UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on April 14, 2013, 07:55:58 PM
-
It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
-
I have measured and checked all sorts of things, but my time there was limited.
And because of the dense overhang of the trees I missed that balcony altogether. Thanks to Stopthemyths forum, ..... forum and the original contributor, whose name I do not know, it has changed my perception altogether.
Then the latest map by Jez, posted by John, whilst not actually proving anything, has very much verified my thoughts. It has also more or less excluded the other viewing places in my mind.
Actually, I was more interested in the Porto/ VNGaia area than PdL, tbh ... and the route up
-
Almost without doubt, the front door was used both for entry and exit.
That dark, deeply recessed, hidden place was Gods gift to a burglar or an abductor.
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
-
Almost without doubt, the front door was used both for entry and exit.
That dark, deeply recessed, hidden place was Gods gift to a burglar or an abductor.
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
So a highly skilled abductor, or team, casually hung about the OC in broad daylight staring up at the McCanns apartment for any passerby to see. Do you really think that's plausible ?
-
Someone believes too many pink-tinged media stories I think! How many official statements refer to "watchers" that haven't been investigated and ruled out by the PJ?
-
Someone believes too many pink-tinged media stories I think! How many official statements refer to "watchers" that haven't been investigated and ruled out by the PJ?
If only the McCanns were as good at parenting as they seem to be at propaganda eh !
-
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.
-
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.
Anna you haven't been reading .. or more likely you dont like the possible truth.
No man would walk around carrying a stolen child.
The getaway vehicle could not get there because of Gerry and Jez ... and even worse because Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction
The getaway driver took fright and bu^^^red off in the other direction, leaving poor old bundleman (the sod) in the lurch.
It is quite obvious that you and your cronies are trying to move the position of where Jez thought that the chat took place ... and the reason for that? ... to purposely undermine my theory and support Amaral ?
Why are you so determined to rubbish a quite likely scenario?
What is your agenda?
Now how long are you going to keep this going round and round in a circular argument? That is called wumming
-
Sadie, no-one can say that your hypothesis is wrong as none of us were there, but you post as though your theory about how things happened is completely proven/accepted and that's just not the case. You are as welcome as any of us to put forward theories, but none of us is able to state with certainty what happened. Your posts come across as though your theory is not just possible, but probable.
-
Almost without doubt, the front door was used both for entry and exit.
That dark, deeply recessed, hidden place was Gods gift to a burglar or an abductor.
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
So a highly skilled abductor, or team, casually hung about the OC in broad daylight staring up at the McCanns apartment for any passerby to see. Do you really think that's plausible ?
I cannot berlieve that you are displaying such ignorance of the several witnesses that came forward who had noticed people watching the Mccann apartment
Are you ignorant of the facts? .. in which case you shouldn't be argueing
Or are you putting out deliberate disinfomation?
And why?
-
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.
Anna you haven't been reading .. or more likely you dont like the possible truth.
No man would walk around carrying a stolen child.
The getaway vehicle could not get there because of Gerry and Jez ... and even worse because Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction
The getaway driver took fright and bu^^^red off in the other direction, leaving poor old bundleman (the sod) in the lurch.
It is quite obvious that you and your cronies are trying to move the position of where Jez thought that the chat took place ... and the reason for that? ... to purposely undermine my theory and support Amaral
Why are you so determined to rubbish a quite likely scenario?
What is your agenda?
Now how long are you going to keep this going round and round in a circular argument? That is called wumming
Hello Sadie,
Surely had the abduction been so well planned then the getaway driver would have parked the vehicle in the car park at the front door that bundleman entered and exited in the hypothesis you suggest !
-
No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips
-
No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips
Would that not have been covered in such a well planned abduction ? For example and simplification purposes, getaway driver watches bundleman enter through the front door as you suggest, waits for approx. 3 minutes to allow bundleman enter the bedroom, pick up the child and leave the apartment via the front door again to be met with the vehicle in position in the car park ?
-
Sadie - are you aware of ANY "sightings" of watchers that have not been officially investigated and ruled out by the PJ? Any at all?
-
No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips
Would that not have been covered in such a well planned abduction ? For example and simplification purposes, getaway driver watches bundleman enter through the front door as you suggest, waits for approx. 3 minutes to allow bundleman enter the bedroom, pick up the child and leave the apartment via the front door again to be met with the vehicle in position in the car park ?
Agreed, at the entrance to the car park, ... but he couldn't get there could he? Gerry and Jez in the way ... and Jeez he suddenly saw Bundleman appear with Madeleine
Jane Tanner witnessing it ... was too much ... and he immediately turned tail and scarpered in the vehicle
I like the fact that his headlights would have temporarily illuminated the scener, showing JT the colours of the pyjamas
It all fits like a jigsaw.
-
Sadie - are you aware of ANY "sightings" of watchers that have not been officially investigated and ruled out by the PJ? Any at all?
How could the PJ rule out somebody that several witnesses have seen, if they dont even know the man?
Com on C.Edwards, get that thinking cap on. 8(>((
-
No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips
Would that not have been covered in such a well planned abduction ? For example and simplification purposes, getaway driver watches bundleman enter through the front door as you suggest, waits for approx. 3 minutes to allow bundleman enter the bedroom, pick up the child and leave the apartment via the front door again to be met with the vehicle in position in the car park ?
Agreed, at the entrance to the car park, ... but he couldn't get there could he? Gerry and Jez in the way ... and Jeez he suddenly saw Bundleman appear with Madeleine
Jane Tanner witnessing it ... was too much ... and he immediately turned tail and scarpered in the vehicle
I like the fact that his headlights would have temporarily illuminated the scener, showing JT the colours of the pyjamas
It all fits like a jigsaw.
The entrance to the car park is not on the same street where Gerry & Jez were chatting so why would it bear any relevance to a getaway driver.
In addition what direction did the supposed getaway vehicle travel from and what direction did it exit to in your theory ?
-
Almost without doubt, the front door was used both for entry and exit.
That dark, deeply recessed, hidden place was Gods gift to a burglar or an abductor.
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
So a highly skilled abductor, or team, casually hung about the OC in broad daylight staring up at the McCanns apartment for any passerby to see. Do you really think that's plausible ?
There are enough witnesses on record to have little doubt that the apartment WAS being watched.
Including a very observant and intelligent young girl who used to live in that apartment. She was very intrigued to see a man up by the back (alleyway ) wall staring at it.
