The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

The impossible abduction

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The impossible abduction

Post by tigger on 21.03.13 8:16

It can never do any harm (for new and old visitors alike) to go over old ground. I've lifted this from http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/search/label/McCanns

Quote:
How Did the Alleged Abductor Snatch Madeleine McCann?
This is a re-up for this 2010 article by Barbara Nottage, and probably the best place, rather than being directed to the case files, for any newbie to get an understanding of the physics of the thing.
Because let's face it, you don't actually need the case files, it's all here, for it covers the the most fundamental premiss of the case, the "jemmied shutters." Because no jemmied shutters means no abduction; period.

And as well we know, jemmied shutters were there not. Something Leicester Police and Scotland Yard seem unable to grasp.
Or choose to ignore.

Originally posted under the title: Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted: The Shutters Revisited at Good Quality Wristbands. A place where making use of the search bar, particularly using the same keywords, jemmied shutters, will bring a host of results.


How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 minutes?
by Barbara Nottage

One of the curious aspects of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann is the extraordinarily tight timetable in which the abduction is supposed to have taken place. Dr Gerald McCann says he went to check on the children at about 9.05pm on 3 May 2007. He also said elsewhere that he had been an unusually long time in the apartment toilet, and that he had been inside all four rooms of the apartment. In addition, he told the world that he had had time during his visit to gaze down on Madeleine, whom he was to describe as ‘lying in the recovery position’, and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. By this reckoning, He could not have left the apartment until around 9.10pm or several minutes later.

Meanwhile Jane Tanner, a close friend of the McCanns, has given statements saying that she saw what she thought was a male abductor carrying Madeleine away in his arms from the apartment at around 9.15pm - although we might note here that in August 2009 at a press conference, the McCanns’ chief private investigator, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman, not a man.


The abduction scenario

So let’s examine this situation more closely.

The scenario put forward by the McCanns and their friends runs as follows:

. The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3 May.

· The McCanns went down to the ‘Tapas bar’ at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening, with other members of the group arriving during the next half-an-hour or so.

· Dr Matthew Oldfield ‘checked the apartment from the outside’ at around 9.00pm to 9.03pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann returned to his apartment (5A) from the Tapas bar to check on his children at around 9.05pm. The walk to the apartment would have taken one to two minutes. So on his own timing, he would have arrived there around 9.07pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the toilet - maybe up to 5 minutes, though we have never been told why. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.

· Dr Gerry McCann says he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it had been open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).

· The fact that the door - according to Dr Gerald McCann - was now (at 9.05pm) more open more than it was before (at 8.30pm), has been used by him to suggest the possibility that the abductor may have been already in the apartment when he checked on the children, although he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. Dr Gerry McCann has said that the abductor might have been hiding behind a door or in a wardrobe while he spent several minutes doing his ‘check’ on the children.

· Dr Gerry McCann must have left the room, on his own account, at between 9.10pm and 9.15pm. He then says he encountered a TV cameraman, Jeremy (‘Jes’) Wilkins, on the road back to the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club, and was talking to him for several minutes between 9.10pm and 9.25pm (Jeremy Wilkins confirms the meeting, but says it only lasted three minutes).

· Ms Jane Tanner (partner of Dr Russell O’Brien) says she left the Tapas bar at around 9.15pm and saw a man walking ‘purposefully’, with a child in his arms, along the top of the road running alongside the McCanns’ apartment. She has maintained throughout that she saw this man at almost exactly 9.15pm.

· The McCanns maintain that they left their apartment unlocked. This contrasts however with what they said during the might of 3 May/4 May. In telephone calls to relatives, Dr Gerald McCann told them that an abductor had forced entry into the apartment by jemmying open the shutters. They appear to have changed this story after both the Manager of Mark Warners, Mr john Hill, and the police, found no evidence whatsoever of the shutters having been forced open.

· The McCanns now say, therefore, that the abductor must have entered their apartment through the unlocked patio door. But they maintain that the windows and shutters that they say they found open on Dr Kate McCann checking the children at 10.00pm were because the abductor must have made his escape via that route. They say the abductor must have opened the window and the shutters (which the McCanns say they had had left closed) from the inside, climbed through the window, and taken Madeleine through that window.

· Dr Kate McCann says she returned to the apartment to check on the children at 10.00pm. She says she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted - and then so did Dr Gerald McCann, minutes later, when he says he arrived at the apartment. Dr Kate McCann later told a TV interviewer that because of the requirement for secrecy about the police investigation, she could not explain why she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted. She has never explained this, even 2½ years later.

The photographs of the apartment taken by the Portuguese police on the day after Madeleine was reported missing do not show anything which would clearly point to an abduction, certainly not damaged shutters. No forensic evidence whatsoever of the alleged abductor has been found. There were no forensic traces in the room, and no fingerprints on the window, window frame or shutters except for one of Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints. The lichen on the windowsill was undisturbed.

Going by the above scenario, which the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have maintained, the abductor (if there was one) must have either entered the apartment before Dr Matthew Oldfield’s check at around 9.03pm and Dr Gerry McCann’s check which began at 9.05pm/9.07pm – a version put forward by the McCanns months after Madeleine was reported missing - McCanns now want us to believe - or after Dr Gerry McCann left at 9.10pm to 9.15pm and before he was (allegedly) seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

The problems with this abduction scenario

There are many problems associated with this specific abduction scenario above that the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have generated.

