Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[Alfred R Jones]

Given the child weighs no more than about 16 kg and is flat on its back as you state, then:stand at the side of the bed facing the child pull back the covers to clear the child; hands either side of the chest under the arms lift to vertical position and pass out of window in near enough vertical position to accomplice outside who receives child in vertical position.  Windows are normally about 900 to 1100 high. Or if I have no accomplice and am negotiating a door I can hold the child against my body with one hand long enough to operate door handles slide locks etc.
That is the easiest way. Of course the child may wake but that is a risk however you lift.

It's one way of getting a sleeping child out of bed, but the easiest?  Says who, apart from you? 

[Alice Purjorick]

It's one way of getting a sleeping child out of bed, but the easiest?  Says who, apart from you?

The problem is one of lifting a dead weight so go ask a manual handling expert if as was predictable you don't like my answer.

[Alfred R Jones]

The problem is one of lifting a dead weight so go ask a manual handling expert if as was predictable you don't like my answer.

I have no problem with your answer, I'm just questioning if it is the easiest way, or the  only  way.  I don't have any manual handling experts in the family otherwise I would ask if it were inconceivable to lift a small sleeping person up by sliding your hands under their back and knees and picking them up in a horizontal position. 

[Alice Purjorick]

I have no problem with your answer, I'm just questioning if it is the easiest way, or the  only  way.  I don't have any manual handling experts in the family otherwise I would ask if it were inconceivable to lift a small sleeping person up by sliding your hands under their back and knees and picking them up in a horizontal position.

I said right from the start there was probably no single right answer which was why I asked so many questions which seemed to cause you much childish amusement. The manner in which one lifts something can be dependent on what one wishes to do with it after one has lifted it and what restrictions there are in the working space. Shoving a 900 high load side ways through a 900 high window would seem on the face of it to be cack handed. In this instance we only have your word  that the child was flat on her back at the time she was "abducted" which would seem to be a gross assumption on your part.

[sadie]

The problem is one of lifting a dead weight so go ask a manual handling expert if as was predictable you don't like my answer.

When they were little like Madeleine, if I wanted to keep them asleep, I used to pick my kids up as Alfred suggests all the time

I have no problem with your answer, I'm just questioning if it is the easiest way, or the  only  way.  I don't have any manual handling experts in the family otherwise I would ask if it were inconceivable to lift a small sleeping person up by sliding your hands under their back and knees and picking them up in a horizontal position. 

But I have used the underarms method as well when they were babies more.


I think Alfies method was more likely used, because less disturbance to the child.  Madeleine would be less likely to awaken.

[misty]

Does it really matter how she was lifted? If she'd been drugged an abductor could have adjusted her body position however he/she wanted as no resistance would be offered. The only point worth noting is that Tannerman was probably left-handed as the child's head was resting on his left arm.

[Alfred R Jones]

I said right from the start there was probably no single right answer which was why I asked so many questions which seemed to cause you much childish amusement. The manner in which one lifts something can be dependent on what one wishes to do with it after one has lifted it and what restrictions there are in the working space. Shoving a 900 high load side ways through a 900 high window would seem on the face of it to be cack handed. In this instance we only have your word  that the child was flat on her back at the time she was "abducted" which would seem to be a gross assumption on your part.

So based on your answer we can deduce it is eminently possible that Madeleine was carried away from Apartment 5a in the manner described by JT.  Thank you.

[pathfinder73]

Does it really matter how she was lifted? If she'd been drugged an abductor could have adjusted her body position however he/she wanted as no resistance would be offered. The only point worth noting is that Tannerman was probably left-handed as the child's head was resting on his left arm.

Drugged? Wasn't that on the WED night when Maddy & Seany cried. Did an evil paedo get inside? So they left them alone in an unlocked apartment the next night. How extraordinary!

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that David Payne also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

 &%+((£

[Benice]

Drugged? Wasn't that on the WED night when Maddy & Seany cried. Did an evil paedo get inside? So they left them alone in an unlocked apartment the next night. How extraordinary!

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that David Payne also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

 &%+((£

Once again you are using hindsight which the McCanns did not have on 3rd May.  Do you really think that  from what Madeleine had said to them -  it would occur to them that a paedaphile had been in their apartment the night before?   And do you really think that if they thought ANYONE at all might have been in 5A the night before - they would have gone out on 3rd May.  Not a chance IMO.
--------


Gerry said 'he thinks' which is not the same as 'he knows' and in fact clearly denotes that he wasn't sure.

Not dissimilar to Russell originally saying that he thought Gerry and Jane had left the table almost at the same time.    No doubt - having later remembered himself or been reminded that Jane was still at the table when they were discussing why Gerry had been gone so long - (watching the football)  he would have realised his very first recollection was wrong.

Nothing devious or even odd about that as 'memory' is notoriously fallible.  Different people have different perceptions of distance - and the passage of time.   Some people have good memories - other people have lousy memories.

I'm not sure what point you are making re your reference to David Payne.

[pathfinder73]

Once again you are using hindsight which the McCanns did not have on 3rd May.  Do you really think that  from what Madeleine had said to them -  it would occur to them that a paedaphile had been in their apartment the night before?   And do you really think that if they thought ANYONE at all might have been in 5A the night before - they would have gone out on 3rd May.  Not a chance IMO.
--------


Gerry said 'he thinks' which is not the same as 'he knows' and in fact clearly denotes that he wasn't sure.

Not dissimilar to Russell originally saying that he thought Gerry and Jane had left the table almost at the same time.    No doubt - having later remembered himself or been reminded that Jane was still at the table when they were discussing why Gerry had been gone so long - (watching the football)  he would have realised his very first recollection was wrong.

Nothing devious or even odd about that as 'memory' is notoriously fallible.  Different people have different perceptions of distance - and the passage of time.   Some people have good memories - other people have lousy memories.

I'm not sure what point you are making re your reference to David Payne.

You wouldn't leave the apartment unlocked the next night. Gerry had a week to think things over before giving that second statement and he brought David Payne into it when he said he didn't do any checks on other children (also the 6:30 visit on Kate). So if David never left the table to check (used a monitor) why did Gerry think he checked on his children on WED?

1485 "Did you actually offer to check any of the children' I know you say that you didn't have to check yours.'

Reply "Yeah, no I never, I never did offer to check. Err there, as much as I you know, know, knew all the children well I err I probably wouldn't have felt, you know, bizarrely I wouldn't have felt quite comfortable checking them, more, you know if I, if it was at home and perhaps one of the children wasn't settling you know I'd go upstairs and go well you know could you be quiet but there I didn't feel quite comfortable doing that, it just, you know if the child was crying or upset and not sleeping I think the first person you know at that stage probably''

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

 &%+((£

[Benice]

You wouldn't leave the apartment unlocked the next night. Gerry had a week to think things over before giving that second statement and he brought David Payne into it when he said he didn't do any checks on other children. So if David never left the table to check (used a monitor) why did Gerry think he checked on his children on WED?

1485 "Did you actually offer to check any of the children' I know you say that you didn't have to check yours.'

Reply "Yeah, no I never, I never did offer to check. Err there, as much as I you know, know, knew all the children well I err I probably wouldn't have felt, you know, bizarrely I wouldn't have felt quite comfortable checking them, more, you know if I, if it was at home and perhaps one of the children wasn't settling you know I'd go upstairs and go well you know could you be quiet but there I didn't feel quite comfortable doing that, it just, you know if the child was crying or upset and not sleeping I think the first person you know at that stage probably''

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

 &%+((£

As you don't appear to accept that people get things wrong when they are recalling events which at the time were so mundane that they had no reason to carefully commit them to memory for future reference -  we are not going to agree - so no point in going round in circles IMO.