-
No, unlikely ... because that might have been noticed by the tapas 7 on their frequent trips
Would that not have been covered in such a well planned abduction ? For example and simplification purposes, getaway driver watches bundleman enter through the front door as you suggest, waits for approx. 3 minutes to allow bundleman enter the bedroom, pick up the child and leave the apartment via the front door again to be met with the vehicle in position in the car park ?
Agreed, at the entrance to the car park, ... but he couldn't get there could he? Gerry and Jez in the way ... and Jeez he suddenly saw Bundleman appear with Madeleine
Jane Tanner witnessing it ... was too much ... and he immediately turned tail and scarpered in the vehicle
I like the fact that his headlights would have temporarily illuminated the scener, showing JT the colours of the pyjamas
It all fits like a jigsaw.
The entrance to the car park is not on the same street where Gerry & Jez were chatting so why would it bear any relevance to a getaway driver.
In addition what direction did the supposed getaway vehicle travel from and what direction did it exit to in your theory ?
Agreed once again; it was just around the corner.
But the car had to go up past Gerery and jez and Jane to reach there ... or take a massive detour.(nearly half a kilometre) and having seen Jane witness bundleman with ?Madeleine, he wasn't going to risk that. Was he?
-
No man would walk around carrying a stolen child.
I only agree with this, just adding (no man) "not out of his mind".
What is this story about my supporting Amaral ? Are you serious ?
-
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.
Anna you haven't been reading .. or more likely you dont like the possible truth.
No man would walk around carrying a stolen child.
The getaway vehicle could not get there because of Gerry and Jez ... and even worse because Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction
The getaway driver took fright and bu^^^red off in the other direction, leaving poor old bundleman (the sod) in the lurch.
It is quite obvious that you and your cronies are trying to move the position of where Jez thought that the chat took place ... and the reason for that? ... to purposely undermine my theory and support Amaral ?
Why are you so determined to rubbish a quite likely scenario?
What is your agenda?
Now how long are you going to keep this going round and round in a circular argument? That is called wumming
Anne What is this story about my supporting Amaral ? Are you serious ?
I am sorry, I missed a question mark out, now in place... but the truth is that Amaral has stated that there was NO abduction, and has strongly intimated that the Mccanns have killed Madeleine in that apartment. He has attempted to verify this by stating that there is no way that an abduction could have happened And you guys seem to be pushing to prove that it couldn't have happened
... so you seem to be supporting Amaral; that seems your main purpose.
Are you?
-
Sadie, no-one can say that your hypothesis is wrong as none of us were there, but you post as though your theory about how things happened is completely proven/accepted and that's just not the case. You are as welcome as any of us to put forward theories, but none of us is able to state with certainty what happened. Your posts come across as though your theory is not just possible, but probable.
As do others on your side of the argument (Peter Claridge for eg) but I don't see you complaining.
Sorry, must have missed your post complaining about Sadie's post(s) then. Can you just point them out in the spirit of fairness otherwise you'd look like a gigantic hypocrite right now... ;-)
-
Sadie's take on the mystery man is most interesting. The very first observation about this man is without doubt the fact that nobody ever came forward to explain that it was they whom Tanner and the Smiths saw that evening. That for me speaks volumes.
Is it just coincidence that both sightings described the man as not looking like a typical tourist??
I believe Sadie might just be onto something when she suggests that the abduction of Maddie nearly went horribly wrong when three of the Ocean Club residents just happened to be outside the apartment at 9.15 with at least one of them (Jane Tanner) nearly bumping into him. Such a near thing??
-
Sadie's take on the mystery man is most interesting. The very first observation about this man is without doubt the fact that nobody ever came forward to explain that it was they whom Tanner and the Smiths saw that evening. That for me speaks volumes.
Is it just coincidence that both sightings described the man as not looking like a typical tourist??
I believe Sadie might just be onto something when she suggests that the abduction of Maddie nearly went horribly wrong when three of the Ocean Club residents just happened to be outside the apartment at 9.15 with at least one of them (Jane Tanner) nearly bumping into him. Such a near thing??
Whereas it's obvious the Smiths saw someone (big group of them all saw the man) it's highly debatable - or at least unproven - if Tanner did. It's totally unproven that it was the same person even if Tanner did see someone.
That someone hasn't come forward to identify themselves as being the people/person sighted could be for any one/combination of the following:
1. It was an abductor, therefore doesn't wish to be identified
2. The person Tanner saw was a figment of her imagination
3. The person does not realise they were the person seen
4. The person does not want to be involved for whatever reason
It hardly "speaks volumes" to me as there are too many variables.
-
Whether one agrees with his theory or not, some of the most interesting photos of PDL that I've seen are Heri's.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/HERI.htm
-
With all the sightings of watchers prior to the abduction, this was a deeply planned abduction
"deeply planned" though unmotorised ?
I was in PDL. The main finding was that there are two ways to turn around the G5 on the north side (one through the park and one along the building) and I wish I knew which was followed by the GNR sniffer dogs.
Anna you haven't been reading .. or more likely you dont like the possible truth.
No man would walk around carrying a stolen child.
The getaway vehicle could not get there because of Gerry and Jez ... and even worse because Jane Tanner witnessed the abduction
The getaway driver took fright and bu^^^red off in the other direction, leaving poor old bundleman (the sod) in the lurch.
It is quite obvious that you and your cronies are trying to move the position of where Jez thought that the chat took place ... and the reason for that? ... to purposely undermine my theory and support Amaral ?
Why are you so determined to rubbish a quite likely scenario?
What is your agenda?
Now how long are you going to keep this going round and round in a circular argument? That is called wumming
Anne What is this story about my supporting Amaral ? Are you serious ?
I am sorry, I missed a question mark out, now in place... but the truth is that Amaral has stated that there was NO abduction, and has strongly intimated that the Mccanns have killed Madeleine in that apartment. He has attempted to verify this by stating that there is no way that an abduction could have happened And you guys seem to be pushing to prove that it couldn't have happened
... so you seem to be supporting Amaral; that seems your main purpose.
Are you?
I'm not, I don't know him !
I'm not supporting the McCanns as well, I don't know them !
-
I think it is very significant that no one ever came forward to eliminate themselves from being the man seen by either the Smiths or JT. No one innocently walking the streets of PdL on night of 3rd May carrying a child could fail to appreciate the significance of their actions and I would struggle to think of a legitimate reason why such a person would prefer not to tell the police about it.
It is indisputable that this could be explained by:
a) Tanner saw no-one and was simply mistaken or lied for whatever reason and
b) The Smiths saw Gerry
Alternatively the Smith and Tanner sightings would pretty much have to be the same person (unlikely in my opinion due to the time difference, but that is only my opinion) as the chances of two people being seen and not contacting the authorities would be miniscule, so that person would have to be the alleged abductor.
