Maybe Tannerman was there after all?

It would be convenient now to throw out the Tannerman after the new witness (6yrs later!). However like most people intrigued by the events it sometimes helps to look at something from a different perspective. Each time a damming piece of evidence was introduced the story changed to encompass it.
Many on here appear to infer that the child died in the appartment on a different day - maybe the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying and the telephones went mad with calls and messages that were later wiped. Also there was the Swansea wrong number that may point to another location.

What has always bothered me is that although some ridicule their mental capacity because of their contradictions - they must have been reasonably intelligent to  advance through to their career heights and also very determined. Why then would we believe that they would run around the resort day or night carrying a corpse?  Their own child for heavens sake! Then there is the huge escalating conspiracy theory that grows like all other conspiracy theories - Kennedy, 911 etc I still dont think that all the T9 could have been involved - although maybe most knew and sympathetically played a straight bat - in all walks of life people dont 'Grass on their friends'.

I still firmly believe the child was taken/hidden/abducted by car any other way would have been foolhardy and fraught with unnecessay danger. If the parents have a powerful ally or friend who could help out then things become a little clearer - as I am unsure that the parents could remove, hide, conceal and despose of their own child - so someone else did.

If the events happened a day or two earlier then things could be actioned and planned (photos, itineries etc), so how was the child 'removed'? A friend/ally/MI5 would make the arrangements to remove by car and get a safe distance away so no chance of discovery - which brings me back to Tannerman - just another idea.........Maybe the time for removal was 9pm which would account for GM being there on his own - to open the door/patio assist in checking the coast is clear for Tannerman - engage someone in conversation who stumbled into them and then JT saw Tannerman cross swiftly without realising (especially if she was'nt in on the charade) - at that moment there wouldnt have been any reason to see anything suspicious as the alarm wasnt raised for another 45 minutes.
Tannerman who was of Potuguese appearance and reasonably fit would take the child to a nearby vehicle (maybe the white van seen cruising around) and then the deed was done leaving a mother to return and the famous 'they've taken her' makes more sense. Perhaps I'm watching too many James Bond type films 'We will clean up James, just get yourself out of there'.

It then brings back the Smith sighting which is another problem which seems to have diluted over the years - convenient I know but perhaps this was just another mistaken incident blown out of proportion? I still cant imagine that in the eye of the storm that a father would take the chance to run down to the beach ( the most obvious place to search first) and if planned for a couple of days even less likely. The sniggering dismissalls alert me to the confidence that we have been all diverted down a path with no end whilst the truth is more simple - a third party removed the child a long distance and arrangements made to conceal. Also perhaps the scenic DNA was just a fluke and transferred innocently which misdirects us or as is likely this car was used at a later date and probably not by the Mcs as again you would have to be a monster to drive around with your  decaying child in the boot!

I realise that many may scoff or dont like to change fixed opinions but I'm convinced a vehicle was used - even the PJ dogs followed scent to car park.

Interesting. That would be in-line with theories, that Madeleine indeed died earlier than May 3, behind the sofa and "stored" in the master bedroom cupboard [reason for Kate to sleep in the other room?], then May 3 removed by a 3rd person.

However, why would Gerry hold-up Jez Wilkins. Wouldn't he rather have tried to get rid of him, whilst the "remover" was waiting inside till the coast was clear again?

Anyway: in your theory Kate and Gerry figure again as primo having known what really happened, secundo having initiated or agreed to the "abduction" of a body and, last but not least having created a "fund" gathering millions, whilst they knew she was dead. Bad ...

Yes sorry I meant to suggest that the conversation with Jez wasnt organised but was one of those things that goes wrong and a complete coincidence when GMc left the apartment. He had to keep him speaking whilst Tannerman walked past to the waiting car. Remember that no one was aware of a missing child then so everything would have appeared normal and innocent. The way the desciption of Tannerman holding the child in a quite gentle manner and not hurridly carrying across a shoulder makes me feel like this was to show respect. GMc spending a few last minutes with his daughter and checking everything else was ok seems likely and may also account for the twins sleeping - wouldnt want them to wake up and see third party help or even worse their sister. There doesnt seem to be many people aggreeing with my premise that a vehicle was involved but if I had a day or two to think things through or if someone else was directing operations surely a swift exit would be the better less messy option especially to move as far away from an impending search.