As we have seen just now, there is no forensic evidence that the alleged abductor was even in the McCanns’ apartment, still less that an abductor climbed in or out of the window.

Further, the window is high enough in the children’s room to make it physically very difficult for an abductor to climb through it. It was reported to be 91cm. above the floor - exactly three feet. The window itself is only around 60cm x 60cm (2ft x 2ft). The abductor would therefore have had to climb some three feet, with Madeleine with him, in his arms or over his shoulder. In addition, he would have to have managed this feat without leaving any forensic traces on the window-sill.

Madeleine must have weighed at least two stone (12kg). A task such as this would have meant balancing against the window frame itself, in which case traces of clothing fibres would surely have been found. Even then, it would have been almost impossible to climb through this window even if Madeleine had been asleep. It is surely even more unlikely that the abductor could have laid Madeleine down on the floor or a bed in the children’s bedroom, then climbed out of the window, and then reached back inside the bedroom to pick Madeleine out of the room - all of this without Madeleine or either of the twins waking up.

This whole abduction operation would clearly have been still more difficult either if Madeleine had woken up whilst being abducted, or one or both twins had done so. To maintain the abduction scenario, therefore, it is necessary to believe that Madeleine slept through the entire abduction operation. The description given by Jane Tanner of an alleged abductor carrying a child also describes the child as quiet and presumably asleep.

Moreover, to escape via the window, as the McCanns claim, the abductor would have had to open the shutters. Mark Warners, however, explained that it was only possible to open the shutters from the inside. They are operated by pulling a cord, or strap, on the inside. It is a highly relevant fact (again confirmed by Mark Warners) that when these heavy metal shutters were opened, the whole process is extremely noisy.

But no-one heard the shutters being opened. Moreover, the children’s room was directly overlooked by a tall block of apartments on the other side of the street. Had the abductor really climbed out of that window, he would have been in the view of dozens of windows overlooking Apartment 5A. We now know that the shutters to Apartment 5A were actually closed when the police and Mark Warners’ staff arrived to check them. The McCanns’ initial explanation for this fact were that the shutters ‘must have been closed by the abductor as well as opened by him’. We have seen that the shutters could not be opened from the outside. This claim by the McCanns that the abductor ‘must have tried to close the shutters behind him’ prompts two related and very obvious questions:

1) having gained entry through an open patio door, what would possess an abductor to leave via a three-foot high, two-foot square closed window, with the shutters also closed? The McCanns’ abduction scenario would require him to have opened the windows and shutters, then tried to close the shutters behind him, when he could have simply walked through the already-open patio doors.

2) why and how, having allegedly scooped up Madeleine in his arms and opened the window and the shutters, would he have had the time and the physical ability to then close the shutters, all without making any sound or leaving any trace, without being seen by anyone, and without waking either Madeleine or the twins?

Moreover, all this would have had to have been accomplished in the dark - unless the alleged abductor switched the lights on when he entered the apartment and then remembered to switch them off again as he was making his exit. No-one saw any lights on in the apartment. The McCanns have admitted that they left the children in the darkness, with the shutters and curtains closed, when they went out for their evening’s entertainment.

Therefore, to sum up - according to the McCanns’ scenario, the abductor would have to have:

* First - either picked an opportunity to enter the apartment after the McCanns had left for the Tapas bar at between 8.30pm and 9.00pm - or entered the apartment immediately after he had seen first Dr Matthew Oldfield and then Gerry McCann enter and leave the apartment at around 9.05pm to 9.15pm;

[NOTE: if the former of these two alternatives, then the abductor must have been in the apartment with Dr Gerry McCann during the five to ten minutes or so he was checking on the children - as Dr McCann indeed claimed last year]

* Second - walked through the open patio door without being seen;

* Third - found Madeleine in the dark;

* Fourth - picked her up, without waking her or the twins, and without leaving any forensic trace on the bed;

* Fifth - opened the window - without leaving any fingerprints;

* Sixth - opened the shutters from the inside (with nobody hearing him doing so, and once again without leaving any fingerprints);

* Seventh - climbed through the window, somehow carrying Madeleine with him - again without being seen by anyone, and again without leaving any fingerprints;

* Eighth - he would then have had to close the very noisy shutters, using controls operated from the inside - while still having Madeleine in his arms, or having laid her down on the patio, and

* Ninth - he made his escape without being seen by anyone except for afew fleeting seconds by Jane Tanner at around 9.15pm.

The operation of climbing through the window would have been physically very difficult, if not impossible, to do without (a) even brushing away even a tiny piece of the years-old lichen growing on the window-sill or (b) leaving any clothing fibres or other forensic evidence.

He must in addition have accomplished this whole operation in near total darkness and without being seen or heard by anyone except Jane Tanner. At the very moment that Jane Tanner says she saw the alleged abductor, Dr Gerald McCann was chatting away to holiday friend Jeremy (‘Jez’) Wilkins. Neither man saw or heard the alleged abductor despite being so close.

If the abductor had Madeleine in his arms as he climbed out of the window, and bearing in mind he was in near darkness, he would have been unable to see anything below her or much to either side as he fumbled through the window and shutters and tried to escape from the apartment precincts. Why he would do this when there was an open patio door to walk back through is incomprehensible. The McCanns only came up with the scenario of the abductor entering the unlocked patio door and then escaping via the window after learning that there was no evidence that the shutters had been tampered with, as they had told their relatives the night Madeleine disappeared.

