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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by bobbin on Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:38 am

@PeterMac wrote:
@Hobs wrote:Exactly PeterMac
Giving them a towel was a deliberate attempt to derail the search.
We have no idea who used that towel or if it was used by more than one person.
It is likely that it was the towel Kate and / or Gerry used, which may be why the first set of dogs went towards the supermarket.
OK, so if my child had gone missing, I would have alerted partner, friends, then the club immediately, in a panic, in case she had wandered off and I needed the help of large numbers to fan out the search.
If within just minutes this had failed, then I would have wanted the police called, by someone competent in the local language.
I would know immediately whether I had left doors open for my child to wake and wander, and if they had been locked, as I am sure they would have been with passports etc. inside, then I would know that an abduction had taken place if the windows had been jemmied.
If not jemmied or with a way of forced entering identified, then I would suspect that someone had knocked on one of the doors, my child had opened it and been taken.
This would leave no sign of an intruder, but it would leave a trace of scent of my child, even if only to a waiting car, unless the abductor had lifted my child up immediately, leaving no trace left beyond the door.
With no subsequent forensic sign of any stranger/intruder or his/her DNA, entering the apartment, this disappearance implies that it would have necessitated the co-operation at least from a 'living' child.
In Maddie's case, this scenario can not explain the blood found under the floor tiles, belonging to Maddie and which had been damaged by bleach or such.
Since the blood had been deliberately attempted to be disposed of by the use of bleach then someone must have known of its presence and wished it not to be discovered by forensic investigators.
This would be the obvious action of anyone wishing to cover a crime up.
Nor can it be explained away, why a most reputable cadavour dog signalled that a dead body had been present behind the sofa, right by Maddie's blood.
It can only be assumed then that in the McCs case, unless other people had broken into their apartment and cleaned the blood spatters up without their knowledge, then the McCs must have known what had happened to Maddie.
If they had really genuinely been stumped for an explanation, they would surely have called the police very quickly, then sought something particular of Maddie's and given it more than readily to a searcher dog, in the absolute hope that it might follow her scent and find her.
Under what circumstances would you hand a towel with possibly your or your partners scent on it to MISguide the scent command of a searcher dog, the dog being perhaps your last and only chance of finding your child before it disappears beyond reach and chance of recovery.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:47 am

@bobbin wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@Hobs wrote:Exactly PeterMac
Giving them a towel was a deliberate attempt to derail the search.
We have no idea who used that towel or if it was used by more than one person.
It is likely that it was the towel Kate and / or Gerry used, which may be why the first set of dogs went towards the supermarket.
OK, so if my child had gone missing, I would have alerted partner, friends, then the club immediately, in a panic, in case she had wandered off and I needed the help of large numbers to fan out the search.
If within just minutes this had failed, then I would have wanted the police called, by someone competent in the local language.
I would know immediately whether I had left doors open for my child to wake and wander, and if they had been locked, as I am sure they would have been with passports etc. inside, then I would know that an abduction had taken place if the windows had been jemmied.
If not jemmied or with a way of forced entering identified, then I would suspect that someone had knocked on one of the doors, my child had opened it and been taken.
This would leave no sign of an intruder, but it would leave a trace of scent of my child, even if only to a waiting car, unless the abductor had lifted my child up immediately, leaving no trace left beyond the door.
With no subsequent forensic sign of any stranger/intruder or his/her DNA, entering the apartment, this disappearance implies that it would have necessitated the co-operation at least from a 'living' child.
In Maddie's case, this scenario can not explain the blood found under the floor tiles, belonging to Maddie and which had been damaged by bleach or such.
Since the blood had been deliberately attempted to be disposed of by the use of bleach then someone must have known of its presence and wished it not to be discovered by forensic investigators.
This would be the obvious action of anyone wishing to cover a crime up.
Nor can it be explained away, why a most reputable cadavour dog signalled that a dead body had been present behind the sofa, right by Maddie's blood.
It can only be assumed then that in the McCs case, unless other people had broken into their apartment and cleaned the blood spatters up without their knowledge, then the McCs must have known what had happened to Maddie.
If they had really genuinely been stumped for an explanation, they would surely have called the police very quickly, then sought something particular of Maddie's and given it more than readily to a searcher dog, in the absolute hope that it might follow her scent and find her.
Under what circumstances would you hand a towel with possibly your or your partners scent on it to MISguide the scent command of a searcher dog, the dog being perhaps your last and only chance of finding your child before it disappears beyond reach and chance of recovery.
Very good!