I think your theory is a good one, and I agree very much that a car would be the best way. I don't know why no one has really addressed there being a car involved initially. It all so muddled. Because don't forget that GA said that there was evidence in the wheel well of the Scenic of frozen body fluids. We know the McCanns didn't hire this car until well after the supposed abduction. We also know, I think IIRC that someone connected to the McCanns (was it MW) hired this vehicle well before the abduction (someone put me right here if I have got the wrong Wright - bad memory IYCWIM). Which means that someone else was carrying around a cadaver - hells bells! So even though the simplest method, like removing the child in a car, it doesn't tally with the evidence.

Angelique wrote:I think your theory is a good one, and I agree very much that a car would be the best way. I don't know why no one has really addressed there being a car involved initially. It all so muddled. Because don't forget that GA said that there was evidence in the wheel well of the Scenic of frozen body fluids. We know the McCanns didn't hire this car until well after the supposed abduction. We also know, I think IIRC that someone connected to the McCanns (was it MW) hired this vehicle well before the abduction (someone put me right here if I have got the wrong Wright - bad memory IYCWIM). Which means that someone else was carrying around a cadaver - hells bells! So even though the simplest method, like removing the child in a car, it doesn't tally with the evidence.

It was a different MW Angelique with same name.

Nightfly wrote:He had to keep him speaking whilst Tannerman walked past to the waiting car. [...].

***
Why, if there was a car waiting, wouldn't it have been on the car park just in front of Madeleine's bedroom? Hence no one being seen by anyone on the other road?
No offense, just testing your theory ...

What has always bothered me is that although some ridicule their mental capacity because of their contradictions - they must have been reasonably intelligent to  advance through to their career heights and also very determined. Why then would we believe that they would run around the resort day or night carrying a corpse?  Their own child for heavens sake! Then there is the huge escalating conspiracy theory that grows like all other conspiracy theories - Kennedy, 911 etc I still dont think that all the T9 could have been involved - although maybe most knew and sympathetically played a straight bat - in all walks of life people dont 'Grass on their friends'.

 Hi Nightfly don't want to quote all your long post but I think this paragraph is an excellent summary of many of the things which have worried me about the case.  The problem for me is that many people start off by ridiculing the Tapas 9 statements for their inconsistencies and then find themselves believing even more outrageous theories.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the Tanner sighting - if it was invented to tie in with the Smithman sighting why did they pick such a ridiculous time for the sighting to take place, forcing Gerry to come with ridiculous theories such as the abductor being in the apartment at the same time he was?

Meaning no offence to doctors - I know lots of people in that profession and they are lovely - it strikes me that the qualities needed for that profession are also the kind of qualities which would help you plan/cover up a crime.  You don't need to be a genius but you do need to be very pragmatic, to be able to pay attention to details and perhaps most importantly - be able to cover your back and your colleagues' backs because of the risk of getting sued.  I don't believe they would make such stupid mistakes either nor do I believe they were all involved in some giant conspiracy.  I think perhaps one or two people were in on the coverup, if one existed, the rest just instinctively joined ranks to protect their colleagues/fellow Brits.

I wonder myself if Jane Tanner did indeed see Crecheman (perhaps not quite where she said she did or in such details, but just a glimpse of a man carrying a child) and the McCanns were forced to go along with this - because one of the other doctors had already written this down on the timeline, even though they later realised that while it supposedly provided evidence of the abduction it also made the window of opportunity impossibly narrow.  I have even conjectured if the reason they were so insistent on having it on Crimewatch was becausing they were actually hoping that someone would come forward ...

Châtelaine wrote:

Nightfly wrote:He had to keep him speaking whilst Tannerman walked past to the waiting car.  [...].

***
Why, if there was a car waiting, wouldn't it have been on the car park just in front of Madeleine's bedroom? Hence no one being seen by anyone on the other road?
No offense, just testing your theory ...

