The Abduction Theory, what evidence is there ?

Here is an opportunity for posters to have a reasoned discussion on this.

Admin wrote:Here is an opportunity for posters to have a reasoned discussion on this.

For abduction to have occurrred the child and abductor had to cross paths.
The child left the building or the abductor found his way in........................expand..

Let's break the night down. The story according to parents and friends - Madeleine is asleep in bed when they left and they perform regular 30 minute checks.

Possible evidence of an abduction:
1- a moving door. 2- a sighting by Jane Tanner. 3- an open window. 4- Smithman seen carrying who eye witnesses believe was Madeleine.

Yes they're all linked. I'll leave the window for now but once you've worked out the moving door you can solve the case. How can a door move 3 times in 45 minutes (3 different checks)?

Gerry said the door had mysteriously moved from ajar to half-open when he checked but Madeleine was still asleep in the same position. The parents couldn't agree if she was on top or under the covers. Gerry said on top because she was hot. Kate said under because she was cold. Anyway don't let these little useless details distract you from the real evil abductor who took poor Madeleine   . Point is the moving of the door suggests an abductor moved it and then he was seen by Jane Tanner minutes later carrying Madeleine away (heading towards Murat's).

SY have found and cleared that man but Tannerman is still on the McCanns website as a suspect (see screenshot below). Do you know why? Do you know why the Smithman sighting time is 21:50 in their documentary (also the changing of his carrying style in their reconstruction to match Tannerman etc.)? Why suggest that Tannerman and Smithman were infact the same person (discard the hair)? Do you know who is ruled out if Tannerman/Smithman are the same person? They are not the same person and the Smithman file was hidden. Look in the right places and evidence is there to be discovered.

If Tannerman is not the abductor then who is?  Who is Smithman?

McCann website - Tannerman still a suspect (he always will be for them because he rules somebody out)

pathfinder73 wrote:Let's break the night down. The story according to parents and friends - Madeleine is asleep in bed when they left and they perform regular 30 minute checks.

One slight flaw,no on could be arsed to check on Madeleine betewwen GM's supposed visit to the supposed alert at 10pm.

We must assume Gerry's 9 pm visit was real, unless Wilkins is bearing false witness.

Why did Gerry have to go at that moment, as Matt told him that all was quite only a few minutes earlier? I would suggest that he had to go for a purpose other than checking on the sleeping children. This was something that had to be done under cover of darkness, so could not be  done at 8pm.
The plan was for Madeleine to be discovered missing at 9.30, but Matt scuppered that by offering to check and then failing to notice that Madeleine was not in her bed. It is more than likely that Matt did not enter 5A, as he was inaccurate in describing the interior and only did another listening exercise on the way to his apartment. To actually eyeball the children, he would have to enter and leave via the patio door before (or after going round the block to enter his own apartment. He would have noticed if the window had been interfered with by this time - it hadn't- so the story of entering A had to be later concocted to fit the narrative.

Entirely my own opinion, of course.

Travers wrote:We must assume Gerry's 9 pm visit was real, unless Wilkins is bearing false witness.

Why did Gerry have to go at that moment, as Matt told him that all was quite only a few minutes earlier? I would suggest that he had to go for a purpose other than checking on the sleeping children. This was something that had to be done under cover of darkness, so could not be  done at 8pm.
The plan was for Madeleine to be discovered missing at 9.30, but Matt scuppered that by offering to check and then failing to notice that Madeleine was not in her bed. It is more than likely that Matt did not enter 5A, as he was inaccurate in describing the interior and only did another listening exercise on the way to his apartment. To actually eyeball the children, he would have to enter and leave via the patio door before (or after going round the block to enter his own apartment. He would have noticed if the window had been interfered with by this time - it hadn't- so the story of entering A had to be later concocted to fit the narrative.

Entirely my own opinion, of course.

Good point though,So how does Matt get from his apartment having used the door with the lock,(not the patio door because this can't be locked from the out side can it?) around to the patio area of 5a?

I don't believe that Tannerman ever existed, but was another part of the abduction that never was.
On another forum, the idea was floated that Jane and Russel might have been using their patio door for evening access and this got me thinking about her journey.
Wilkins always denied seeing her, as did Gerry. There is no way she could have walked passed then unnoticed.
Now what if she was using her patio entrance and turned up the alley way before reaching the point where the two men were standing near Gerry's gateway ? In such a case she could have passed unseen and could not possibly have seen a child been carried across the top of the street.

enyam wrote:

Travers wrote:We must assume Gerry's 9 pm visit was real, unless Wilkins is bearing false witness.