Finally let us look for a moment at another aspect of the McCanns’ scenario. They have claimed on many occasions that an abductor must have been ‘casing the joint’ for several days beforehand - and then pounced and abducted Madeleine when he had the chance. The McCanns claim that he would have been closely watching them, including observing what the McCanns claim as their routine of half-hourly checking.

The McCanns have gone further and have suggested - in a lengthy TV interview for the BBC’s Panorama programme - that the abductor must have been making notes on their movements, allegedly carefully observing the times of their departures from the apartment. But this does not seem plausible given that neither the McCanns, nor their ‘Tapas 9’ friends, have given any details of how often (if at all) they were checking on their children whilst out wining and dining – apart from on the night Madeleine was reported missing.

Another problem about the McCanns’ abduction scenario is that there is nowhere that the abductor could have been observing the McCanns’ apartment without being seen - unless, that is, he was living or operating from one of the flats opposite the McCanns’ apartment, some of which overlooked it. It is understood that the occupants of these flats have all been investigated and their statements corroborated. None of them had anyone in their flat who was watching the McCanns’ apartment, nor was anyone seen acting suspiciously or hanging around in that area during the week the McCanns and their friends were there, except for one man who has been identified and eliminated from police enquiries.

The other obvious problem about the claim of an abductor ‘casing the joint’ is this:- Suppose an abductor had been watching the McCanns’ apartment day in and day out. On the McCanns’ own timeline, he would have seen the McCanns leave for the Tapas bar at 8.30pm. If, therefore, as claimed, an abductor had been watching the premises, he would presumably have chosen a moment as soon as possible after 8.30pm to abduct Madeleine - i.e., immediately after Drs Gerry and Kate McCann had left for the Tapas bar (on their own account) at around 8.30pm.

Yet, if he had entered the flat just after the McCanns left at 8.30pm, how come he was not long gone 35-40 minutes later when Dr Gerald McCann did his check? After all, Dr McCann now believes that the abductor may have even been present for the entire five to ten minutes or so that he was doing his check i.e. between 9.05pm and 9.10pm/9.15pm.

Yet a further difficulty for this improbable scenario is that Dr Matthew Oldfield claims that he did two checks - one at around 9.00pm, (various times have been given for this alleged check) and the other around 9.30pm. Dr Oldfield claims that during his 9.00pm visit he ‘checked’ from the outside but saw and heard nothing. He also said that the shutters were ‘tight shut’. If indeed the abductor really had entered before both Dr Matthew Oldfield’s alleged check (around 9.00pm) and Dr McCann’s check (around 9.05pm), then he was exceptionally lucky, to put it mildly, not to have been detected by either man.


There are equal if not even greater problems with the suggestion that the abductor entered the apartment and removed Madeleine only after Drs Oldfield and McCann had done their checks. Would any abductor really have dashed into the apartment after first seeing Dr Oldfield checking the outside of the apartment at around 9.00pm - and then seen Gerry spending five to ten minutes checking between 9.05pm and 9.15pm? It would surely have been far too risky.


And if he entered the apartment after Dr Gerry McCann left at say 9.10pm at the earliest, he would scarcely have had time to enter the flat, remove Madeleine, open the window and shutters, close them behind him etc. and then be seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

Sadly, no British newspaper or magazine has offered an analysis, like the one above, of the unlikelihood of the abduction having occurred in the way the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends claim it ‘must have’ happened.


I conclude by saying that I am not saying the abduction of Madeleine never happened. But I confess I do find it very difficult to understand, given all that has been said about it, how it could have happened."
unquote

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by aquila on 21.03.13 8:53

Thank you Tigger,

There are times (and I've had one recently) when I feel what's the point and why bother continuing to seek justice for Madeleine when there are so many obstacles.

It's being reminded of information such as this that restores resolve.

So for old and new members of the forum this is a must read.

Thanks again Tigger.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by Guest on 21.03.13 10:14


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The window of opportunity

Post by PeterMac on 21.03.13 11:01

The “Window of Opportunity” for the Abduction of Madeleine Beth McCann

In this study we shall assume that what the McCanns and other witnesses said was correct.

From time to time it is of course necessary to ‘interpret”, as when one witness gives more than one version of an event, or when two or more witnesses give inconsistent testimony. Such points will be identified.

In the early stages of the publicity round the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine Beth Mccann it was widely suggested and reported in the Press that the abductor might have had nearly an hour between Gerry McCann’s last visit and Kate’s discovery of Madeleine’s disappearance to prepare for and then to commit the crime. Alternatively that he may have had half that time, before Matthew Oldfield’s visit, or possibly after Oldfield’s visit

On subsequent analysis of the main statements, and taking into account the McCann’s very early insistence that Jane Tanner’s sighting was of the abductor with Madeleine, that could no longer be sustained. This fact had been recognised by Gerry McCann as early as 1:00am on 4th May. [1]

The McCanns themselves clearly both accept that the “Window of Opportunity” for an abduction was small. During one interview Kate McCann said - in a high pitched and emotional voice - “Yyyeeah, yeah you’re right. It was a very small window of opportunity but they saw it and then *click*!!!!!! Here Kate makes a clicking sound with her tongue and a simultaneous downward chopping motion with her right hand. [2]

On 10th May 2007 Gerry McCann made a statement in which he confirmed this, although at that time he seemed equivocal about the Jane Tanner sighting.

