Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!

[misty]

Gerry said they checked every 30 minutes regardless of others so any abductor would surely know the McCanns checking routine. They arrived at the tapas at 8:30 so they should be expecting a McCann check at 9.

"Every half-hour the deponent or KATE went, alternately, to the apartment to confirm that all was well with the children." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

The Paynes had left Block 5 via the car park just before 2100hrs. They reportedly crossed paths with MO, who then went into the front car park & listened at the windows of 5A, 5B & 5D.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
*snipped*

The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present - and as he could see their apartment lights burning - he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.
He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the circumstances, 5A having just been checked, would any potential intruder have anticipated another parent arriving, within a few minutes, & entering 5A to check on the children again? That did not fit the pattern of stated checking during the preceding evenings.

[Robittybob1]

The Paynes had left Block 5 via the car park just before 2100hrs. They reportedly crossed paths with MO, who then went into the front car park & listened at the windows of 5A, 5B & 5D.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
*snipped*

The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present - and as he could see their apartment lights burning - he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.

Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.
He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the circumstances, 5A having just been checked, would any potential intruder have anticipated another parent arriving, within a few minutes, & entering 5A to check on the children again? That did not fit the pattern of stated checking during the preceding evenings.

You raise a valid point Misty.  Generally I think of 9:00 PM quite early for crime but in this case it would maximise the time before the kid is discovered missing, therefor e the maximum distance away if an abduction is occurring.

The points against the Tannerman abduction scenario:
1.  Why open the window if it is not going to be used?
2. Why make the escape route one where you would cross the possible paths of other parents checking the kids?
3. How did they know the patio door was unlocked?
4. How could they not be seen in the area when there were so many other people in the area?
5. Why not just leave by the front door and leave it wide open?
6. No tracker dogs on the night tracked toward where Tannerman walked.
7. How did he get out? when Gerry was near the side gate.  Window or door? 

[barrier]

The simplest way in was through the unlocked patio door, but if you were inside at the time Gerry did his check, you would need to hide firstly, and when he left you couldn't leave via the same door as you came in as Gerry and Jez were talking just beyond the gate, either that or just wait till Gerry left, but I think you would be concerned that he may have detected you.  (Door moved out of position was one clue).
I don't think you'd hang around.
Hang on but if this is true you wouldn't walk across the top of the road Gerry and Jez were standing on. 


That scenario has a fatal flaw and therefore I'd say Tannerman was not in the apartment when Gerry was in there.

Or a bigger flaw is that no one is in there any way.
Strange innit with all the coming and going that the patio door is exactly how it was left but the bedroom door has more moves than Fred Astaire.

[Robittybob1]

Or a bigger flaw is that no one in there any way.

The OP was "Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"

Is that a sensible conclusion  - what does the forum think?" 

So you are thinking it is not a sensible conclusion, because their conclusion was wrong.  No, we actually need reasons to rubbish their conclusion.
Basically I want to know why do you think there was no Tannerman in the apartment.
I keep getting the loop:  Why do you think there was no Tannerman in the apartment.- the reason: there was no Tannerman in the apartment and that is why their conclusion is wrong.

[barrier]

The OP was "Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"

Is that a sensible conclusion  - what does the forum think?" 

So you are thinking it is not a sensible conclusion, because their conclusion was wrong.  No, we actually need reasons to rubbish their conclusion.

Or you let SY come up with the conclusion that there was and they say so.

[Eleanor]

Or you let SY come up with the conclusion that there was and they say so.

Some people decided it was a possibility long before Scotland Yard got involved.  And it explains why Jane Tanner saw the child being carried so soon after Gerry left the appartment.

[barrier]

Some people decided it was a possibility long before Scotland Yard got involved.  And it explains why Jane Tanner saw the child being carried so soon after Gerry left the appartment.

With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.

[Eleanor]

With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.

You don't know that.  Still no explanation for why he was coming from the wrong direction, or where he was going.

[Benice]

With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.

But without the benefit of hindsight they wouldn't know that at the time - and so would naturally consider whether an intruder may have been in 5a while Gerry was there was an option.
IMO

[barrier]

But without the benefit of hindsight they wouldn't know that at the time - and so would naturally consider whether an intruder may have been in 5a while Gerry was there was an option.
IMO

Yes but with the benefit of the hindsight some wish to continue with a possible myth,when Redwood clearly says that the Tanner sighting is almost certainly not having any thing to do with it,ergo he wasn't the one who would have been in 5a,if there was indeed any one there.

[Carana]

I find their initial "conclusion" that someone could have been in there during Gerry's check a reasonable question at the time as they felt that there was a strong possibility that Tannerman was indeed carrying Madeleine moments after that check. How could he/she have got in, taken M, and be walking across the street with her in such a short space of time otherwise?

If Tannerman was indeed innocent Crècheman, which they couldn't have known at the time, then there's no particular reason to believe that anyone was in there at the time, unless, of course, Tannerman wasn't the same person as Crèchman after all.

However, as someone else pointed out (PF possibly), if Tannerman had indeed been carrying M, wouldn't Matt have noticed a fluttering window on his check? As it is, he didn't notice anything obviously abnormal, but neither did he see Madeleine.

[barrier]

I find their initial "conclusion" that someone could have been in there during Gerry's check a reasonable question at the time as they felt that there was a strong possibility that Tannerman was indeed carrying Madeleine moments after that check. How could he/she have got in, taken M, and be walking across the street with her in such a short space of time otherwise?

If Tannerman was indeed innocent Crècheman, which they couldn't have known at the time, then there's no particular reason to believe that anyone was in there at the time, unless, of course, Tannerman wasn't the same person as Crèchman after all.

However, as someone else pointed out (PF possibly), if Tannerman had indeed been carrying M, wouldn't Matt have noticed a fluttering window on his check? As it is, he didn't notice anything obviously abnormal, but neither did he see Madeleine.

Not because she wasn't there,because he never looked for Madeleine,world of difference.

[barrier]

With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.

You don't know that.  Still no explanation for why he was coming from the wrong direction, or where he was going.

SY have no reason to explain where the innocent person was going or what he was doing.

[Benice]

Not because she wasn't there,because he never looked for Madeleine,world of difference.

If he didn't look then surely there is always the possibility that unknown to him  - she may not have been there. 

IMO

[Carana]

Not because she wasn't there,because he never looked for Madeleine,world of difference.

No, I know. Poor guy, I expect he's been beating himself up at not having checked that all three were present, but there was seemingly nothing abnormal (all was quiet) and he'd just popped in to see if there was any noise. No reason to think that a child could have disappeared by the time of his check.

As it stands, no one knows whether she was still asleep in her bed at that point or not.