isn't clear to you? ok ... Kate KNEW instantly that Maddie was ABDUCTED.

It's a misconception, Kate didn't know what had happened to Madeleine at this stage. She was making an assumption probably fueled with blind panic that she was confronting her worst nightmare.

instantly[/b][/size] she announced it! then they all go back to search the apartment where the twins were left and still asleep to hopefully find that:
1 Maddie shook off the gang and returned from the abductors
2 the abductor was in no good hurry and decided to stay on a while hiding in the apartment..
You see my point? why would they search all over the apartment if they already KNEW she was ABDUCTED.. hmm?

I propose that people were being systematic in their approach in dealing with this and helping out the best they could because it was a young child at stake. I doubt very much that anyone initially had it in their head that Madeleine had in fact been abducted. Maybe it was wishful thinking on their part, but they nevertheless looked in the hope that she had just wandered off and would be found quickly.

...and then why not someone run to reception shouting my daughter has been abducted?   help phone the poilice !!!all very calm and had a good look round messing up the apartment  and those'abductors' fingerprints that were no where to be found all got wiped with the 'searching' Oh dear what a bummer.

The crime scene was unfortunately contaminated but as I have just said, I don't think the majority of people, and even Kate really understood the gravity of the situation choosing to explore the possibility that she had wandered off. I don't think there was any malicious reason why the crime scene was contaminated, it was very unfortunate. Things could have been done a lot differently and it is very easy to question or see ulterior motives in their behaviour but I really do think people are tilting at windmills in doing so. 

[stephen25000]

It's a misconception, Kate didn't know what had happened to Madeleine at this stage. She was making an assumption probably fueled with blind panic that she was confronting her worst nightmare.

I propose that people were being systematic in their approach in dealing with this and helping out the best they could because it was a young child at stake. I doubt very much that anyone initially had it in their head that Madeleine had in fact been abducted. Maybe it was wishful thinking on their part, but they nevertheless looked in the hope that she had just wandered off and would be found quickly.

The crime scene was unfortunately contaminated but as I have just said, I don't think the majority of people, and even Kate really understood the gravity of the situation choosing to explore the possibility that she had wandered off. I don't think there was any malicious reason why the crime scene was contaminated, it was very unfortunate. Things could have been done a lot differently and it is very easy to question or see ulterior motives in their behaviour but I really do think people are tilting at windmills in doing so.

'It's a misconception, Kate didn't know what had happened to Madeleine at this stage. She was making an assumption probably fueled with blind panic that she was confronting her worst nightmare.'

That is a presumption.

How do you know what she was thinking ?

[Robittybob1]

From ROB's rogatory interview

1578    “’Kate’s camera was checked’'”
 Reply    “Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.

She went somewhere.  I wouldn't be certain ROB knew exactly where.  He did even have her name right.

[jassi]

She went somewhere.  I wouldn't be certain ROB knew exactly where.  He did even have her name right.

One only has a sworn statement to go on.  If you can't believe one of them , then you really can't believe any of them.

[Robittybob1]

One only has a sworn statement to go on.  If you can't believe one of them , then you really can't believe any of them.

I don't work like that.  I cross reference the statements and see if they support each other.  Like mentioning Leanne, leanne meets up with Amy once the search begins so maybe they do stick together for the rest of the night.