There is no more evidence for one argument than there is the other. It's down to personal choice as to which you find more plausible. Due to the discrepancies in Gerry's, Jez's and JT's statements, I find it more plausible that Tanner saw no-one and the Smiths saw Gerry. Others will have alternative opinions, I don't have any problem with that.
-
I think it is very significant that no one ever came forward to eliminate themselves from being the man seen by either the Smiths or JT. No one innocently walking the streets of PdL on night of 3rd May carrying a child could fail to appreciate the significance of their actions and I would struggle to think of a legitimate reason why such a person would prefer not to tell the police about it.
Well, GA's theory seems to be that JT was lying (for a reason which I've still not understood) and that the entire Irish family were convinced that it was Gerry (which seems to have grown arms and legs from being an honest doubt on the part of MS and his wife upon seeing Gerry, newly arguidofied, descending the plane steps, to a certainty by the entire family).
But why wouldn't an innocent person step forward?
All kinds of possibilities.
The person:
- may have left the next day or soon after and didn't realise that there was any mistaken identity issue. JT's bundleman didn't appear in the press for some time. And the papers were then full of RM - he could have thought that the PJ had got the right person.
- wasn't sure of the reported time, height, road... whatever.
- was there illegally and didn't want the hassle.
- could (at least in JT's sighting) have been a butch-looking woman, assumed to be a man. Fairly unlikely, I would have thought, but not impossible.
-
I'd love to know why you find it plausible that Gerry McCann would interrupt his dinner to walk through the streets of PdL with an uncovered corpse in his arms, at a time when people would still be out and about and when it would be obvious that he would be under exteme media scrutiny the next day, and also within minutes of his wife raising the alarm - but I guess we'll never know why you think the way you do.
For all the criticism you lay at my door about abusing people on here, you are completely unable to make posts or comments ...........moderated...................
I've seen the same tired arguments and excuses rolled out for years and whereas some of them have merit (no, I'm not going to make your lives easier by telling you which), many others don't and require huge leaps of (il)logic in order to excuse words or deeds of the McCanns and/or their friends.
If you tried asking 100 random people on the street why anyone would delete text messages or call records from their phone, I would bet a lot of money that in excess of 90% would say, "they've got something to hide".
If I ask a group of McCann supporters the same question, they'd almost all say words to the effect of, "oh the phone memory would have been full. My phone's like that: always filling up. Calls don't come through if I don't clean it out, obviously that person was expecting an important call so had to free up phone memory."
The point is that this is the standard ........moderated......... Anyone with independent thought looks at responses like that and many more as simple demonstration of a lack of critical thought.
-
Lost the quote marks, sorry.
C Edwards:
If you tried asking 100 random people on the street why anyone would delete text messages or call records from their phone, I would bet a lot of money that in excess of 90% would say, "they've got something to hide".
If I ask a group of McCann supporters the same question, they'd almost all say words to the effect of, "oh the phone memory would have been full. My phone's like that: always filling up. Calls don't come through if I don't clean it out, obviously that person was expecting an important call so had to free up phone memory."
Who are you referring to? The McCanns? If so, any idea which model of phone and subscription they had?
-
Lets not get wrapped up in accusations. I hardly ever keep texts on my phone, I routinely delete them as soon as I have read them. If there is anything of consequence I transfer it to another media so I don't see how someone deleting texts on their phone can in any way be construed as suspicious.
-
To recap on the content of this thread, it has been suggested that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as a getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
-
For all the criticism you lay at my door about abusing people on here, you are completely unable to make posts or comments ...........moderated...................
I've seen the same tired arguments and excuses rolled out for years and whereas some of them have merit (no, I'm not going to make your lives easier by telling you which), many others don't and require huge leaps of (il)logic in order to excuse words or deeds of the McCanns and/or their friends.
If you tried asking 100 random people on the street why anyone would delete text messages or call records from their phone, I would bet a lot of money that in excess of 90% would say, "they've got something to hide".
If I ask a group of McCann supporters the same question, they'd almost all say words to the effect of, "oh the phone memory would have been full. My phone's like that: always filling up. Calls don't come through if I don't clean it out, obviously that person was expecting an important call so had to free up phone memory."
The point is that this is the standard ........moderated......... Anyone with independent thought looks at responses like that and many more as simple demonstration of a lack of critical thought.
Oh dear! 8-)(--)
-
I'd love to know why you find it plausible that Gerry McCann would interrupt his dinner to walk through the streets of PdL with an uncovered corpse in his arms, at a time when people would still be out and about and when it would be obvious that he would be under exteme media scrutiny the next day, and also within minutes of his wife raising the alarm - but I guess we'll never know why you think the way you do.
I agree with you : it's not plausible GMC (or any one) would interrupt his dinner to walk a corpse, covered or uncovered. But the reason isn't people were still out. PDL, in May, is visited mainly by families with yet unschooled kids, most have dinner at home or don't get back home late. The carrier was actually unlucky to meet a family in a dark street. The reason isn't also the media scrutiny : around 10, nobody would have anticipated a huge invasion of media alerted in the UK. It's not plausible because GMC had finished dinner ! All had, except Russell whom the alert made leave half of his beefsteak.
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).
Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.
And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.
It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).
Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.
And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.
It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.
I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't participate
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).
Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.
And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.
It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.
I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't participate
Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.
I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.
"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"
-
It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
An abductor (and accomplice) on foot?!! are you kidding? Who would be the mad man that would be promenading around the village with an abducted child on his extended (according to J. Tanner) arms?
It was May, most houses around the Ocean Club were inhabited, and in Portugal we keep the windows open.
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).
Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.
And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.
It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.
I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't participate
Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.
I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.
"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"
Well you will have to bracket the McCanns themselves into the 'blind' category
In her book, Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow ( other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it ) was that it had been opened as a possible escape route or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent
No mention at all from Kate of a possible accomplice
-
For all the criticism you lay at my door about abusing people on here, you are completely unable to make posts or comments without a side order of snide comment, aren't you?
I don't give a stuff that you and your fellow McCann supporters don't understand why intelligent people (yeah, there you go, open goal for a cheap shot) doubt the McCanns. To my way of thinking, you supporters all act like a brainwashed cult with an instruction manual of excuses to trot out when encountering an unbeliever. I've seen the same tired arguments and excuses rolled out for years and whereas some of them have merit (no, I'm not going to make your lives easier by telling you which), many others don't and require huge leaps of (il)logic in order to excuse words or deeds of the McCanns and/or their friends.