The passage bears repeating in full, for the avoidance of doubt.

“The deponent had had the wrong idea that MATHEW had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21H30, and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21h30 and 22h00, but presently he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and MATHEW's visit at 21H30. It was not until about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 that he learned through RUSSEL that his partner, JANE, at around 21h10, saw a man crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, that may or may not have been his daughter MADELEINE. [3]

Quite how small was that window and the consequences that follow are examined here.

From their Police statements we learn the following :-

• The McCanns left the apartment to go for dinner around 8:30pm [4]

• Gerry McCann left the Tapas restaurant at 9:04 pm, walked back and re-entered the apartment. He did a physical check on the children. He saw all three. [5]

Observation 1 : From the absence of any further comment in any of his statements it must be assumed that the front door, the patio door, the garden gate and the security gate, and the windows and shutters and curtains in the children’s bedroom, were all in order.
Observation 2 : It takes one minute to walk at a normal speed from the Tapas bar to the small gate at the bottom of the outside stairs. It would take a further 20 seconds to open the gate, climb the stairs, open the patio doors quietly, enter the apartment and reach the children’s bedroom. [6 ]

• He remained in the apartment for a little time, two or three minutes [7] recording that he stood in the children’s room “and thought to himself, She’s so beautiful.” and took the opportunity to use the bathroom. He then left the apartment through the patio doors, and went down the outside stairs, through the gate and out onto the street. There he met Jeremy (referred to throughout as Jez ) Wilkins. The two men spoke for a short time, estimated at between 3 and 4, or 3 to 5 minutes. [8] [9 ] or “only a few minutes” [10]

• Jane Tanner left the Tapas bar at between 9:05 and 9:10 pm. Significantly she times her own departure at five minutes after Gerry’s [11] She walked past the men whilst they were talking. She reports seeing the two men [12] although the men state they did not see her. [13]

• Immediately after passing the two men Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child along the road across the top of the street from left to right. The child was being carried flat, across the forearms, and Jane Tanner saw its feet, which were towards her. She then continued to her own apartment. [14]

• Gerry McCann then returned to the dining table in the Tapas bar. This time is given as between 9:10 and 9:15 pm [15]

Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner, and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -

Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm

Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s

There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a further 5 seconds to cross the street. [16]

He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and exit.

This is an important point for the understanding of what happened.

Let it be stated once again.

If the man seen by Jane Tanner was the “abductor’ and was carrying Madeleine, as the McCanns insist, he had available to him the time from Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment to the sighting by Jane Tanner. And no more.

In this time the intruder has to

• Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three children - in the dark
• Select Madeleine as the victim - in the dark
• Open the shutters and window - if he used the front door to enter
• Pick Madeleine out of her bed - in the dark
• Turn her round so that her head is now to his left, rather than to his right, which is the way he would have approached her in the bed.
• Exit the apartment, either through the opened window and shutters, or through the front door, which he must then close silently behind him.
• Walk to the left along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead across the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross the street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he had just abducted, and another man who has his own child in a buggy.

Taking into account the travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on the list.

Clearly he could not enter through the patio door within this time frame, since Gerry was standing either at the bottom of the steps, or on the other side of the road. depending whether we follow the statement of Gerry McCann, Jez Wilson, [17] [18] or Jane Tanner. (During the televised “documentary reconstruction” Gerry McCann’s version took precedence, and viewers were treated to the sight of Jane Tanner being reduced to tears as her detailed recollection was publicly destroyed.) [19]

For our purposes this important contradiction is, for the moment, irrelevant.
As Kate has observed, “What may be important is that all three of them were there.” [20]

It is indeed a very important point, as it fixes forever Jane Tanner’s sighting relative to Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment, in a way which cannot be altered by debate or legal argument.
It could only be altered by admission of error, but Jane Tanner has several times then and since publicly insisted that she was telling the truth. [21] [22]

Possible scenarios.
One scenario is therefore that immediately on Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment, the intruder entered though the front door by means unknown, or, having forced up the shutters, propped or jammed them in a high position, forced open the window, and climbed in. This is not supported by examination of the operation of the shutters, or the locking mechanism of the windows. No implement to support the shutters was found, and no forensic traces were seen on the window sill, or on the windows.

A second scenario has more recently been put forward to the effect that the intruder must have been already in the apartment as Gerry McCann entered. This would allow him a few more seconds or fractions of a minute in which to complete his crime. And in fact we find that this was raised as a possibility by Dr Gerry McCann himself some time later. [23]

But the apartment is largely open-plan, and this theory leads to some vague stories being suggested about where the intruder might have been secreted. None is persuasive. “Behind the door”, or “in the cupboard,” have been offered. Examination of the photos of the bedroom, and indeed of the entire apartment may lead a researcher to question this. [24]

Gerry McCann recounts seeing all the children, and having the “proud father” moment, and of looking down at Madeleine. In none of his three statements does he report the smell of anaesthetic gas or the presence of any other anaesthetic paraphernalia, and we conclude that this procedure must therefore have been performed after he left.

Kate was initially sure that the children had been sedated. [25]

As the almost infinitely small window of opportunity contracts till further, other possibilities have been put forward.