Wouldn't it have been spotted by any passer by, including all the Tapas going to check in one of the apartments?

And would't it have required (a) a car, and (b) an accomplice; traces of which are lacking to this minute

Nightfly,you say the PJ dogs followed the scent to a car park.Could some-one remind me, wasn't it a towel that was used for scent? If so, I would be surprised to hear that it was exclusively and provably used by Madeleine- isn't it claimed that the children shared a hair brush and toothbrush?So how can anyone be certain whose scent was being followed?

And that is [one of] "des Pudels Kern". Which goes with very many other things, they've done [or didn't do]. Frankness obliges to mention that they also gave the "pink blanket". Remember? The one was on the bed and then disappeared?

11.22.2013

worriedmum wrote:Nightfly,you say the PJ dogs followed the scent to a car park.Could some-one remind me, wasn't it a towel that was used for scent? If so, I would be surprised to hear that it was exclusively and provably used by Madeleine- isn't it claimed that the children shared a hair brush and toothbrush?So how can anyone be certain whose scent was being followed?

The first dogs at 2.00 m got a blanket -they asked for clothes. 
The second lot got a towel.

tigger wrote:11.22.2013

worriedmum wrote:Nightfly,you say the PJ dogs followed the scent to a car park.Could some-one remind me, wasn't it a towel that was used for scent? If so, I would be surprised to hear that it was exclusively and provably used by Madeleine- isn't it claimed that the children shared a hair brush and toothbrush?So how can anyone be certain whose scent was being followed?

The first dogs at 2.00 m got a blanket -they asked for clothes. 
The second lot got a towel.

***
Thanks, Tigger. The way I remembered it was the other way around. But ... nevertheless ... it remains a mystery, why not clothes, shoes ...

Thank you Tigger. :flower: 

Yes I agree Chatelaine, I would have thought clothes would have been better too..

One thing which people still disagree on, is the timing of Madeleine's death. Personally I have to go with the evening of May the 3rd simply because they made such an unbelievably bad job of the faked abduction. I mean there's a way to do an abduction in a scenario like this that makes people think 'did they do it, or did they not do it, I don't know what to believe.' With the Mccanns that just can't be said. All of which makes you think the fake abduction couldn't have been planned.

As to Kate's words 'they've taken her' is it possible that someone was in the flat, with the knowledge of the Mccanns (and doing something illicit), and that when Kate came back she found that they and (to her surprise) Madeleine had both gone? Or maybe she came back, found that these people had gone, and not seeing Madeleine (who was behind the sofa) put two and two together and believed she had been taken.

I'm sure some of these ideas can be dismissed by people who are better in the know on this case.

As for Jane Tanner, I think she has lied too many times and gave that stupid egg-man description that she isn't to be believed. But I think the car idea is a good one Nightfly and you make a good point about the Mccann's not being stupid. I also am beginning to believe the Smith sighting might not only be false but could be more sinister than we first thought.

Then again, maybe they thought she was abducted, then found her dead, then faked an abduction at high speed. Too complex though I think.

May 3 routines were distinctly different from the other days. Something, which makes me think that something happened earlier. IMO  May 2, but I know that others are thinking as early as April 28/29 ... In general statements regarding May 1 are indeed "vague".

But this aside, there have been some spanners in the works, I don't believe they're experienced criminals or fraudeurs or conspirators , and as such May 3, was a plan gone wrong. IMO, of course, as always.

worriedmum wrote:Thank you Tigger. :flower: 

Yes I agree Chatelaine, I would have thought clothes would have been better too..

I think I put all the dog searches  and refs. In 'Kate  and dogs -all sorts''

Shoes are the most perfect for dogs to scent, since they retain all the flakes of skin, sweat and so on, and are very rarely washed - with the exception of modern trainers.

The first photographs of the bedroom show an incredibly tidy room with no toys, clothes or shoes lying around.
Remarkable for three small children on holiday.

