australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion

[John]

Are you sure of what you are saying about the reason the efits were not released, John?  .... or is it in your opinion?

Cite please

Your female child disappears from her bed and e-fits are eventually produced of a mystery man seen a few hundred yards away carrying a similarly aged and clad female child in his arms yet despite the advantages of releasing said e-fits to the public they are hidden away and forgotten.  I can think of only one reason why this occurred and it wasn't in any way related to Madeleine's best interest.

Amaral was subjected to a legal witch-hunt for years with a principal claim being that he damaged the search for Madeleine yet e-fits which could have assisted the search and identified the mystery man never saw the light of day when it really mattered.

Halligen claimed that he was subject to a gagging clause in the contract his firm Oakley International had with the Madeleine Fund which prevented him from disclosing the truth about the e-fits and the critical report which accompanied them.

[Robittybob1]

Your female child disappears from her bed and e-fits are eventually produced of a mystery man seen a few hundred yards away carrying a similarly aged and clad female child in his arms yet despite the advantages of releasing said e-fits to the public they are hidden away and forgotten.  I can think of only one reason why this occurred and it wasn't in any way related to Madeleine's best interest.

Amaral was subjected to a legal witch-hunt for years with a principal claim being that he damaged the search for Madeleine yet e-fits which could have assisted the search and identified the mystery man never saw the light of day when it really mattered.

Halligen claimed that he was subject to a gagging clause in the contract his firm Oakley International had with the Madeleine Fund which prevented him from disclosing the truth about the e-fits and the critical report which accompanied them.

If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the 'ALLEGED' initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her 'ALLEGED' abductor. 
If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty.  They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them.   If that is what happened it seems illogical.

[Robittybob1]

If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the 'ALLEGED' initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her 'ALLEGED' abductor. 
If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty.  They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them.   If that is what happened it seems illogical.

I'm talking about the actions and thoughts of the McCanns before anyone has alleged an abduction.  Once I add in "IF" and hope   there is no way we need the word alleged, that is why I Left it out.
If I was to say "If there was an abduction ...... there would be evidence of an abduction".
Do we really need the word alleged ahead of those uses of abduction surely you can't say "If there was an alleged abduction ....  there would be evidence of an alleged abduction."?   For the conditional statement "IF THERE WAS" makes the word "alleged" superfluous.

[stephen25000]

I'm talking about the actions and thoughts of the McCanns before anyone has alleged an abduction.  Once I add in "IF" and hope   there is no way we need the word alleged, that is why I Left it out.
If I was to say "If there was an abduction ...... there would be evidence of an abduction".
Do we really need the word alleged ahead of those uses of abduction surely you can't say "If there was an alleged abduction ....  there would be evidence of an alleged abduction."?   For the conditional statement "IF THERE WAS" makes the word "alleged" superfluous.

The rules have been given Rob.

I may favour another scenario, but i will not state it as fact, because I know there isn't enough evidence to show it to be so, along with the other possibilities.

[G-Unit]

If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her abductor. 
If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty.  They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them.   If that is what happened it seems illogical.

I don't think the McCanns were micro-managing their PI's. I wonder who this was?

An independent consultant was also employed by the fund to liaise with Oakley and oversee the work they were doing. [Madeleine]

Oakley were used for six months from the end of March 2008 to the end of September 2008

The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand
payment for his services. [Madeleine].

According to the Sunday Times, the e-fits and a dossier were given to the McCanns in November 2008, which was after the Oakley contract had ended.

So we don't know when the e-fits were produced, but it's alleged that they weren't handed to the McCanns until after the contract with Oakley ended. 

Co-incidentally a demand for payment was made after the contract ended too.

[Angelo222]

If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the 'ALLEGED' initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her 'ALLEGED' abductor. 
If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty.  They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them.   If that is what happened it seems illogical.

I'm guessing they were hoping that Smithman looked nothing like Gerry and that it was all just one huge misunderstanding by all involved.

[G-Unit]

I'm guessing they were hoping that Smithman looked nothing like Gerry and that it was all just one huge misunderstanding by all involved.

What on earth was Redwood thinking? An entire Crimewatch programme was dedicated to getting rid of Tannerman, moving the time of the alleged abduction to after 9.30 pm and appealing for Smithman to be identified.

He seemed to be following some of the recommendations in the Oakley dossier and ignoring the other concerns it raised.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm

[John]

What on earth was Redwood thinking? An entire Crimewatch programme was dedicated to getting rid of Tannerman, moving the time of the alleged abduction to after 9.30 pm and appealing for Smithman to be identified.

He seemed to be following some of the recommendations in the Oakley dossier and ignoring the other concerns it raised.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm

It's difficult to know what to say about Tannerman.  The alleged sighting has always raised concerns within the investigation.

The Jane/Gerry/Jez incident and the identifying of Murat as Tannerman by the way he walked being two of them.

[Robittybob1]

The rules have been given Rob.

I may favour another scenario, but i will not state it as fact, because I know there isn't enough evidence to show it to be so, along with the other possibilities.

I don't remember that rule being made.  I have been here long enough to know you don't like the word abduction being used but would insist people use the term alleged abduction.  OK Kate's original words were to the effect "they've taken her" so there was an alleged abduction from the very beginning.  But what happens if I am promoting an abduction different to the one Kate did, is that an abduction alleged by me?
I know John seems to promote an abduction secondary to a woke and wandered scenario, so he too does not believe in the alleged abduction as promoted by Kate. 
I have no problem using the word alleged in the same sentence but I don't want to promote the abduction alleged by Kate McCann.