Why did Gerry have to go at that moment, as Matt told him that all was quite only a few minutes earlier? I would suggest that he had to go for a purpose other than checking on the sleeping children. This was something that had to be done under cover of darkness, so could not be  done at 8pm.
The plan was for Madeleine to be discovered missing at 9.30, but Matt scuppered that by offering to check and then failing to notice that Madeleine was not in her bed. It is more than likely that Matt did not enter 5A, as he was inaccurate in describing the interior and only did another listening exercise on the way to his apartment. To actually eyeball the children, he would have to enter and leave via the patio door before (or after going round the block to enter his own apartment. He would have noticed if the window had been interfered with by this time - it hadn't- so the story of entering A had to be later concocted to fit the narrative.

Entirely my own opinion, of course.

Good point though,So how does Matt get from his apartment having used the door with the lock,(not the patio door because this can't be locked from the out side can it?) around to the patio area of 5a?

Perhaps he never did. Perhaps he only ever listened at the window.
They were attempting to mimic a 'listening service' and we only have his word that he entered his own apartment to check. Why would he do this if the were only listening ?

Travers wrote:

enyam wrote:

Travers wrote:We must assume Gerry's 9 pm visit was real, unless Wilkins is bearing false witness.

Why did Gerry have to go at that moment, as Matt told him that all was quite only a few minutes earlier? I would suggest that he had to go for a purpose other than checking on the sleeping children. This was something that had to be done under cover of darkness, so could not be  done at 8pm.
The plan was for Madeleine to be discovered missing at 9.30, but Matt scuppered that by offering to check and then failing to notice that Madeleine was not in her bed. It is more than likely that Matt did not enter 5A, as he was inaccurate in describing the interior and only did another listening exercise on the way to his apartment. To actually eyeball the children, he would have to enter and leave via the patio door before (or after going round the block to enter his own apartment. He would have noticed if the window had been interfered with by this time - it hadn't- so the story of entering A had to be later concocted to fit the narrative.

Entirely my own opinion, of course.

Good point though,So how does Matt get from his apartment having used the door with the lock,(not the patio door because this can't be locked from the out side can it?) around to the patio area of 5a?

Perhaps he never did. Perhaps he only ever listened at the window.  
They were attempting to mimic a 'listening service' and we only have his word that he entered his own apartment to check. Why would he do this if the were only listening ?

Seems abit of a change,the earlier checks were listening but according to his rog he entered his own apartment and that of 5a @ 9-30 ish.

Travers wrote:We must assume Gerry's 9 pm visit was real, unless Wilkins is bearing false witness.

Why did Gerry have to go at that moment, as Matt told him that all was quite only a few minutes earlier? I would suggest that he had to go for a purpose other than checking on the sleeping children. This was something that had to be done under cover of darkness, so could not be  done at 8pm.
The plan was for Madeleine to be discovered missing at 9.30, but Matt scuppered that by offering to check and then failing to notice that Madeleine was not in her bed. It is more than likely that Matt did not enter 5A, as he was inaccurate in describing the interior and only did another listening exercise on the way to his apartment. To actually eyeball the children, he would have to enter and leave via the patio door before (or after going round the block to enter his own apartment. He would have noticed if the window had been interfered with by this time - it hadn't- so the story of entering A had to be later concocted to fit the narrative.

Entirely my own opinion, of course.

You are spot on. Matt had just checked but Gerry still had to go to do his first visual check of the week in his own words (the last witness). Why did he have to go at that time when all the others were now present at the table and ordering food? That may have been the best time for him to go? Dark and others not out and about.

Gerry was not watching football on television being so long away as they were talking about at the table. If you break his timeline down it does not add up - 3 minutes in apartment, 3 minutes talking to Jez. Jane did not leave the table until after they'd been taking about how long Gerry had been gone (suggests a lot longer than a normal 5 minute check for people to start talking about it). Gerry had something that had to be done at all costs and one of the police theories in 2007 was that a bag was used to conceal and move Madeleine away from the crime scene before Kate's next scheduled check at 21:30. Eddie's wardrobe alert suggests where Madeleine was in that theory.

