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

[G-Unit]

One aspect of this case that fascinates me is the amount of assuming that takes place. There was no evidence that Tannerman had abducted anyone, but the T9 seemed content to assume he had and then to speculate about how he did it.

Only the Payne's knew the McCanns in any depth, but the rest of the group assumed their parenting was fine based on one shared lunch and a few play sessions after high tea..

After the alarm was raised the group assumed the McCanns were innocent of any wrong-doing based on their wails of despair.

The McCanns assumed their friends were innocent but why? They didn't know them really well.

[kizzy]

The abductor need not have been in the room when Gerry did his check.

I don't believe he was working alone. 

After Matt's check,  the abductor would think he/she had half an hour before the next check,   he goes into the bedroom,  but then gets alerted by accomplice that Gerry was on his way,  the abductor quickly slips back out through the front door.    When Gerry leaves,   he opens the window so that he could make an escape if anyone else suddenly makes an appearance,   takes Madeleine and hands her over to accomplice.

Is that all in your opinion, or do you know this as fact.

[Lace]

What abductor? is it no longer a requirement to add imo,or is it a given that the Justice Forum concludes that an abduction is the only scenario.

Sorry going by the title of the thread I thought the 'someone' meant the abductor,  who is it then?

[Lace]

Is that all in your opinion, or do you know this as fact.

Will add IMO

[Miss Taken Identity]

In the room to open the window but in the apartment (flat) and hiding whilst Gerry was in there.

questions?
1. How did the alleged abductor' invented by the Tapas group' get into the flat? Gerry had to use his key. so did they open and lock the door behind them with a stolen key?
2 what time did they 'take' Maddie
3 How did they and why did they want to open a window from the outside?
4 when did they do this? just after Gerry left and was talking to Jez outside?
5 did Jane notice the shutters were up?
6.how did the shutters stay up?
7 What we do know is the children were never physically checked by anyone apart form that one night! AND we don't know why Gerry changed his 'listening at door check' and did a physical check. AND more importantly Kate claims she was not going to bother looking in on the kids it was the ANGLE OF THE DOOR which prompted her.

Now then do we need to keep saying this?

[jassi]

questions?
1. How did the alleged abductor' invented by the Tapas group' get into the flat? Gerry had to use his key. so did they open and lock the door behind them with a stolen key?
2 what time did they 'take' Maddie
3 How did they and why did they want to open a window from the outside?
4 when did they do this? just after Gerry left and was talking to Jez outside?
5 did Jane notice the shutters were up?
6.how did the shutters stay up?
7 What we do know is the children were never physically checked by anyone apart form that one night! AND we don't know why Gerry changed his 'listening at door check' and did a physical check. AND more importantly Kate claims she was not going to bother looking in on the kids it was the ANGLE OF THE DOOR which prompted her.

Now then do we need to keep saying this?

Even though she KNEW that Matt had been in the apartment only 30 minutes earlier and could have moved the door angle.

[faithlilly]

This is a debating forum - obviously I post my own opinions on different subjects.   Doesn't everyone?   Don't you?   Just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't make them invalid.

You recently posted YOUR own opinion describing a completely different scenario for when Gerry checked his children to the one he gave in his statement - even though there is no evidence in the files to back up your opinion.    No-one criticised you for voicing that opinion.   

If you disagree with the content of my post - then feel free to challenge it.

AIMHO

Your first point accepted.

Your second point. My premise is based on several pointers within the friend's statements but of course in the end I have no definitive proof.

Your third point, it's hard to challenge blind faith.

[Lace]

questions?
1. How did the alleged abductor' invented by the Tapas group' get into the flat? Gerry had to use his key. so did they open and lock the door behind them with a stolen key?
2 what time did they 'take' Maddie
3 How did they and why did they want to open a window from the outside?
4 when did they do this? just after Gerry left and was talking to Jez outside?
5 did Jane notice the shutters were up?
6.how did the shutters stay up?
7 What we do know is the children were never physically checked by anyone apart form that one night! AND we don't know why Gerry changed his 'listening at door check' and did a physical check. AND more importantly Kate claims she was not going to bother looking in on the kids it was the ANGLE OF THE DOOR which prompted her.

Now then do we need to keep saying this?

1.   The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2.   In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3.   The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4.   Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5.   Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters,  plus there were white lace curtains,  which could have
      looked like the white blinds.
6.   The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7.   Gerry needed to use the bathroom,  that is why he went inside the apartment,  then checke on the children.
      It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom,  it was the door slamming shut.

 

[jassi]

1.   The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2.   In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3.   The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4.   Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5.   Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters,  plus there were white lace curtains,  which could have
      looked like the white blinds.
6.   The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7.   Gerry needed to use the bathroom,  that is why he went inside the apartment,  then checke on the children.
      It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom,  it was the door slamming shut.
.

I thought that happened AFTER she had re-adjusted the door closure

[faithlilly]

1.   The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2.   In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3.   The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4.   Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5.   Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters,  plus there were white lace curtains,  which could have
      looked like the white blinds.
6.   The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7.   Gerry needed to use the bathroom,  that is why he went inside the apartment,  then checke on the children.
      It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom,  it was the door slamming shut.

Have you any evidence at all for your premise ?

1) Is there any evidence that a key was actually missing ?
2) What evidence do you base your opinion on ?
3) What evidence do you base your opinion on ?
4) What evidence do you base your opinion on ?
5) Are you privy to Jane's thoughts ?
6) Accepted
7) It was the angle of the door that allegedly made her to conduct more than just a listening check.

It would appear you base your opinion on little more than blind faith.

[pathfinder73]

1.   The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2.   In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3.   The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4.   Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5.   Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters,  plus there were white lace curtains,  which could have
      looked like the white blinds.
6.   The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7.   Gerry needed to use the bathroom,  that is why he went inside the apartment,  then checke on the children.
      It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom,  it was the door slamming shut.

She was there to check on her children not examine doors. So the door is open and she doesn't check on her children first? She said she closes the door and it slams without checking on the children.

[Lace]

I thought that happened AFTER she had re-adjusted the door closure

Yes, that's true, and the door slamming made Kate wonder why it slammed,  she went into the room,  the curtain whooshed and she found Madeleine gone.

[Lace]

She was there to check on her children not examine doors. So the door is open and she doesn't check on her children first? She said she closes the door and it slams without checking on the children.

Kate thought Matt had left it open.

[pathfinder73]

Kate thought Matt had left it open.

You missed my point. KM went there to do a check and did not check on the children before closing the door. Is that normal behaviour to you?

[slartibartfast]

One aspect of this case that fascinates me is the amount of assuming that takes place. There was no evidence that Tannerman had abducted anyone, but the T9 seemed content to assume he had and then to speculate about how he did it.

Only the Payne's knew the McCanns in any depth, but the rest of the group assumed their parenting was fine based on one shared lunch and a few play sessions after high tea..

After the alarm was raised the group assumed the McCanns were innocent of any wrong-doing based on their wails of despair.

The McCanns assumed their friends were innocent but why? They didn't know them really well.

Good points.