Was stranger abduction unlikely due to the checking regime?

[faithlilly]

The fact that a creche was in the area increases the chances of people being seen carrying children - as opposed to an area where there was no creche.

If you rule out Crecheman then it's quite possible the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine.  The timing of that sighting would tie in with Lace's suggested scenario of an intruder entering 5A just before Kate did her check.     So -  just one man - not three imo.

But that one man has almost exactly the same clothing on as Crecheman and the child he is carrying looks amazingly similar too. Do you really believe that ?

[Alice Purjorick]

But that one man has almost exactly the same clothing on as Crecheman and the child he is carrying looks amazingly similar too. Do you really believe that ?

The part where I have a bone to pick is:
For six years supporters swore black was white that Jane Tanner saw MM being abducted at about 21:15 hrs. The PJ thought otherwise and to this day are called all the vainquers under The Sun.
Then in October (ish) 2013 came Andy "The Fragger" Redwood and ooops Tannerman gorn. Seamelessly and quite unashamedly the supporters say oh well yes it must have been "New Man"................................. fickle or what?, not to mention being back to Abductor Whicker Island.

[Benice]

Another tourist carrying a child whose build and clothing were similar to Madeleine, who also had no covering or shoes on her feet ? Another tourist whose clothing was almost identical to Crechman ? Really ? Do you actually think that's not one coincidence too far ?

If it had turned out that Crecheman's child was the same age as the child the Smiths saw  and was wearing identical pajamas then that would really be a coincidence that could not be ignored.     However, as we now know -  that wasn't the case.    IIRC his child was 2? and the pajamas were different to those described by the Smiths.      So that dispensed with the similarities about age and clothing previously thought to exist between the child JT saw and smithman's child -   and also ruled Crecheman out as a suspect.   

However, it's not impossible that the man JT saw was the same person seen by the Smiths.   SY did say they were 'almost certain' and not 'completely certain' that tannerman was crecheman, an innocent tourist.

Unless smithman comes forward or is otherwise identified - we shall never know imo.

[faithlilly]

If it had turned out that Crecheman's child was the same age as the child the Smiths saw  and was wearing identical pajamas then that would really be a coincidence that could not be ignored.     However, as we now know -  that wasn't the case.    IIRC his child was 2? and the pajamas were different to those described by the Smiths.      So that dispensed with the similarities about age and clothing previously thought to exist between the child JT saw and smithman's child -   and also ruled Crecheman out as a suspect.   

However, it's not impossible that the man JT saw was the same person seen by the Smiths.   SY did say they were 'almost certain' and not 'completely certain' that tannerman was crecheman, an innocent tourist.

Unless smithman comes forward or is otherwise identified - we shall never know imo.

Tanner only saw the child's legs so there is no way those could exclude the child being two. Kate in her book specifically claims that the similarities between Tannerman and Smithman make it virtually impossible that it was not the same man

[Brietta]

From the sightings we already have I find it extremely difficult to believe a stranger could enter 5a and abduct a child and carry her off without being seen by the numerous persons who were also wandering around blocks 4-6 that night.

Despite any toing and froing which may have occurred around the environs of the apartment that evening as far as I know, the only recorded encounter between anyone was the meeting of Jez and Gerry.

Jez also saw a man described as 'rastaman'.  Jane saw the man carrying a barefoot child at the junction ahead of her.

I think that is it.

Mr and Mrs Carpenter ... no.
Mr and Mrs Moyes ... no.
People going to or coming from work ... no.

I think intrusion and departure could have been achieved speedily and discretely.
Particularly when dark areas around 5A are taken into consideration.  If anyone other than Jane Tanner had witnessed anyone carrying a child we have been told it was a usual sight to see and the carrier would have avoided challenge as a result.
How any transient visitor could know that is not explained ... but residents and the local population probably wouldn't think it odd enough for alarm bells to sound.

Danger points for an abductor

• being discovered within the apartment
• exiting with the child
• getting far enough away from the immediate environs not to cause suspicion if seen

Had Jane Tanner seen the stranger carrying a child either in the outside passageway or at the opening to the apartments or even in the parking area
(a) I think her suspicions would have been immediately aroused and she may have challenged him.
(b) She would have been close enough to recognise the child and would have raised the alarm.
As it was the stranger she saw was on the public highway and thus allowed to pass by without challenge.