The intruder had been watching the apartment [26]
The Intruder had been watching the family and taking notes. This was mentioned two years later in the Vanity Fair interview [27]

It is notable that the more details are provided for this scenario, the more difficult it becomes. Adding the sedation, for example, or the opened window and shutters purely as a “red herring”, as Kate did nearly two years later, [28] cuts down still further the time available to perform the actus reus

Another even more strange possibility put forward by Kate was that the intruder had been ‘making notes’, and later still there was even a suggestion that he might have done a preliminary reconnoitre, a “dummy run”, during one of the previous nights.

This is a consequence of the ‘curious incident of the children crying in the night time’, reported at some length and on a number of occasions by Kate. [ 29] [30]

Whether it is remotely credible to think that an intruder would not complete the crime, but would instead choose to repeat the actions on a subsequent evening, when the crying alert given by the children might have been heeded by the parents, is something the critical reader may wish to consider.

I started this piece by attempting to build up a picture of what might have happened during the admitted small window of opportunity.

Gradually, and at each step, the story becomes ever more difficult to follow, and the time available for any acton by anyone becomes ever smaller, to the point where one must be permitted to ask if there is anything left which is even remotely possible.

It must surely also be permitted to ask the people who steadfastly proselytise the theory of sedation followed by abduction within the tiny window of opportunity, to give at least some details of how they imagine it might have been carried out.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes. a.k.a. Sir A Conan Doyle


IMPORTANT OBJECTIONS

There are at least three important objections to what has been written above.

The first objection is that the times given by the various people in their statements were not necessarily accurate. A combination of stress and confusion on the night, and trying to fit the story together within a few hours after the event would have made the times approximate at best.

(In fact one of Clarence Mitchell’s more notorious outright lies was to the effect that none of the group had watches or mobile phones with them, and that therefore the exact times were not to be taken as wholly accurate. [31]
Unfortunately for him this was nearly a year after the Tapas7 group had drawn up two separate and detailed time lines on the night, and a third mutually agreed amalgamation of both, [32] but also the statements of the Tapas 7, of Gerry McCann “When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch”, [33], and subsequently Kate McCann in her book “by his watch”. [34] , all contradict his assertion.
He backtracked six weeks later. [35] Quite why Mitchell invented, or was asked to tell this particular lie is difficult to understand.)

But the first objection is a valid one, and it is accepted.

It is however entirely irrelevant whether the events described took place exactly between 9:05 pm and 9:15 pm, or five minutes later, or five minutes earlier.

The time is not important. It is the timing, and the statements of the three main people involved which define the “very small window of opportunity”, and that remains unchanged regardless of the exact start or finish time of that window.

To recap, in case this is not understood or fully appreciated

Any abduction, and all ancillary matters necessary for an abduction, must have been carried out
between the time Gerry McCann left the apartment having seen the children
and the time Jane Tanner passed him and saw the abductor carrying Madeleine
whilst he was talking to Jez Wilkins in the street outside.


And that time is measured in only a very few minutes and seconds.


The second objection is that the timings for climbing the stairs and opening the patio doors, for example, or the 45 seconds allowed for walking from the apartment across the car park and then to the right and across the street might be inaccurate, as they would depend on the individual person’s walking speed.

This is again fully accepted. This objection however is dealing in seconds, or small fractions of a minute. It does not go the heart of the issue, and could not for example get near to doubling the time available for the preparation and execution of the crime.


The third objection is that of considering median times. In other words if it is supposed that Gerry McCann’s talk with Jeremy Wilkins was 5 minutes, and that Jane Tanner passed them at the very end of their conversation, so that Gerry returned to the Tapas bar immediately she had passed, then the total apartment time for the abductor might be extended to nearly four minutes.

This is of course accepted, but it still remains to be explained how the first six items on the list of necessary procedures could be carried out, even in this time, undetected and unremarked by two fathers, speaking quietly together in an almost silent street just yards from the locum delicti.

And we must remember that Jeremy Wilkins had his own child in a buggy, and that it was a cold night. This is attested to by Jane Tanner “it was quite a cold night” “It was actually quite cold”: [36] and by Kate McCann “It was so cold and windy”. [37] The actual length of the conversation between the two men, who profess to be only passing acquaintances must be judged against those facts.


Summary and Comments

All the above is based on the assumption that the witnesses have told the truth.

It is difficult to understand how Madeleine Beth McCann could conceivably have been abducted from the apartment in the time available.

The PJ wished the McCanns and their friends to return and to take part in a reconstruction. All refused.

Gerry McCann and Jane Tanner did return to take part in a documentary, in which a partial reconstruction was to take place. The reality was that this was effectively “directed” by Gerry McCann himself, one of only three persons officially named as a suspect, and no important points were explored or challenged. The issue of the “window of opportunity” seems to have been totally ignored. [38]

The bald statement in the book, “I knew”, then repeated in italic, thus - “I knew” , - falls, with respect, somewhat short of the burden required in a court of law for proof that a most serious crime has been committed [39] [40]

Madeleine Beth Mccann remains missing.

Her whereabouts and her fate are still unknown.


References And Appendices

Important Note
A Many of these references may be accessed on the web site
http:/mccannfiles.com which has a good search engine.
We have tried wherever possible to find and to quote the original source.

