Was stranger abduction unlikely due to the checking regime?

[Mr Gray]

I wonder what DCI Walls believes if anything?

if the investigation closes we may find out. It would be good if there was a public statement re the parents as has already happened and I think that will quite possibly happen

[ShiningInLuz]

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

No, but Jane Tanner's rog does.

[Alice Purjorick]

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

That really does make it interesting.
Tannerman = Crecheman=Smithman.
But The Met have identified Crecheman (they say).
The Met remain in the position of wanting information that leads to the identification of Smithman.
The Met , in that case, clearly do not believe that Crecheman = Smithman.
Unless of course they are playing the old "little does he know that I know that he knows that I know he knows" game.

Yeah riiiiight Nobby.

[Robittybob1]

Don't bandy words with me Rob, it says 'and the abductor'.

And the first two words of the sentence were "what if".

[G-Unit]

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

Nor me, which raises the question of why he made such an obviously lame attempt to do so. I can only suggest that Tannerman needed to be eliminated for some reason, Redwood hadn't a clue about the layout of the Ocean Club or the night creche was not where we were told it was.

[Robittybob1]

I suggest you ask Brietta.

She said the other day, don't state opinions as fact.

So, I suggest you add that to your post......

And "what if" scenarios aren't facts but suggestions.

[Robittybob1]

Do you learn English grammar at school in NZ?

"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?" I've taken Smithman out as he wasn't necessary to the sentence. Including 'the' before 'abductor' means that 'what if' doesn't mean the poster is uncertain about the existence of the abductor. They're uncertain about what he did. Using 'an abductor' instead of 'the abductor' would have been better.

I would teach my teacher at school.  If you are uncertain what the abductor did you are uncertain if the abductor is part of the equation altogether.

[Mr Gray]

That really does make it interesting.
Tannerman = Crecheman=Smithman.
But The Met have identified Crecheman (they say).
The Met remain in the position of wanting information that leads to the identification of Smithman.
The Met , in that case, clearly do not believe that Crecheman = Smithman.
Unless of course they are playing the old "little does he know that I know that he knows that I know he knows" game.

Yeah riiiiight Nobby.

your logic is flawed....smithman is very unlikely to be crecheman as crecheman has been interviewed and would have been asked if he walked the route where smithman was seen

[Robittybob1]

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.

Good point; so who was seen "wandering around blocks 4-6 that night"?

[Robittybob1]

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

That is just an opinion.  And we know from Amaral's examples how badly wrong opinions can be.

[Alice Purjorick]

your logic is flawed....smithman is very unlikely to be crecheman as crecheman has been interviewed and would have been asked if he walked the route where smithman was seen

Andy The Fragger said the man Jane Tanner saw has been identified aka Crecheman. So Tannerman =Crecheman.
Kate M,  in her book says approximatively or tharaboots Tannerman = Smithman.
So on the basis of info I am being fed Tannerman=Crecheman=Smithman.
Which way they were walking didn't come into either of the statements made by the info providers.

[Robittybob1]

your logic is flawed....smithman is very unlikely to be crecheman as crecheman has been interviewed and would have been asked if he walked the route where smithman was seen

Have you understood the concept of lying?

[Mr Gray]

Andy The Fragger said the man Jane Tanner saw has been identified aka Crecheman. So Tannerman =Crecheman.
Kate M,  in her book says approximatively or tharaboots Tannerman = Smithman.
So on the basis of info I am being fed Tannerman=Crecheman=Smithman.
Which way they were walking didn't come into either of the statements made by the info providers.

just because kate believes smithman is tannerman doesnt mean he is and doesnt mean thats what redwood believes. redwood would ahve known if crecheman was ever near Kelly's and at what time...hence your logic is flawed

[Alice Purjorick]

just because kate believes smithman is tannerman doesnt mean he is and doesnt mean thats what redwood believes. redwood would ahve known if crecheman was ever near Kelly's and at what time...hence your logic is flawed

Your comment is totally irrelevant to the point I made.

[G-Unit]

I would teach my teacher at school.  If you are uncertain what the abductor did you are uncertain if the abductor is part of the equation altogether.

You'll know all about definite and indefinite articles then. 'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists. 'What if' questions when he did something, not whether he did it.