Enough food for thought.

Why on earth didn't they hand over Cuddle Cat -so readily available- IF they wanted to optimize the police search, i.e. to optimize their own childs' chances of survival IF she was still alive? 

Muddling the search -> muddling any chances of finding a hot trail -> muddling any chances of finding a live child -> guilty, Mylord!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by PeterMac on Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:12 am

@Portia wrote:
Why on earth didn't they hand over Cuddle Cat -so readily available- IF they wanted to optimize the police search, i.e. to optimize their own childs' chances of survival IF she was still alive? !
And it is only for the dog to sniff.

Perhaps the high shelf was so high they couldn't reach it . Mr 

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by Guest on Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:16 am

@PeterMac wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Why on earth didn't they hand over Cuddle Cat -so readily available- IF they wanted to optimize the police search, i.e. to optimize their own childs' chances of survival IF she was still alive? !
And it is only for the dog to sniff.

Perhaps the high shelf was so high they couldn't reach it .  Mr 
Dachshunds probably, while we're at it

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by Nightfly on Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:00 am

Looking through all the recent discussions, if Tannerman has now been dropped and the Smiths sighting is being questioned, then I still ask the question as to how a child could easily be spirited away/abducted/hidden etc and I still think the most obvious is using a vehicle. Have we all been misdirected to forever discuss the mutitude of weirdoes wandering Portugal like the Zombies or address the question at the heart of everything - Why has Madeiline not been found in the resort?
Maybe because she isn't in the resort? If either abducted or taken somewhere (I'm trying to respect the sensibilities of some posters!) then surely anybody in the same situation would look to get out of the resort and the noses of the Police and journalists. There has always been a feeling that the 'grinning' confidence and condescending arogant attitude is a pathological response to 'I'm brainier than you lot' (because we're all looking in the wrong spot!).

Nightfly

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by PeterMac on Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:33 am

@Nightfly wrote:Looking through all the recent discussions, if Tannerman has now been dropped and the Smiths sighting is being questioned, then I still ask the question as to how a child could easily be spirited away/abducted/hidden etc and I still think the most obvious is using a vehicle. Have we all been misdirected to forever discuss the mutitude of weirdoes wandering Portugal like the Zombies or address the question at the heart of everything - Why has Madeiline not been found in the resort?
Maybe because she isn't in the resort? If either abducted or taken somewhere (I'm trying to respect the sensibilities of some posters!) then surely anybody in the same situation would look to get out of the resort and the noses of the Police and journalists. There has always been a feeling that the 'grinning' confidence and condescending arogant attitude is a pathological response to 'I'm brainier than you lot' (because we're all looking in the wrong spot!).
Any self respecting Abductor who had been "Watching the family for a week" and "taking notes" as Kate has helpfully told us, would surely have had, or borrowed, or nicked a car.
The idea of his prancing round the streets of a tiny village, going towards the very area where the most people would be, rather than away from it is absurd. Sorry, Ludicrous.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by Guest on Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:34 am

@Nightfly wrote: [...]. There has always been a feeling that the 'grinning' confidence and condescending arogant attitude is a pathological response to 'I'm brainier than you lot' (because we're all looking in the wrong spot!).
***
You remind me of my dear late father, who used to say to me: "If you have a problem and cannot solve it, turn it around and look at it from the other side."

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by Guest on Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:40 am

@PeterMac wrote:
Any self respecting Abductor who had been "Watching the family for a week" and "taking notes" as Kate has helpfully told us, would surely have had, or borrowed, or nicked a car.
The idea of his prancing round the streets of a tiny village, going towards the very area where the most people would be, rather than away from it is absurd. Sorry, Ludicrous.
***
Do I remember correctly that a couple acquainted to O'Brien/Tanner actually had a car that week? Please correct me, if I'm wrong. And I'll do some additional research.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

Post by Guest on Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:54 am

The O'Connor family, highly pregnant wife, something about their hired car return and those first two days of that week they did nót spend at The Ocean Club. 
The family Jane Tanner contacted by phone, alledgedly cancelling a BBQ in the UK for the week after... 
IIrc that is

Kindest regards

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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