B In several cases an original interview was reported by different newspapers.
In some cases there are slight differences in the actual words in the quotes
used, which may be for several reasons. We have tried to attach the correct
reference for the exact wording shown, but there may be instances where a
slight variation can be detected.
It is submitted that the importance is the meaning, rather than the actual
form of words used.

C Some of the original web site references are no longer available, having
been deleted, or archived beyond the reach of a casual researcher. In
those cases we show the original as it was recorded at the time, indicate by
strike through that it is no longer available, and where possible show a web
reference to which the original material and the original reference was
copied and pasted, and where at the time of publication it may still be
viewed.



The Appendices contain the extracts from the statements released by the PJ when the file was archived, from the raw transcript of the rogatory interviews, from Kate McCann’s book and from several other sources. In this way it is intended that this document may stand alone, without the need to search for the original sources.

The numbering follows that of the references above and in the body text

References

1 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann,10th of May 2007, Processos Vol I, pages 891-903
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta1

2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

3 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th of May 2007, op cit.

4 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 4th of May 2007, Processos Vol I, pages 34 - 41
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta1

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 4th of May 2007,
Processos Vol I, pages 58-65
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta4

5 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th of May 2007, op. cit.

6 Personal visit and timing. Calculation from available maps

7 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th of May 2007, op.cit.
Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 6th of September 2007, Processos Vol X, pages 2359-2548
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta5

8 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th of May 2007, op.cit.

9 Jeremy Wilkins Statement to Leicester Police 7th May 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id327.html

10 madeleine, by Kate McCann, Bantam Press, 2011. p. 71

11 Jane Tanner, Statement 4th May 2007 Processos Vol I Pages 42 – 50
http://mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2

12 Jane Tanner, Statement 4th May 2007 op.cit.

13 Jeremy Wilkins, Statement to Leicester Police 5 November 2007
op.cit.

14 Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 Nov 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id48.html

15 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th of May 2007, op.cit.

16 Personal visit and timing. Calculation from available maps

17 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th of May 2007,op.cit.

18 Jeremy Wilkins Statement to Leicester Police 7th May 2007
Jeremy Wilkins Statement to Leicester Police 5 November 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id327.html

19 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx-ZgNKBM0E&feature=player_embedded

20 madeleine, by Kate McCann, ibid. p. 71

21 Inspector Roberto Paiva report
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post513.html

22 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx-ZgNKBM0E&feature=player_embedded

23 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483026/Madeleines-fathers-chilling-belief-Kidnapper-hiding-flat-I-checked-her.html

24 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

25 madeleine, by Kate McCann, ibid.. p. 75

26 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

27 Vanity Fair interview Judy Bachrach, op.cit.

28 http://www.findmadeleine.com/updates/updates@page=1.html
(accessed 12 Dec 2012)

29 madeleine, by Kate McCann, ibid. p. 62

30 Interview Sky News, following the Panorama Documentary.
can be found within http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMNWg0fE5Y

31 The Guardian 06 April 2008 

32 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap21

33 Arguido questioning of Gerald Patrick McCann, 7th of September 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta3

34 madeleine, by Kate McCann, ibid. p.70

35 Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008 
 
36 Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', ibid

37 madeleine, by Kate McCann, ibid. p. 73

38 Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann' ibid.

39 madeleine, by Kate McCann, ibid.. p. 73

40 http://lawiki.org/lawwiki/Burden_Of_Proof

Appendices

1 The deponent had had the wrong idea that MATHEW had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21H30, and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21h30 and 22h00, but presently he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and MATHEW's visit at 21H30. It was not until about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 that he learned through RUSSEL that his partner, JANE, at around 21h10, saw a man crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, that may or may not have been his daughter MADELEINE.

2 “Yyyeeah, yeah you’re right. It was a very small window of opportunity but they saw it and then *click*!!!!!! Here Kate makes a clicking sound with her tongue and a simultaneous downward chopping motion with her right hand.

3 The deponent had had the wrong idea that MATHEW had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21H30, and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21h30 and 22h00, but presently he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and MATHEW's visit at 21H30. It was not until about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 that he learned through RUSSEL that his partner, JANE, at around 21h10, saw a man crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, that may or may not have been his daughter MADELEINE.

4 Yesterday, after the daily routine, MADELEINE and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds, and he stresses put to bed, at 7.30 pm. The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and the adults went to the "Tapas" restaurant, around 50 metres away, where they had dinner together.

Yesterday, after the daily routine, Madeleine and the twins went into the bedroom and were put in their beds at around 7.30. The witness and her husband stayed in the apartment, relaxing, until 8.30pm. She took a bath, did her make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband. Just after 8.30pm, the witness and her husband, after checking on their children, joined the other adults of the group at the "Tapas" restaurant, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner.

5 Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep.

6 •

7 He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes,

8 He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who was walking up on the right-hand side, in the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children.

9 The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.

10 “The conversation probably lasted only a few minutes . . . “

11 She remembers that at about 21h10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK.

12 At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays.

13 He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right.

14 About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.

15 He then returned to the TAPAS, between 21h10 and 21h15, dinner having gone as normal.

16 •

17 After leaving through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw “JEZ” walking up the street on the opposite pavement, bringing with him a baby buggy with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who was walking up on the right-hand side, in the ascending direction,

18 At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry

19 •

20 “Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What maybe important is that all three of them were there.”