PeterMac wrote:Shoes are the most perfect for dogs to scent, since they retain all the flakes of skin, sweat and so on, and are very rarely washed - with the exception of modern trainers.

precisely, Maddie was photographed at the playground in sneakers, video'd on the airport bus in sneakers,
photographed in sandals and socks on the tennis courts.
So, since the McCann washing machine had not been put on between 'discovering Maddie Missing' at 10 p.m. on 3rd May and the arrival of the police an hour or so later, and the search dogs arriving around 2 a.m on 4th May, HOW COME the dogs couldn't be handed the socks, or if already mixed with the other sibling dirty laundry, at least the sneakers or sandals.
Even if Maddie's clothes, worn that day, had been contaminated by sibling DNA, by being in the same wash pile, we know the twins couldn't have contaminated the shoes since they were lying prostrate in their cots and were nigh on comatose till next morning despite all Kate's SCREAMING and a host of people coming and going, their incessant noise and the lights being on full.
Unless the siblings had ceremoniously put Maddie's shoes on after she had gone to bed and before they were put into their cots, Maddie's shoes should have had indisputable Maddie scents for the dogs to follow.
It is details like this that make me certain that the McCs did not wish to 'help' the investigation, so to accuse Gonçalo Amaral of hindering the investigation is hypocrisy at its very worst (but of course there is a monetary incentive in this aspect of the libel case).

dantezebu wrote:The first photographs of the bedroom show an incredibly tidy room with no toys, clothes or shoes lying around.
Remarkable for three small children on holiday.

Madeleine was obviously a super little housemaid as well as an efficient childminder.....

Is anyone else surprised that CM hasn't drip-fed to the 'press' that the 3 women found this week in London, kept as slaves, has given K & G fresh hope that something similar could have happened to Madeleine in Portugal? The 'abductor' could have been so impressed with her ability to protect two younger siblings in an unlocked room and be trusted to get them out of the apartment in an emergency that he just had to take her to look after his own children......

PeterMac wrote:Shoes are the most perfect for dogs to scent, since they retain all the flakes of skin, sweat and so on, and are very rarely washed - with the exception of modern trainers.

Exactly PeterMac

Why didn't they give the police items of clothing which were Maddie's which had been worn by her that day?

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.

the dogs could have been following the scent of anyone including the mccanns and their children, especially since they apparantly only had 1 toothbrush between them

Why would parents want to hinder the search from the get go by not giving them something with Maddie's scent on that was known to be only her scent?

Perhaps because by doing so the dogs would never have left the apartment and gone straight to the back of the sofa or even wardrobe or garden.

The police only had their word her scent was on it and we all know how truthful and honest they are

Nightfly wrote:I still firmly believe the child was taken/hidden/abducted by car any other way would have been foolhardy and fraught with unnecessay danger. If the parents have a powerful ally or friend who could help out then things become a little clearer - as I am unsure that the parents could remove, hide, conceal and despose of their own child - so someone else did.

It always pains me when this discussion comes up. I suppose I can understand why the terms "collection" and "disposal" are relevant in one sense it's sad to see the terms repeatedly used and I think it's disrespectful to Madeleine. 

I don't personally believe the children were ever left on their own just as I doubt very much that the parents would head off to dinner leaving their dead child's body out for "disposal".

oakeso wrote:

Nightfly wrote:I still firmly believe the child was taken/hidden/abducted by car any other way would have been foolhardy and fraught with unnecessay danger. If the parents have a powerful ally or friend who could help out then things become a little clearer - as I am unsure that the parents could remove, hide, conceal and despose of their own child - so someone else did.

It always pains me when this discussion comes up. I suppose I can understand why the terms "collection" and "disposal" are relevant in one sense it's sad to see the terms repeatedly used and I think it's disrespectful to Madeleine. 

I don't personally believe the children were ever left on their own just as I doubt very much that the parents would head off to dinner leaving their dead child's body out for "disposal".

I see your 'location' is 'the cellar, looking for NZ labels". Do you particularly like the stuff ?  

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.

bobbin wrote:I see your 'location' is 'the cellar, looking for NZ labels". Do you particularly like the stuff ?  

Not a drop. Just wanted to see what all that hype was about 

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 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!

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 .  

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 .   

Dachshunds probably, while we're at it

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!).