[John]

Despite any toing and froing which may have occurred around the environs of the apartment that evening as far as I know, the only recorded encounter between anyone was the meeting of Jez and Gerry.

Jez also saw a man described as 'rastaman'.  Jane saw the man carrying a barefoot child at the junction ahead of her.

I think that is it.

Mr and Mrs Carpenter ... no.
Mr and Mrs Moyes ... no.
People going to or coming from work ... no.

I think intrusion and departure could have been achieved speedily and discretely.
Particularly when dark areas around 5A are taken into consideration.  If anyone other than Jane Tanner had witnessed anyone carrying a child we have been told it was a usual sight to see and the carrier would have avoided challenge as a result.
How any transient visitor could know that is not explained ... but residents and the local population probably wouldn't think it odd enough for alarm bells to sound.

Danger points for an abductor

• being discovered within the apartment
• exiting with the child
• getting far enough away from the immediate environs not to cause suspicion if seen

Had Jane Tanner seen the stranger carrying a child either in the outside passageway or at the opening to the apartments or even in the parking area
(a) I think her suspicions would have been immediately aroused and she may have challenged him.
(b) She would have been close enough to recognise the child and would have raised the alarm.
As it was the stranger she saw was on the public highway and thus allowed to pass by without challenge.

You forgot the loiterer out for a puff and the Spanish girl who was visiting her boyfriend not to mention OC staff who were coming and going.

[John]

SY certainly seem to think it's possible

It is but highly unlikely imo.

[John]

The fact that a creche was in the area increases the chances of people being seen carrying children - as opposed to an area where there was no creche.

If you rule out Crecheman then it's quite possible the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine.  The timing of that sighting would tie in with Lace's suggested scenario of an intruder entering 5A just before Kate did her check.     So -  just one man - not three imo.

If Crecheman was there wandering about at that time how come he never saw an abductor?  It has never been explained why this man was walking towards the creche and not from it as he claims.  I have a feeling that all is not as it seems with this mystery participant.

[Mr Gray]

It is but highly unlikely imo.

SY have been there and have all the info. They have examined the timeline....they see abduction as a real possibility.

[Mr Gray]

If Crecheman was there wandering about at that time how come he never saw an abductor?  It has never been explained why this man was walking towards the creche and not from it as he claims.  I have a feeling that all is not as it seems with this mystery participant.

just because the actor in crimewatch was walking towards the creche does not mean crecheman was in reality

[Brietta]

You forgot the loiterer out for a puff and the Spanish girl who was visiting her boyfriend not to mention OC staff who were coming and going.

Lol ... I should have added etc. etc.

Anyway, only the Smiths and Jane Tanner reported seeing a man and child.

Jane Tanner saw the man, immediately outside the apartment block.  Amaral tied Murat into the equation because of his direction of travel but it is more likely he was heading not to a villa but to a parked up vehicle.  Which was probably well away from Luz before the alarm that Madeleine was missing was even raised.

[Brietta]

If Crecheman was there wandering about at that time how come he never saw an abductor?  It has never been explained why this man was walking towards the creche and not from it as he claims.  I have a feeling that all is not as it seems with this mystery participant.

DCI Redwood didn't convince me, John.

Initially I was delighted that at last Jane Tanner was vindicated in the face of the vitriol and untruths she had to suffer for years.

Then I read the way the statement was worded.

[John]

just because the actor in crimewatch was walking towards the creche does not mean crecheman was in reality

He told Redwood he was returning from the crèche.

[John]

SY have been there and have all the info. They have examined the timeline....they see abduction as a real possibility.

I wonder what DCI Walls believes if anything?

[John]

DCI Redwood didn't convince me, John.

Initially I was delighted that at last Jane Tanner was vindicated in the face of the vitriol and untruths she had to suffer for years.

Then I read the way the statement was worded.

He didn't convince me either, eureka moment or not.