Sorry but I still don't get what point you are making re David Payne.

Must go out now - so will come back later.   

[pathfinder73]

As you don't appear to accept that people get things wrong when they are recalling events which at the time were so mundane that they had no reason to carefully commit them to memory for future reference -  we are not going to agree - so no point in going round in circles IMO.

Sorry but I still don't get what point you are making re David Payne.

Must go out now - so will come back later.

A week to think things over. You would go over and over and over everything. You wouldn't mention it unless you were certain a week later. And also the 6:30 visit was first mentioned in that same statement.

The only people who never gave 2nd statements were Kate and the Payne couple.

[faithlilly]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm



2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.

Both Gerry and Tanner took part in the compilation of the timeline and both agreed BEFORE the 10th if May that Gerry and Jez were  standing just beyond the gate to 5a and up towards the road that led to the front of the apartments, and nowhere near the alleyway as claimed by sadie.

The pertinent question is why did Gerry subsequently change his mind ?

[sadie]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm



2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.

Both Gerry and Tanner took part in the compilation of the timeline and both agreed BEFORE the 10th if May that Gerry and Jez were  standing just beyond the gate to 5a and up towards the road that led to the front of the apartments, and nowhere near the alleyway as claimed by sadie.

The pertinent question is why did Gerry subsequently change his mind ?

Faith why are you trying to undermine the general consensus in this forum, when this placing of Gerry and Jez was discussed many months ago in fine detail... and pretty firmly established as being on the corner of the alleyway

It was agreed that with three strong pointers, two from Jez and one from Jane that the conversation was on the pavement at the corner of the alleyway.  THREE STRONG POINTERS that the conversation WAS ON THE ALLEYWAY CORNER   [Sorry to shout , but you seem to have become very "deaf" to anything that you dont wish to believe.]

Why are you determined to try and make something else out? ..... based on nothing except a sprinkling of statements that all say different things.



THREE STRONG AGREEING POINTERS to the alleyway corner,  against a sprinkling of other pointers all saying different things.


C'mon Faith, get real


Lets have FACTS, at least as near as possible, and not YOUR fantasies.

You have proved over and over again that Logic and facts are not your strong point



What is your reason for so relentlessly trying to change the most likely position?

Are you doing the Quentin Crisp thing of persuasion and fine words being better than Logic and facts ?  You are fond of that technique aren't you?  You recommended it on your signature for months.



Cause it doesn't "wash" with me, nor with thinking people.

[faithlilly]

Faith why are you trying to undermine the general consensus in this forum, when this placing of Gerry and Jez was discussed many months ago in fine detail... and pretty firmly established as being on the corner of the alleyway

It was agreed that with three strong pointers, two from Jez and one from Jane that the conversation was on the pavement at the corner of the alleyway.  THREE STRONG POINTERS that the conversation WAS ON THE ALLEYWAY CORNER   [Sorry to shout , but you seem to have become very "deaf" to anything that you dont wish to believe.]

Why are you determined to try and make something else out? ..... based on nothing except a sprinkling of statements that all say different things.



THREE STRONG AGREEING POINTERS to the alleyway corner,  against a sprinkling of other pointers all saying different things.


C'mon Faith, get real


Lets have FACTS, at least as near as possible, and not YOUR fantasies.

You have proved over and over again that Logic and facts are not your strong point



What is your reason for so relentlessly trying to change the most likely position?

Are you doing the Quentin Crisp thing of persuasion and fine words being better than Logic and facts ?  You are fond of that technique aren't you?  You recommended it on your signature for months.



Cause it doesn't "wash" with me, nor with thinking people.

What can't speak can't lie sadie. It's there in the eye witnesses words for all to see. Nothing underhanded.

Of course it seems you, like Gerry, know the Tanner sighting is simply impossible if the main protagonists were where they, originally, said they were.

We have both been there sadie and I think we both know the truth of the lie !