[stephen25000]

I don't remember that rule being made.  I have been here long enough to know you don't like the word abduction being used but would insist people use the term alleged abduction.  OK Kate's original words were to the effect "they've taken her" so there was an alleged abduction from the very beginning.  But what happens if I am promoting an abduction different to the one Kate did, is that an abduction alleged by me?
I know John seems to promote an abduction secondary to a woke and wandered scenario, so he too does not believe in the alleged abduction as promoted by Kate. 
I have no problem using the word alleged in the same sentence but I don't want to promote the abduction alleged by Kate McCann.

It applies to all the scenarios Rob.

Bottom line remains, what happened to Madeleine is unknown.

Loads of opinions, very few facts.

[John]

Abduction or theft of a cadaver all amounts to the same thing and that is that someone took her.  The only alternative is that she fell into an excavation, was covered over and suffocated. 

[Miss Taken Identity]

What on earth was Redwood thinking? An entire Crimewatch programme was dedicated to getting rid of Tannerman, moving the time of the alleged abduction to after 9.30 pm and appealing for Smithman to be identified.

He seemed to be following some of the recommendations in the Oakley dossier and ignoring the other concerns it raised.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm

I BELIEVE they had to get rid of Tammerman as the alleged abductor due to the 'timeline' It would have been moments for Gerry to have his proud dad moment to Jane seeing the alleged abductor. Now if we are having a burglar in this child snatching event. They would be surprised to see children! He/she would have a few seconds to decide to steal the child not knowing if she would wake up or not AND why not take smaller twin girl? That is the reason I believe this.  Someone making up the time line didn't quite think this through...AND a smart detective analysing this part of the files would have picked that up as everyone else (apart from supporters) has.

[sadie]

I BELIEVE they had to get rid of Tammerman as the alleged abductor due to the 'timeline' It would have been moments for Gerry to have his proud dad moment to Jane seeing the alleged abductor. Now if we are having a burglar in this child snatching event. They would be surprised to see children! He/she would have a few seconds to decide to steal the child not knowing if she would wake up or not AND why not take smaller twin girl? That is the reason I believe this.  Someone making up the time line didn't quite think this through...AND a smart detective analysing this part of the files would have picked that up as everyone else (apart from supporters) has.

Soz, Mistaken, your thinking is flawed.

When has it definitely been an ordinary burglar involved?   From the people watching before hand (according to at least 3 witnesses) it seems more likely that an abduction was planned.   Geerry had his proud moment and then went to the loo before going out where he met Jez.

IIRC whilst Gerry thought that they chatted for only a few minutes, Jez thought that they chatted for about 15 minutes.  Either way there was ample time to abduct Madeleine. 

I have actually timed how long it took me to enter via a locked door (with a key) walk the disatance Gerry walked to Madeleines room.  Go to the window, slide it open and the shutters up before picking Madeleine up and returning out of the front door, closing it behind me using the key to pull it closed.

I am mobility impaired and it took me 50 seconds.

Then Madeleine had to be passed to Tannerman, over the pathway wall and Tannerman had to walk to the spot where Jane saw him, another 30 seconds max.

So from accomplis/lifter entering the apartment via the front door to Tannerman crossing the road in front of Jane, took a total of no more than 1 min 20 seconds.


Ample time + more to achieve an abduction if planned beforehand.


This is only a theory and is clearly stated as such. So NO need for adding "alleged" or IMO to anything.  Being a theory explains that.

[G-Unit]

Soz, Mistaken, your thinking is flawed.

When has it definitely been an ordinary burglar involved?   From the people watching before hand (according to at least 3 witnesses) it seems more likely that an abduction was planned.   Geerry had his proud moment and then went to the loo before going out where he met Jez.

IIRC whilst Gerry thought that they chatted for only a few minutes, Jez thought that they chatted for about 15 minutes.  Either way there was ample time to abduct Madeleine. 

I have actually timed how long it took me to enter via a locked door (with a key) walk the disatance Gerry walked to Madeleines room.  Go to the window, slide it open and the shutters up before picking Madeleine up and returning out of the front door, closing it behind me using the key to pull it closed.

I am mobility impaired and it took me 50 seconds.

Then Madeleine had to be passed to Tannerman, over the pathway wall and Tannerman had to walk to the spot where Jane saw him, another 30 seconds max.

So from accomplis/lifter entering the apartment via the front door to Tannerman crossing the road in front of Jane, took a total of no more than 1 min 20 seconds.


Ample time + more to achieve an abduction if planned beforehand.


This is only a theory and is clearly stated as such. So NO need for adding "alleged" or IMO to anything.  Being a theory explains that.

Do you have a cite for your assertion about Wilkins saying they chatted for 15 minutes please?

We spoke for a few minutes.

The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.

The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

 bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[Benice]

It's difficult to know what to say about Tannerman.  The alleged sighting has always raised concerns within the investigation.

The Jane/Gerry/Jez incident and the identifying of Murat as Tannerman by the way he walked being two of them.

There is no evidence that anyone has ever identified Murat as Tannerman.    If a positive identification existed it would have been recorded in the prosecutor's Final report as a reason (in fact probably the most important reason) why he was made an Arguido.   It wasn't mentioned -  because it doesn't exist.   

AIMHO