21 She swore "by everything most sacred" that what she said is true, namely that she saw an individual with a child in his arms. Confronted, she demonstrated the distance at which the man with the child had passed her, and that was gauged to be about 5 metres.

Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version.
22 •

23 Madeleine McCann's parents say they believe that an intruder hid inside their holiday apartment before snatching their daughter from her bed.
Gerry McCann says he is convinced that, when he checked on Madeleine at 9.05pm on the evening she disappeared, the abductor was somewhere inside the ground-floor flat.

24 •

25 “Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins, too?”

26 “I will tell you what I haven’t told anyone,” says Jon Corner, a family friend. “In August, I was with Kate in Portugal. She told me, ‘I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I’d think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.’?”

27 ibid.

28 The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'

29 On Thursday 3 May I awoke in the children’s bedroom. I can’t remember who was up first but I know we had all surfaced by about 7.30am. I’m not even sure whether Gerry had actually noticed I’d slept in the other room and I chose not to mention it. At breakfast time, Madeleine had a question for us. ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’
We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they’d gone to bed? Children often get a bit fractious around bedtime, though I had no recollection of any tears from either Madeleine or Sean before they settled the previous evening. And it certainly hadn’t been in the early hours, because I’d been in the room with them, even closer than usual.
Madeleine didn’t answer or elaborate. Instead she moved on to some other topic that had popped into her head, apparently unconcerned. She certainly didn’t seem to be at all anxious or upset. Madeleine is bright, articulate and has never been backwards in coming forwards. If something had happened to make her cry, it was pretty unlikely that she wouldn’t tell us about it, assuming she remembered what it was.
Gerry and I were disconcerted. Could Madeleine and Sean have woken up while we were at dinner? If so, it was worrying, obviously, but it didn’t seem very probable. As I’ve said, not only did they rarely stir at all at night, but if they did it was hardly ever, and I mean ever, before the early hours. If they had done so on this occasion, it would mean they’d woken up, cried for a while, calmed themselves down and fallen asleep again – all within the space of half an hour. Or forty-five minutes, if it had been after our last check. Children usually need some soothing back to sleep once they’ve woken, especially if two of them are awake and upset at the same time, and it seemed highly unlikely they’d have gone through all these stages without one of them overlapping with one of our checks. It wasn’t impossible, but it seemed implausible.
Not for a moment did we think there might be some sinister reason for this occurrence, if indeed anything had occurred. If only foresight came as easily to us as hindsight. Within hours, the explanation for this would seem hugely important, and so haunted have I been ever since by Madeleine’s words that morning that I’ve continued to blame myself for not sitting down and making completely certain there was no more information I could draw out of her.
Why hadn’t this rung any alarm bells with me? How did I manage to conclude, subconsciously or otherwise, that if she had woken it was simply a rare aberration with a benign cause: a bad dream, perhaps? If in fact I ever did come to any real conclusion. It was more a case of her question just hanging there quietly, unanswered. This could have been my one chance to prevent what was about to happen, and I blew it. In the infrequent moments when I’m able to be kinder to myself, I can acknowledge, if only temporarily, that there was absolutely nothing to give me any reason for suspicion and that we can all be clever after the event. But it is my belief there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children’s bedroom that night, and that is what disturbed them.

30 “Madeleine made a comment, erm, in passing that, erm, “where were you when I cried” . . .

31 Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.”

32 •

33 When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

34 “After ordering his food, Gerry left to so the first check just before 9.05 by his watch.”

35 "It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't.”

36 Excerpts from transcript:
JT: Well I could see. . . I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

RB: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

JT: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. It was actually quite cold.

37 “It was so cold and so windy.”

38 •

39 “I’d done that, and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted.”

40 In English criminal law, the burden of Proof generally lies with the prosecution -- it has to prove all the facts that establish the guilt of the accused, except those which are assumed to be obvious (see judicial notice). The standard of proof is, nearly always, beyond reasonable doubt.







____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by Guest on 21.03.13 11:53


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by celtclogs on 21.03.13 13:41

Thank you both tigger & Peter

celtclogs

Posts : 78
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by Guest on 21.03.13 14:21

It's nice to see the Barbara Nottage article again and, as Tigger says, it's a good place for new members to start.

If you're out there somewhere Ms Nottage, please come and join us!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by Nina on 21.03.13 19:59

I do hope that this has been sent to SY it would save a lot of time, all they have to do is check the references.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2656
Reputation : 221
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by PeterMac on 21.03.13 22:30

Nina.
It was. A long time ago.
And C-R had a copy through the proper legal channels of disclosure.
And His Honour Mr Justice Tugendhat had a copy.
And in court Mrs Matorell said that in fact, (despite having worked on the case for at least the past 4 years) she had no evidence of an "abduction".
. . .
Are we surprised ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by happychick on 21.03.13 22:55

That is a fantastic piece of work PeterMac. Did you send any other material to SY?
I wonder why they are taking so long with this review. I do hope they're not going to do something silly again near the next anniversary of Madeleine's 'disappearance'.

____________________


happychick

Posts : 396
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-06-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Impossible Abduction

Post by suzyjohnson on 21.03.13 23:40

Thank you PeterMac, very well explained.

Clearly, it was almost impossible, if not impossible, for an abduction to have happened during those few minutes.

I wonder, however, whether Jane Tanner and Dr Russell O'brien have been looked at carefully by the PJ or SY?

