If the man Jane Tanner saw was the abductor, how long did he have ?

[icabodcrane]

Looking at the timings  and witness statements,  how many minutes did this potential abductor have to carry out the crime ?

[John]

Well we know from Jane's evidence that she saw the guy carrying the child at 9.15pm ish which followed a check by Gerry just after 9.05pm.   Therefore the window of opportunity was very small so we are left with the distinct possibility that someone was watching and waiting for the right moment.  They waited until Gerry had done the check and then made their move.  What they didn't count on was Jane coming up the street as well.

[Eleanor]

There has been a suggestion that the abductor was already in the appartment when Gerry arrived to do his check at 9pm, was possibly disturbed and hid until Gerry had left again.

[south of the river]

if this was a planned abduction ie the culprits had been watching the flat for a few nights - then they will have known the 20 /30 minute check routine, - so it makes sense that as soon as a check was done  and the checker left then that was the optimum time.

My own theory and nothing more than a theory - is that this was two people . One entered by the patio as it was known to be unlocked and then handed a sleeping or maybe even drugged Maddie out of the window to an accomplice who then just walked towards a waiting car which was parked a little way  away. Acomplice leaves - meets up in car and then hits the road . They could be in Spain  within the hour - certainly by the time the police got there and started to work out what happened.

This would take minutes - and would fit the timings - as soon as Gerry left the flat and started to walk away - perp one enters - places a handkerchief over maddies mouth - subdues her with some chloroform, or similar.- opens shutters and hands Maddie out to perp 2 -

[stephen25000]

Meanwhile in the real world, there is not one factual piece of information which proves an abduction took place.

The rest is hyperbole.

[huggy]

A very plausible scenario south of the river.  My own theory is that one guy went in through the open window helped by an accomplice who held the shutter up.  The idea offered that there is no evidence of an abduction is frankly absurd stephen.

[Mrs. B]

Meanwhile, in the real world, no anti McCann have been able to present one single, credible or even possible scenario alternative scenario to abduction. 

[stephen25000]

Now that is very poor.

Ask the dogs.

Try to comprehend that the inconclusive results of the D.N.A. testing, does not mean what the dogs indicated was wrong.

So no points on that one Mrs. B.

[Benice]

Meanwhile in the real world, there is not one factual piece of information which proves an abduction took place.

The rest is hyperbole.

A child missing.  Raised shutters, open window, 4 eye witnesses, a forensic disaster -  plus no motive, no means and no time for the parents or their friends to have removed Madeleine from 5A and disposed of her body.   That's evidence to me.

Why don't you give us your theory of what happened Stephen?

[huggy]

Now that is very poor.

Ask the dogs.

Try to comprehend that the inconclusive results of the D.N.A. testing, does not mean what the dogs indicated was wrong.

So no points on that one Mrs. B.

It certainly doesn't mean they were right.  Minus 10 points duh.

[south of the river]

Meanwhile in the real world, there is not one factual piece of information which proves an abduction took place.

The rest is hyperbole.

I said it was my theory  - what we do know is Madeleine is missing - so something happened to her. There can really only be three possibilities

1. Died in flat either by accident / fall/ took some drugs by mistake etc etc and the body disposed of by parents / friends

2 woke and wandered and picked up by a local / impulse snatch and body hidden / disposed

3 Abducted by persons unknown in planned snatch  and taken away from area

 Please add to list if you have any more. If there was any firm factual piece of information that proved any one of the above then this case would have been solved years ago. That's the thing there isn't.  Even if you go with scenario 1 - I have yet to see any logical theory on how the parents/friends disposed of body on night and then managed to retrieve body later in hire car - to me that is the least possible out of all three

[Benice]

Now that is very poor.

Ask the dogs.Try to comprehend that the inconclusive results of the D.N.A. testing, does not mean what the dogs indicated was wrong.

So no points on that one Mrs. B.

But we know from Grime what Eddie would have said :-

''I cannot tell you whether this scent has been here for a few days or for years.
I cannot tell you whether it originated at this spot or drifted here from elsewhere.
I cannot tell you whether it is from direct contact with a cadaver or whether the scent has been transferred here by innocent means.
I cannot tell you who it belongs to.
I cannot tell you whether it is from a cadaver or from nail cuttings, hair etc from a living person.
I cannot tell you whether the scent is from human remains or pigmeat because I can't tell the difference''

How do you think that would go down in court as evidence  - Stephen?

[Mrs. B]

It certainly doesn't mean they were right.  Minus 10 points duh.

Unfortunately, nobody can ask the dogs, a) they never could speak b) they're dead, i,e. they can never be tested for accuracy c) according to their own handler, Mr. Grime: Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Not ONE of the alerts were later corroborated by forensics, which according to Mr. Grime, render the dog alerts meaningless.

[Lace]

I would be very interested to hear your view on what happened too Stephen.

[stephen25000]

It certainly doesn't mean they were right.  Minus 10 points duh.

ARE YOU COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF WHY POLICE FORCES AROUND THE WORLD USE DOGS.

Duh, duh and duh again.