If you tried asking 100 random people on the street why anyone would delete text messages or call records from their phone, I would bet a lot of money that in excess of 90% would say, "they've got something to hide".
If I ask a group of McCann supporters the same question, they'd almost all say words to the effect of, "oh the phone memory would have been full. My phone's like that: always filling up. Calls don't come through if I don't clean it out, obviously that person was expecting an important call so had to free up phone memory."
The point is that this is the standard crap excuse that you lot think passes for a logical answer as you all use a hive mind to make up your excuses and mould them to fit your version of reality. Anyone with independent thought looks at responses like that and many more as simple demonstration of a lack of critical thought.
C.Edwards, how do you explain there having pros and [ censored word] after so many years ? Pros exist because [ censored word] do, and reciprocally. Such exhausting manichaeism could be an end in itself and those who are neither pros nor [ censored word] simply feeding passions !
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).
Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.
And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.
It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.
I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't participate
Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.
I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.
"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"
Well you will have to bracket the McCanns themselves into the 'blind' category
In her book, Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow ( other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it ) was that it had been opened as a possible escape route or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent
No mention at all from Kate of a possible accomplice
Seriously are you suggesting what you have posted? That "Kate McCann offers "the only other explanation" that it had been used opened as a possible escape route or as a red herring?
I would love you to offer a quote for that but am pretty certain you never will because this is what Kate actually wrote,
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children’s bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he’d either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn’t been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits."
Nowhere does she claim those are the only possibilities as you have stated.
Just because others are not mentioned does not mean that she is blind to them as possibilities. She may not have considered an accomplice, may simply have not remembered to add that detail or may even have added it originally but on request from an editor to reduce content have removed it. You simply do not know and are making a definitive claim while having no evidence to support it. I am open to all possibilities even if they may not be the most obvious.
You, on the other hand, have simply dismissed the possibility of an accomplice who panicked with no logical reason given to dismiss it. That is evidence of blindness on your part.
-
When considering the abductor theory the only reason for the assumption that an accomplice was involved is as a way of explaining the open window
We know, following forensic evidence, that no-one either climbed through, or out of that window ... so why was it open ?
The most logical explanation is that the abductor ( who had entered the apartment either through the unlocked patio doors or front door via a duplicate key ) opened the window shutters, scooped up the sleeping child, and passed her through the open window to the accomplice who waiting outside
Other than to accommodate that theory, I see no reason at all to assume there was an accomplice involved
Of course, this theory ( the passing of the child through the window ) opens the debate to further questions
If the child was passed through the window to an accomplice, why didn't the abductor simply climb through the window himself directly after ... thereby leaving with his accomplice to a vehicle parked in readiness ?
The use of a vehicle becomes almost a certainty if two abductors were involved ( one to restrain/hold the child whilst the other drives quickly away )
If Jane Tanner was mistaken, that it still a possibility ( apart from the abductor climbing out through the window )
If she is correct, however, and witnessed the abductor, alone and on foot, then the 'accomplice' theory makes little sense ( and the open window remains a mystery )
Or perhaps there was supposed to be a second person who for whatever reason did not turn up to assist or who left early (perhaps panicked).
Then the first abductor was either looking out of the window to see where his accomplice was or in preparation for his arrival.
And when he didn't turn up, however the first abductor left the apartment, he was forced to leave alone.
It is all speculation after all and nothing in my speculation that I can see is counter to what is known in the files.
I see no logic at all in assuming there was an accomplice who didn't participate
Well you wouldn't would you? Only what suits your fixed agenda would be logical to you.
I just posted this on another thread to another poster. It's equally valid as a reply to this post from you as well.
"There's none so blind as them who will not see!"
Well you will have to bracket the McCanns themselves into the 'blind' category
In her book, Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow ( other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it ) was that it had been opened as a possible escape route or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent
No mention at all from Kate of a possible accomplice
Seriously are you suggesting what you have posted? That "Kate McCann offers "the only other explanation" that it had been used opened as a possible escape route or as a red herring?
I would love you to offer a quote for that but am pretty certain you never will because this is what Kate actually wrote,
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children’s bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he’d either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn’t been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits."
Nowhere does she claim those are the only possibilities as you have stated.
Just because others are not mentioned does not mean that she is blind to them as possibilities. She may not have considered an accomplice, may simply have not remembered to add that detail or may even have added it originally but on request from an editor to reduce content have removed it. You simply do not know and are making a definitive claim while having no evidence to support it. I am open to all possibilities even if they may not be the most obvious.
You, on the other hand, have simply dismissed the possibility of an accomplice who panicked with no logical reason given to dismiss it. That is evidence of blindness on your part.
I posted what Kate McCann offered as possble explanations for the open window ... I quoted the only explanations she offered
She made no mention of a possible accomplice. That is not say she does not think it is a possibility, I suppose, but not one worth mentioning it seems
I agree with her apparent dismissal of the 'accomplice' theory ... and I certainly see no merit in the 'accomplice who wasn't even there' theory
-
Anne, you are right, there is no argument unless at least two are willing to discuss.
Sometimes I felt that this has been premeditated - because in fact, whoever is counselling those two know that as long as there is arguments within the populace, they are "off the hook", so to speak.
I look at myself and I don't understand what keeps me coming to these places. In my mind that little child is dead, and I am just disgusted that the truth is not revealed as I am disgusted that other lives had been distraught by this. I can't accept that a little child has disappeared and there are still people that are using it to make a living.
Gilet & al. insult the portuguese and especially Mr. Amaral not recognizing that he gave up his career in order to tell what the parents would not tell. He was not dismissed, he requested his dismissal, in order to write the book. He was, at the time the best PJ detective in the country. Just weeks before his self dismissal he made the biggest apprehension of drugs in Europe. Half an year after the book he attended a charity event in the north of Portugal promoted by the royalty of Europe, whose minimum was €500, to gather funds for children in Africa (I suspect that's where his book's royalties went to). He was involved in a crime that never happened, by a murderess liar, as was proved this month in a Court of Faro - the Court considered all detectives innocent since there was no crime.
Going around saying that he is guilty is a lie. How could he be guilty of signing the records of the day that didn't contain an account of a torture if it never happened?!
What did the MacCann do for their daughter?
-
It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
An abductor (and accomplice) on foot?!! are you kidding? Who would be the mad man that would be promenading around the village with an abducted child on his extended (according to J. Tanner) arms?
It was May, most houses around the Ocean Club were inhabited, and in Portugal we keep the windows open.
Funny isn't it? You think an abductor would be mad for promenading around the village with an abducted child but have no problem whatsoever imagining Gerry McCann walking around town at the same time with an uncovered corpse!
