So how did the abductor enter and leave the apartment?

[Benice]

That is not an accurate statement

Scotland Yard have said that there was an opportunity for an abductor to have struck that night  (  without specifying the most likely time for it have, possibly,  occured )    ...  they, most certainly,  have not said that the man Jane Tanner saw was,  or might even  be  'likely'  to have been an abductor

It is misleading to suggest that they have

Just because they haven't told us the details of their forensic analysis - doesn't mean they don't exist. 

It's quite obvious that they will have analysed the times everyone has given  - including Jayne Tanner's.   

The fact that SY have stated that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest in this case would appear to confirm that they believe JT's statement re her sighting and accept the timeline she gave.   They could not have made that statement if they thought JT had lied.


Quote from Andy Redwood
''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.''

[stephen25000]

Just because they haven't told us the details of their forensic analysis - doesn't mean they don't exist. 

It's quite obvious that they will have analysed the times everyone has given  - including Jayne Tanner's.   

The fact that SY have stated that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest in this case would appear to confirm that they believe JT's statement re her sighting and accept the timeline she gave.   They could not have made that statement if they thought JT had lied.


Quote from Andy Redwood
''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.''

Just as Redwood and co., created a timeline for Barry George.

Enough siad

[AnneGuedes]

Believing there was a window of opportunity for abduction, but discarding Ms Tanner's sighting for plausibility reasons, wouldn't imply that Ms Tanner lied. She could very well have seen a father carrying his child and wanting to avoid time consuming troubles. Then the other carrier would be the right one.

[faithlilly]

But then both you and Benice are unecessarily complicating things 

An abduction could,  most simply,  and efficiently,  have  been accomplished by a swift entrance and exit through the secluded path to the already unlocked patio doors

Why not take that as a starting point,  at least  ?  ...  why the need to introduce complexities that are not necessary for an abduction to have taken place  ?

Absolutely and why open the window with all the risks that entailed.

[Angelo222]

At the end of the day we have to be guided by the evidence.  A window and a shutter which was previously closed and the lack of any footprints on the sills is indicative of the abducted child having been passed out of the window to an accomplice.  The manner in which the child was being carried when seen by Tanner and the similarity of her clothing.

You have to remember that lifting the shutter was risky and there is only one reason for taking that risk.

All this all adds up to just one thing...

[faithlilly]

At the end of the day we have to be guided by the evidence.  A window and a shutter which was previously closed and the lack of any footprints on the sills is indicative of the abducted child having been passed out of the window to an accomplice.  The manner in which the child was being carried when seen by Tanner and the similarity of her clothing.

You have to remember that lifting the shutter was risky and there is only one reason for taking that risk.

All this all adds up to just one thing...

Or that Kate McCann opened the window and shutters to stage an abduction. The evidence would equally support that theory.

[AnneGuedes]

Or that Kate McCann opened the window and shutters to stage an abduction. The evidence would equally support that theory.

What would she need to open the shutters/window for ? Nobody saw them open.

[faithlilly]

What would she need to open the shutters/window for ? Nobody saw them open.

Because it pointed immediately to an abduction and not a walk and wandered.

[AnneGuedes]

Because it pointed immediately to an abduction and not a walk and wandered.

Faithlilly, my sentence illustrates the importance of the context.
No need to open really, that's what I meant !

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly, my sentence illustrates the importance of the context.
No need to open really, that's what I meant !

Apologies Anne.

[sadie]

At the end of the day we have to be guided by the evidence.  A window and a shutter which was previously closed and the lack of any footprints on the sills is indicative of the abducted child having been passed out of the window to an accomplice.  The manner in which the child was being carried when seen by Tanner and the similarity of her clothing.

You have to remember that lifting the shutter was risky and there is only one reason for taking that risk.

All this all adds up to just one thing...

Did youn know, that there were no fibres on the window at all , Angelo?

[sadie]

No fibres on the widow at all




.... and only Kates finger prints.  Aw, come on, no way!

Every single person would have tried that window and leaned out looking for what had happened to Madeleine.  There would have been dozens of finger prints..  It is things like this that make me wonder if Amaral was already fitting Kate up?

[faithlilly]

No fibres on the widow at all




.... and only Kates finger prints.  Aw, come on, no way!

Every single person would have tried that window and leaned out looking for what had happened to Madeleine.  There would have been dozens of finger prints..  It is things like this that make me wonder if Amaral was already fitting Kate up?

So the forensic lady seen dusting the window/shutters was in on it, was she ? Or perhaps the forensic lab ?

[DCI]

No fibres on the widow at all




.... and only Kates finger prints.  Aw, come on, no way!

Every single person would have tried that window and leaned out looking for what had happened to Madeleine.  There would have been dozens of finger prints..  It is things like this that make me wonder if Amaral was already fitting Kate up?

Yes where's Gerry's, fingerprints and Diane Websters. Weren't they supposed to have touched the blind?
That forensic woman, was a waste of space. it wasn't Sylvia Baptista, was it? Maintenance Manager (key holder), translator, in on all the dog checks, she seemed to be running the show, from start to finish!

[sadie]

Yes where's Gerry's, fingerprints and Diane Websters. Weren't they supposed to have touched the blind?
That forensic woman, was a waste of space. it wasn't Sylvia Baptista, was it? Maintenance Manager (key holder), translator, in on all the dog checks, she seemed to be running the show, from start to finish!

Oh, that's interesting DCI

Haven't taken much notice of Sylvia Baptista tbh

Maintenance Manager
Key holdere
Translator
in on all the dog checks
seemingly running the show

Me thinks that maybe I should be taking more notice of her.  Doesn't hurt to look at peeps.