If I remember correctly, hadn't Jane had her starter before she left the table for the first time? She must have eaten it pretty smartish to have left by 9.15.
When did they order these starters, as Payne et al didn't arrive until 9 pm, yet Matt wasn't there at that time & Gerry left just after.

Matt/Russ checked after they had finished their starters at 9:25. Jane must have had hers after she returned from her check.

I have my doubts whether Jane ever went at 9.15 at all.
If she had just got back, why did Russel find it necessary go a few minutes later?
He presumably didn't know that their daughter was unwell at that time as surely Jane wouldn't have left her knowing she was unwell.

enyam wrote:

pathfinder73 wrote:Let's break the night down. The story according to parents and friends - Madeleine is asleep in bed when they left and they perform regular 30 minute checks.

One slight flaw,no on could be arsed to check on Madeleine betewwen GM's supposed visit to the supposed alert at 10pm.

I believe Matt did that check in apartment 5A because he revealed the position of the bedroom door - a door that kept moving to half-open

Yeah, half open each time.
If you were going to go in and grab a kid, you wouldn't care how you left the door.

Whole thing is make believe in my opinion.

It is quite amusing to watch in forum land the Mccann supporters getting worked up, trying to plead there is evidence for abduction, which there is bugger all evidence for, whilst they attack the indications given by Martin Grime's dogs mercilessly.

Yet they don't deem to get , the more they attack, it gives more credence to the dogs. Remembering, that no trace of an abductor/burglar etc., has been forensically detected in the apartment.

Police don't ignore that many alerts connected to one family - "Leaving the apartment alive may not follow all our thinking." They know who they're after whatever elimination game they have to play until they get the evidence required.

The abductor was clearly Zeus. Only two things need to be resolved about that.
1 What did he turn himself into to gain acess to the child ?. He usually turned himself into something wondrous.
2 Why did he depart from the usual age group he went after ?.

On a more serious note Jez Wilkins was steadfast in his belief that he could be no more specific about the time than 20:45 to 21:15. Jane Tanner's testimony was critical to fixing the time within that slot. The fact that two police forces and one set of of PIs found it unconvincing is neither here nor there in PdL Land.

Admin wrote:It is quite amusing to watch in forum land the Mccann supporters getting worked up, trying to  plead there is evidence for abduction, which there is bugger all evidence for, whilst they attack the indications given by Martin Grime's dogs mercilessly.

Yet they don't deem to get , the more they attack, it gives more credence to the dogs. Remembering, that no trace of an abductor/burglar etc., has been forensically detected in the apartment.

If you do not trust the dog alerts you would not use them on the mound.

Ayfive wrote:The abductor was clearly Zeus. Only two things need to be resolved about that.
1 What did he turn himself into to gain acess to the child ?. He usually turned himself into something wondrous.
2 Why did he depart from the usual age group he went after ?.

On a more serious note Jez Wilkins was steadfast in his belief that he could be no more specific about the time than 20:45 to 21:15. Jane Tanner's testimony was critical to fixing the time within that slot. The fact that two police forces and one set of of PIs found it unconvincing is neither here nor there in PdL Land.

We do have a time for Jes arriving back at his apartment;

Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann he webt

Assuming he went straight home I would say he and Gerry parted at around 9.20. Surely it wouldn't take him 15 minutes to get back home?

Jane didn't see Jes on her way back, so she must have arrived back after 9.20.

Here's the Mccanns hard at work searching for their 'abducted' daughter.

They were quite drawn to the beach after Madeleine disappeared, weren't they? Not before though.

Yes, the moving doors. I have mentioned this on many ocasions as I feel this is a masterful twist which has not been picked up on, with any relevence.

How would Gerry know how far open/closed the door was if he left before Kate? did she mention this and offer a measurement?

How did kate know what state Gerry left the door when he left? This does read a bit like Henny Penny, goosie loosie, cocky lockie nursery ryhme.

So when Kate checks she doesn't mention her first thought was how open or closed it was. If the shutters were up and curtains were open at that time then as soon as she popped her head in she would have immediatly felt a draft or the room would have been very cold!

In my opinion no one entered that room via a window to steal Young Maddie, the abduction story was produced/staged to cover up something else.

Their behaviour since the 'announcement' has been astonishing to say the least.