You said that, not me. How do you know it was Mr. McCann?! 8(>((
Tell us MARTHA, how do you know it was Mr. McCann? I understand it might be difficult, but...
-
What's illuminating about the window debate is the fact that it altered where Kate & Gerry were seated at the Tapas bar. When they claimed that the abductor had entered via the window they stated that they had a clear view of the rear door of the apartment, upon the realisation that this just wasn't possible they had to revert to the unlocked patio doors (oh dear) their version of where they were seated changed to looking the other way!
-
What's illuminating about the window debate is the fact that it altered where Kate & Gerry were seated at the Tapas bar. When they claimed that the abductor had entered via the window they stated that they had a clear view of the rear door of the apartment, upon the realisation that this just wasn't possible they had to revert to the unlocked patio doors (oh dear) their version of where they were seated changed to looking the other way!
I would say that what's clarifying about the obscurity of this case is the amount of lies and deceive from the parents and associates since the very first hour.
-
What's illuminating about the window debate is the fact that it altered where Kate & Gerry were seated at the Tapas bar. When they claimed that the abductor had entered via the window they stated that they had a clear view of the rear door of the apartment, upon the realisation that this just wasn't possible they had to revert to the unlocked patio doors (oh dear) their version of where they were seated changed to looking the other way!
I would say that what's clarifying about the obscurity of this case is the amount of lies and deceive from the parents and associates since the very first hour.
you mean painting over the facts?
-
Yes. In fact it seems there was a lot of attempted photoshop that somehow went wrong
-
I am waiting Martha, how did you know that it was, or could be Mr. McCann seen by the Smith's almost an hour later with a child in his arms?!!!!
excellent point - it couldn't have been Gerry then - does the forum agree?
-
I posted what Kate McCann offered as possble explanations for the open window ... I quoted the only explanations she offered
She made no mention of a possible accomplice. That is not say she does not think it is a possibility, I suppose, but not one worth mentioning it seems
I agree with her apparent dismissal of the 'accomplice' theory ... and I certainly see no merit in the 'accomplice who wasn't even there' theory
Please do not try to twist what you actually said.
You clearly said that
"In her book, Kate McCann offers as the only other explanation for the open widow ( other than someone having entered or exited the apartment through it ) was that it had been opened as a possible escape route or else opened as a red herring to throw the investigtors off the scent "
I am glad that you now accept she may thiink it a possibility.
The truth is that neither you nor I know the totality of what she believes on the issue (though you claimed to know in that post I quote).
And your conclusion that she has dismissed the accomplice is simply speculation on your part. Again you haven't really got a clue.
The fact that you simply see no merit in such a theory (while not being able to disprove it in any way) shows a distinct lack of logical methodology on your part. A good job that you are not a police officer isn't it because real investigators unlike amateur online plods have to have open minds and cannot be blind to any possibility till it is disproven.
-
It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
The premise here is that there was at least one abductor, since there is no evidence for that, its hard to go on and wonder about a second one, JMO
-
I posted what Kate McCann offered as possble explanations for the open window ... I quoted the only explanations she offered
She made no mention of a possible accomplice. That is not say she does not think it is a possibility, I suppose, but not one worth mentioning it seems
I agree with her apparent dismissal of the 'accomplice' theory ... and I certainly see no merit in the 'accomplice who wasn't even there' theory
Icabod
Why does it trouble you so much that there mighht have been an accomplis?
What possible reason do you have to so vigorously try and dismiss that possibility?
I have been open minded, thinking originally that Gerry and Jez were talking on the eastern pavement [and even having been accused of having an ulterior motive] but I was very happy to move to the western pavement when John posted Jezes diagram. It fitted my scenario better.
Just open your mind a little Isabod ... you might find yourself listening to points better. Only a suggestion 8((()*/
-
Icabod
Why does it trouble you so much that there mighht have been an accomplis?
What possible reason do you have to so vigorously try and dismiss that possibility?
I have been open minded, thinking originally that Gerry and Jez were talking on the eastern pavement [and even having been accused of having an ulterior motive] but I was very happy to move to the western pavement when John posted Jezes diagram. It fitted my scenario better.
Just open your mind a little Isabod ... you might find yourself listening to points better. Only a suggestion 8((()*/
I dismiss the accomplice theory because, apart from explaining the open window ( child passed through it ) I see no reason to theorise that there was an accomplice at all
Why would I ? ... to what end ? ... what does it add ? ... what does is explain, that would otherwise be inexplicable ?
-
An accomplice, interesting, that could leave bundleman wandering the streets with a child for the best part of an hour if the Mccanns and other are to be believed, some accomplice
-
An accomplice, interesting, that could leave bundleman wandering the streets with a child for the best part of an hour if the Mccanns and other are to be believed, some accomplice
No sensible police officer completely rules out any scenario unless there is good reason to do so. Unfortunately we know what happened in Portimao.
-
It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
John, I have not contributed to this thread yet posts I have made on other threads (which have since been edited / altered) appear here as though I have wilfully contributed to this debate ! How is this possible ?
Please delete the posts qttributed to me on this thread, thank you.
-
Icabod
Why does it trouble you so much that there mighht have been an accomplis?
What possible reason do you have to so vigorously try and dismiss that possibility?
I have been open minded, thinking originally that Gerry and Jez were talking on the eastern pavement [and even having been accused of having an ulterior motive] but I was very happy to move to the western pavement when John posted Jezes diagram. It fitted my scenario better.
Just open your mind a little Isabod ... you might find yourself listening to points better. Only a suggestion 8((()*/
I dismiss the accomplice theory because, apart from explaining the open window ( child passed through it ) I see no reason to theorise that there was an accomplice at all
Why would I ? ... to what end ? ... what does it add ? ... what does is explain, that would otherwise be inexplicable ?
So you still have a closed mind?
Still will not allow that there might have been an accomplis ?
What is your reason for such a bigoted approach? Hope you dont mind my asking. 8**8:/:
-
In the Official Police Files, it is stated the first Tracker Dog, picked up a scent from the apartment, followed it to the car park, where the dog lost interest/scent. Now to me that would indicate a car and at least one other person involved.
-
In the Official Police Files, it is stated the first Tracker Dog, picked up a scent from the apartment, followed it to the car park, where the dog lost interest/scent. Now to me that would indicate a car and at least one other person involved.
Good point MF
-
It has been suggested in some of the threads that the abductor of Madeleine McCann had help in the form of an accomplice who may have initially acted as lookout and thereafter as getaway driver for this individual.
I know that several members have visited Praia da Luz and spent a considerable amount of time exploring the area around the Ocean Club and the town in general.
What are you views on this?
John, I have not contributed to this thread yet posts I have made on other threads (which have since been edited / altered) appear here as though I have wilfully contributed to this debate ! How is this possible ?
This thread was created as a consequence of another thread being split into two as different subjects were being discussed. The posts you refer to are your posts but if you wish to remove them you can do so at any time.
-
Anne, you are right, there is no argument unless at least two are willing to discuss.
Sometimes I felt that this has been premeditated - because in fact, whoever is counselling those two know that as long as there is arguments within the populace, they are "off the hook", so to speak.
I look at myself and I don't understand what keeps me coming to these places. In my mind that little child is dead, and I am just disgusted that the truth is not revealed as I am disgusted that other lives had been distraught by this. I can't accept that a little child has disappeared and there are still people that are using it to make a living.
Gilet & al. insult the portuguese and especially Mr. Amaral not recognizing that he gave up his career in order to tell what the parents would not tell. He was not dismissed, he requested his dismissal, in order to write the book. He was, at the time the best PJ detective in the country. Just weeks before his self dismissal he made the biggest apprehension of drugs in Europe. Half an year after the book he attended a charity event in the north of Portugal promoted by the royalty of Europe, whose minimum was €500, to gather funds for children in Africa (I suspect that's where his book's royalties went to). He was involved in a crime that never happened, by a murderess liar, as was proved this month in a Court of Faro - the Court considered all detectives innocent since there was no crime.
Going around saying that he is guilty is a lie. How could he be guilty of signing the records of the day that didn't contain an account of a torture if it never happened?!
What did the MacCann do for their daughter?
An interesting take on why Amaral gave up his career Luz. Yes, he resigned but it was that or be pushed as we say in the UK.
Please explain what you mean by insult the Portuguese? Are you prepared to defend the Portuguese police in their barbaric methods or the corruption within the Portuguese Justice System? The back-handers, the bribes to judges and the political interference in judicial decisions?
You are incorrect about there not being a crime. The Portuguese courts which you hold in such high regard convicted Amaral of this crime but failed to convict the other police officers on the basis that they could not be identified by their victim. Amaral is therefore technically and legally guilty.
The McCann's didn't ask some low-life to abduct their daughter.
-
If the sighting by Tanner is to be accepted the mystery man was heading east which was away from the town centre and the Smiths. To have then been seen by them some 45mins later would have required him to backtrack and risk detection. A bit of a mystery indeed? 8-)(--)
On the night that Maddie was abducted the PJ took 30 minutes to arrive at the Club after being alerted and then only arrived at 11pm which was a full hour after Kate found her missing. This delay appears to have been because they were dealing with another incident. Then add the time it took to gather information and put out a bulletin to all patrols and alert the Spanish authorities. Lets make a guesstimate at it at about 90 minutes.
How far can someone get in a car in that time? 70 miles? 80 miles? 90 miles?
The Spanish border was only 126Km or 75 miles away and easily within reach even before checkpoints had been established.
-
There is a suggestion that the man seen by Jane Tanner and frequently referred to as bundleman or egghead could have been heading for a getaway car when Tanner saw him.
Proving this however is another matter. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/waiting-bored-waiting-boy-smiley-emoticon-000413-medium.gif)
-
Well I have a different take on this.
Budlemans lifter must have handled Madeleines blanket to move her and possibly to wipe his sweaty hands. His sweaty smell would be the over-riding smell on that blanket. I think the dogs (GNR weren't they?) followed his smell rather than Madeleines
And you are certain that he was sweating how ?
You are quite right DA,
... but the chances are that he/she was covered in nervous sweat and probably fag smoke
and I bet that smell would override Madeleines scent.
Sadie with the utmost respect to you your comments are at best supposition and speculatory ! Sweat, the scent of tobacco and now either he OR she !
Can you enlighten me as to how your theory keeps evolving to suit a debate ?
Your original thesis was that bundleMAN (your words, though that may now be bundleWOMAN) took Madeleine westwards away from the street where Jane walked up and Gerry and Jez chatted and now you theorise that the scent the sniffer dogs followed was down that very same street ?
In your version did bundlePERSON still have Madeleine in his arms OR did they leave her somewhere and then casually stroll back down past the tapas reception area to the point where the sniffer dogs search concluded (all the time sweating most probably through fear of being caught) ?
I'm all for logical, mature debate but your theories are becoming fantasist at best !
No DA, you have misread it. I am not talking about bundleman
I am talking about the lifter, who may be a woman, but then may be a man. Nobody knows even if there was a lifter, but it seems quite likely as Madeleines head should have been on bundlemans right arm had he lifted her, yet it was on his left arm. This suggests a passing over from one person to another
Do you agree? 8((()*/
Of course it is speculation, but it could be right
... and unlike the majority of anti speculation might help realise what truly happened
-
Well I have a different take on this.
Budlemans lifter must have handled Madeleines blanket to move her and possibly to wipe his sweaty hands. His sweaty smell would be the over-riding smell on that blanket. I think the dogs (GNR weren't they?) followed his smell rather than Madeleines
And you are certain that he was sweating how ?
You are quite right DA,
... but the chances are that he/she was covered in nervous sweat and probably fag smoke
and I bet that smell would override Madeleines scent.
Sadie with the utmost respect to you your comments are at best supposition and speculatory ! Sweat, the scent of tobacco and now either he OR she !
Can you enlighten me as to how your theory keeps evolving to suit a debate ?
Your original thesis was that bundleMAN (your words, though that may now be bundleWOMAN) took Madeleine westwards away from the street where Jane walked up and Gerry and Jez chatted and now you theorise that the scent the sniffer dogs followed was down that very same street ?
In your version did bundlePERSON still have Madeleine in his arms OR did they leave her somewhere and then casually stroll back down past the tapas reception area to the point where the sniffer dogs search concluded (all the time sweating most probably through fear of being caught) ?
I'm all for logical, mature debate but your theories are becoming fantasist at best !
No DA, you have misread it. I am not talking about bundleman
I am talking about the lifter, who may be a woman, but then may be a man. Nobody knows even if there was a lifter, but it seems quite likely as Madeleines head should have been on bundlemans right arm had he lifted her, yet it was on his left arm. This suggests a passing over from one person to another
Do you agree? 8((()*/
Of course it is speculation, but it could be right
... and unlike the majority of anti speculation might help realise what truly happened
Can I ask you a very simple question Sadie ? How many people were involved in the abduction of Madeleine ?
So far you have claimed there was a getaway driver who fled the scene because of Jane arriving to do her check leaving bundleman to unexpectedly travel across her path heading westwards. Are you now suggesting that there was a third member of this group, be it a man or woman who "lifted" Madeleine from her bed and then passed Madeleine to bundleman ?
-
Yes, I think there were three
Bundleman
A lifter who had some connection probably to OC and who Madeleine trusted (in case she awakened)
The watcher/ getaway driver
but it could have been done with two, in which case Bundleman was lifter as well as carrying away, but somehow swopped Madeleine over in his arms without disturbijng her. A clumsy thing to do.
Personally, I think that there was a watcher/getaway driver and the whole abduction nearly failed because that watcher failed to see Gerry and Jez chatting, (they were probably whispering with a child that sleeps badly ) and gave the go ahead when Gerry was still on the scene, yet unseen by him
There are other ideas/ theories.
Heri showed a different scenario again ... with just one abductor, which statistically, I realise, is more likely, but there are bits that niggle me with his scenario. Probably bits of my theory might niggle him as well
We respect each others views. And I am still waiting for an anti to come up with what they thought happened
What do you think happened DA?
-
Yes, I think there were three
Bundleman
A lifter who had some connection probably to OC and who Madeleine trusted (in case she awakened)
The watcher/ getaway driver
but it could have been done with two, in which case Bundleman was lifter as well as carrying away, but somehow swopped Madeleine over in his arms without disturbijng her. A clumsy thing to do.
Personally, I think that there was a watcher/getaway driver and the whole abduction nearly failed because that watcher failed to see Gerry and Jez chatting, (they were probably whispering with a child that sleeps badly ) and gave the go ahead when Gerry was still on the scene, yet unseen by him
There are other ideas/ theories.
Heri showed a different scenario again ... with just one abductor, which statistically, I realise, is more likely, but there are bits that niggle me with his scenario. Probably bits of my theory might niggle him as well
We respect each others views. And I am still waiting for an anti to come up with what they thought happened
What do you think happened DA?
What a load of cobblers.
Can we have some proof of abduction please ?
-
well at least Sadie states its what she thinks which is totally fair, must say I do not think any of it happened and in fact has so many variables that the probability gets less and less, but fair play for writing what you think.
unfortunately I think she fell, when trying to look out the window.
-
Hi Martha
Because they left her and her 2 siblings on her own, so a death would relate to neglect would it not, Im asking as I don't know, I was only saying what I thought as Sadie was asking for peoples thoughts on what happened.
-
I cannot believe that the McCanns would cover up the death of Madeleine because they left them alone in the apIartment.
If Madeleine did die due to a fall or whatever, I would imagine it would have been dealt by the police with a lot less publicity then saying she had been abducted.
Saying she had been abducted brought the media flocking to them, their faces in the paper, tv, everywhere, surely this was the last thing they would want if they were worried about being found to be neglectful.
-
Sadie I can proffer no conclusive theory as to what did or did not occur on the night that Madeleine McCann was allegedly abducted.
I come to this forum with a completely open mind and with an 'innocent until proven guilty' mindset. Gerry and Kate McCann are innocent of any wrong doing in the eyes of the Portuguese judiciary as is Robert Murat, whether there are moral issues with regard to leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment is for each individual member to make their own minds up on !
Of the two sightings I can only conclude that the Smith sighting is an independent sighting, Jane's sighting could hardly be construed as independent, as for the scent dogs of the GNR, well they do exactly 'what it says on the tin' they follow a requested scent trail overriding any periphery scents. Why they followed a trail to a car park and then abruptly stopped their search would suggest that Madeleine arrived at the car park either voluntarily i.e. awoke and wandered into harms way OR she was taken there involuntarily ! If this was the case then it is most likely she was taken from the car park in a vehicle which then negates the Smith sighting !
In essence and as I stated, nobody can offer any clear evidence of what did or did not happen, our views are merely supposition and conjecture, the unfortunate consequences of which have resulted in Gerry and Kate McCann and any persons connected to or, who have supported or helped them becoming the target of vicious heartless b........s who seem to revel in people's misery. I think the correct terminology is "Internet Trolls" !
-
The bottom line is that we really do not know, the witness statements, testimonies, timelines , inaccuracies all over the place, the family destroying the scene prior to calling the police if I recall, but that would be a natural reaction to finding your child missing, then the sub standard
policing, always wonder how were the PJ supposed to seal off the scene, when its already been tainted. The very far fetced scenario of how 1 or maybe 2 or 3 abductors did it. Im not saying impossible but very improbable
walk in through a door climb out a window, give me a break
The is not 1 single piece of evidence to back up a break in, abductor, wondered off, or death, or cover up - all we know is a little girl is gone
for instance as we are on a JT thread, I don't believe she saw anything, basically I think she may well have to have been a ninja with night vision goggles, 1 to get past Jez and GM and then to see a tiny detail on something she didn't deem important unitil after the event, wow what a memory recall she has.
Basically I don't fully believe or trust anyone who is or has been involved in this case at all,
hence im open to all possibilities
-
Sadie,
Can you remind me what route you think your accomplice with the car would have taken as he scarpered? I can't find the place where you discussed that..
Thanks!
-
Sadie,
Can you remind me what route you think your accomplice with the car would have taken as he scarpered? I can't find the place where you discussed that..
Thanks!
I didn't discuss it because it was no longer so important as what happened to Madeleine. Also apart from the fact that he must have started in a southerly direction, I dont know where he went then. I can make educated guesses, but they would only be giesses and would point a finger at probably an innocent man.
-
The title of this thread relates to the abductor and Jane Tanner.
I believe that the Smith sighting is far more significant insofar as it relates to the question of an accomplice than Jane Tanner's.
It is from the Smith sighting - a more reliable sighting in any case, being one of several people, walking in very close proximity to the abductor - not Jane's, that we can infer that the abductor must have been covering a significant amount of ground on foot.
It is near implausible that a person of sound mind would have been planning to walk around the town with an abducted child around the time of the child's discovery. From this, we can go two ways. We can reason that the abductor was indeed not of sound mind, a disturbed individual with the oft-accompanying diminished sense of self-preservation, whose plan had never included a car. Or, we could infer that there was supposed to be a car, but something went wrong, a scenario which probably - though not necessarily - would have involved an assistant. How else can we explain that sighting?
I do not agree with all the conclusions in Sadie's theory and how she reaches them, but the fact remains that, thanks to the Smith sighting, we have plenty room to argue a driver's presence by implication.
-
I didn't discuss it because it was no longer so important as what happened to Madeleine. Also apart from the fact that he must have started in a southerly direction, I dont know where he went then. I can make educated guesses, but they would only be giesses and would point a finger at probably an innocent man.
Mightn't Gerry and Jez have seen or heard the car coming out of the little car park and exiting away from them?
-
Mightn't Gerry and Jez have seen or heard the car coming out of the little car park and exiting away from them?
They didn't hear the flip flops..
-
They didn't hear the flip flops..
The car was much louder than the flip flops. And it had lights.
-
The car was much louder than the flip flops. And it had lights.
Probably did hear it and see the lights, but such a mundane thing in their lives, that it didn't even register
Evenin' Sherlock
What's the weather like in N. Y.? Working out there are you?
-
Probably did hear it and see the lights, but such a mundane thing in their lives, that it didn't even register
Evenin' Sherlock
What's the weather like in N. Y.? Working out there are you?
It's a balmy summer evening.
I'm doing my violin practice just now - on the left hand side
-
It's a balmy summer evening.
I'm doing my violin practice just now - on the left hand side
so you are left handed?
Hmmmm You aint bundleman are you? >@@(*&) Only joking! @)(++(*
-
so you are left handed?
Hmmmm You aint bundleman are you? >@@(*&) Only joking! @)(++(*
Of course I'm left handed. Goes with the creative bent.
-
The car was much louder than the flip flops. And it had lights.
Flip flopping at less than a meter from them..
-
Flip flopping at less than a meter from them..
That's true, Anne.
However, I would still be interested to know if they were aware of the presence of a car during their conversation.
-
None of them at least said to have been aware of a car.
-
None of them at least said to have been aware of a car.
Hm.
How much traffic would there normally be on that road at 9.15 pm, Anne?
-
Hm.
How much traffic would there normally be on that road at 9.15 pm, Anne?
In the daytime very quiet. When peeps come in in evening, there are a fair few people parked along there. The Carpenters commented on all the cars parked making it difficult to see to cross the road IIRC.
A couple of guys so intent on chatting and admiring/ tending to a restless child that they didn't notice Jane go by, wouldn't be likely to notice such a mundane thing as a vehicle pulling out of the little car park opposite the tapas.
It was at least 30 yards away.
-
Hm.
How much traffic would there normally be on that road at 9.15 pm, Anne?
Almost none. There's traffic on Agostinho da Silva because it's the way out/in of PDL.
It took JW about 3/4 of an hour to get his baby asleep. He likely wasn't chatting very loudly and feared any noise able to wake the baby up.
-
If Gerry and Jez were engrossed in conversation, I find it very likely that they didn't see Jane passing.
How much noise would flip flops really make? They were talking, they may have heard something but didn't turn around to see what it was.
-
Almost none. There's traffic on Agostinho da Silva because it's the way out/in of PDL.
It took JW about 3/4 of an hour to get his baby asleep. He likely wasn't chatting very loudly and feared any noise able to wake the baby up.
And they didn't hear the clattering shutters either, apparently....
-
And they didn't hear the clattering shutters either, apparently....
The lifting of shutters from the outside ? I'm not sure they'd have heard. But Mr McCann himself admitted the abductor had to be inside when he got in (the abductor opened the bedroom's door to hide himself behind). Time isn't enough otherwise.
-
The lifting of shutters from the outside ? I'm not sure they'd have heard. But Mr McCann himself admitted the abductor had to be inside when he got in (the abductor opened the bedroom's door to hide himself behind). Time isn't enough otherwise.
That's what I think, Anne
Great minds think alike
-
Almost none. There's traffic on Agostinho da Silva because it's the way out/in of PDL.
It took JW about 3/4 of an hour to get his baby asleep. He likely wasn't chatting very loudly and feared any noise able to wake the baby up.
Why do have to make things up Anne?
Rua Agostinho da Silva is not the usual way in/out of PdL. It basically is there for the few cars from the apartments/ odd villa alongside it and the few cars that come up Rua Francisco Gentils Martins, which also basically serves the apartments and villas on either side
The next road north is the main road in and out. That road is called Rua Do Ramalhete
In that area,
The best route east is the Rua Direita. This is one way only.
The best route west is Rua do Ramalhete, This is two way, so can be used in either direction.
-
Why do have to make things up Anne?
Rua Agostinho da Silva is not the usual way in/out of PdL. It basically is there for the few cars from the apartments/ odd villa alongside it and the few cars that come up Rua Francisco Gentils Martins, which also basically serves the apartments and villas on either side
The next road north is the main road in and out. That road is called Rua Do Ramalhete
In that area,
The best route east is the Rua Direita. This is one way only.
The best route west is Rua do Ramalhete, This is two way, so can be used in either direction.
Rua Agostinho da Silva is the road that only runs from the apartment, down to Baptista supermarket, and onto Rua do Ramalhete isn't it Sadie?
Jez had already walked his child partly round, before he met Gerry. He had been in the Tapas bar to the toilet and seen Rastas man!
-
Rua Agostinho da Silva is the road that only runs from the apartment, down to Baptista supermarket, and onto Rua do Ramalhete isn't it Sadie?
Jez had already walked his child partly round, before he met Gerry. He had been in the Tapas bar to the toilet and seen Rastas man!
soz, DCI but you have that wrong
(http://i.imgur.com/yclf37E.jpg) Thank you for the iamge John
This shows two of the roads:
1) Rua Argostinho = the road bundleman walked along
2) You see the apartments immediately north of OC, well the other side of them runs the main road, Rua do Ramalhete.
It runs East to west across most of PdL
and is only about 50 metres north of the part of Rua Argostinho that you can see. People can use Rua Argostinho, cos it is L shaped, but it is slower because of extra corners. Apart from very local flat/villa owners, people use the main road
3) You see, Rua Francisco Gentils Martins ? That goes down to the main road, Rua direita running from the centre of PdL in an easterly direction , but there is a bit of a junction at the lower end first and it is one way
If bundleman had walked west along Rua Agostinha, he would have hit the road that is probably the most main road in PdL. That is called Rua Primeiro de Maio. Leave OC car park in a westerly direction and you will soon meet this main road, turn right and it is the direct route to the N125
[ETA: Turn right added]
The N125 is the main inland route for vehicles wanting to drive fairly fast and links to Faro etc in an easterly direction. Also after only about 3 miles turn onto the N125 and that pretty route takes you up via Sines to Lisbon several hours later.
Rua Francisco Gentils Martins is the route that leads to Baptista Supermarket and the road that the tapas reception and the little car park are on
Confusing isn't it.