One or the other, or both together, were absent from the Tapas bar between 9.30 (from when O'Brien walked round to the apartments with Matthew Oldfield) and 10pm. After MO returned to the Tapas, they had at least 20 mins available to them and, of course, would've known the McCann's patio door was open.

If JT and ROB were responsible for MM's disappearance, then everything in the statements of GM, KM, JW and MO could be the truth.

If this were the case then JT would have had good reason to insist that she saw the 'abductor' as early as 9.15pm, and also could be a reason why by 10pm the window was open? (to make it look as though they had not used the patio door)

Or could JT have passed a sleeping MM to anyone, someone with a car? Remember the interview where she said 'I carried .....'

Out of anyone these two had the opportunity to commit the crime, I can't think why they would want to take a child though.



____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by T4two on 22.03.13 0:01

@suzyjohnson wrote:Thank you PeterMac, very well explained.

Clearly, it was almost impossible, if not impossible, for an abduction to have happened during those few minutes.

I wonder, however, whether Jane Tanner and Dr Russell O'brien have been looked at carefully by the PJ or SY?

One or the other, or both together, were absent from the Tapas bar between 9.30 (from when O'Brien walked round to the apartments with Matthew Oldfield) and 10pm. After MO returned to the Tapas, they had at least 20 mins available to them and, of course, would've known the McCann's patio door was open.

If JT and ROB were responsible for MM's disappearance, then everything in the statements of GM, KM, JW and MO could be the truth.

If this were the case then JT would have had good reason to insist that she saw the 'abductor' as early as 9.15pm, and also could be a reason why by 10pm the window was open? (to make it look as though they had not used the patio door)

Or could JT have passed a sleeping MM to anyone, someone with a car? Remember the interview where she said 'I carried .....'

Out of anyone these two had the opportunity to commit the crime, I can't think why they would want to take a child though.



Unless the child was no longer alive and they had been asked to?

T4two

Posts : 166
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 68
Location : Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by tigger on 22.03.13 6:32

@suzyjohnson wrote:Thank you PeterMac, very well explained.

Clearly, it was almost impossible, if not impossible, for an abduction to have happened during those few minutes.

I wonder, however, whether Jane Tanner and Dr Russell O'brien have been looked at carefully by the PJ or SY?
Yes they have, it's in the files. In exhaustive detail.

One or the other, or both together, were absent from the Tapas bar between 9.30 (from when O'Brien walked round to the apartments with Matthew Oldfield) and 10pm. After MO returned to the Tapas, they had at least 20 mins available to them and, of course, would've known the McCann's patio door was open.


If JT and ROB were responsible for MM's disappearance, then everything in the statements of GM, KM, JW and MO could be the truth.
What - even the totally inaccurate description of the interior of 5a by MO?

If this were the case then JT would have had good reason to insist that she saw the 'abductor' as early as 9.15pm, and also could be a reason why by 10pm the window was open? (to make it look as though they had not used the patio door)
Why not use the patio door? Others knew it was open and it would be the sensible route to take. Before you answer this, yes I know what you meant - a cunning plot to throw the others off their trail.

Or could JT have passed a sleeping MM to anyone, someone with a car? Remember the interview where she said 'I carried .....'
Which involves an active third party known to JT and O'Brien - who do you think that was then?

Out of anyone these two had the opportunity to commit the crime, I can't think why they would want to take a child though.
So you're arguing that we should believe everyone's statements except those of the O'Briens. Because allegedly they had opportunity. But you also propose a third party with a car

Following this through, the child was sold or given to a childless couple (why not Amelie?) or is now living disguised in Devon as one of their own?
This theory also ignores the blood and cadaver odour found in 5a, and we can ignore the Smiths' sighting at 9.55 in that case.
It ignores why the McCanns didn't search for Maddie .
It ignores the fact only KM's fingerprints were on the window. etc. etc.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by PeterMac on 22.03.13 7:52

What I tried to do was to analyse the position
IF, and only IF what the three main witnesses, GM, JT, JW had been correct in what they said.

If any of them had said something different the window of opportunity might have been wider,
but they didn't, and they haven't, and in fact they have trapped themselves still further by subsequent utterances.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Impossible Abduction

Post by suzyjohnson on 22.03.13 9:37

Ok thanks PeterMac and Tigger, I was just trying to look at some alternatives.

PeterMac you are right, they have all made life very difficult for themselves.

Tigger, yes of course there is strong evidence against, the Smith sighting etc,

What is clear though is that Tanner (and O'Brien) were very involved one way or another imo, it would be very interesting to hear what they had to say if they were made arguido.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Impossible Abduction

Post by suzyjohnson on 22.03.13 10:16

Just seen your edit, thanks candyfloss

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The truth is usually simple

Post by tigger on 23.03.13 5:56

From Only in America blog:


The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

unquote

IMO - a lie told by many gets many times more complicated. At the heart of this tangle is a simple truth protected by lies and manipulation.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by ufercoffy on 23.03.13 7:17

@tigger wrote:From Only in America blog:

"We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

unquote

And the McCann's and their supporters wonder why we're still here asking so many questions about what happened to a three year old girl. We are labelled as haters for not believing their fairystory - which is exactly how they expect us to believe it in that paragraph! Unbelievable.

Thank you for finding that Tigger.

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The impossible abduction

Post by Guest on 23.03.13 7:51

Thanks tigger airkiss and PeterMac roses

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum