"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[gord]

I agree that carrying a child that way is not the normal way you carry a child .

But not being normal means nada - There is nothing about an abduction that means normal - If Maddy had been handed out of a window it might be more understandable why she was handed over that way as opposed to upright

We will never known if Tanner saw Maddy / or abductor or not unless there is a breakthrough in the case

But within the time lines discussed it was possible - granted we are down to 5 or 7 minutes here or there and teh abductor would have taken risks - how was he to know that Jez wilkins would stop and chat or Tanner would come up.

I am not saying it is what happened but it was not impossible

 

[fabgod]

Gord,
I think it was possible, but my thoughts are that it would have happened later than the Tanner sighting, I realise, that if an abductor was going to take a massive chance and did make his/her move between 9 and 9.20 that evening, that he/she could have got unbelievably lucky and got away with it.
I just think that if we are agreeing that this would have been a planned abduction and the situation had been monitored, then it would have made a lot more sense and been much more achievable between 9.30 and 10.

This obviously discounts the Tanner sighting, which I don't see as a problem but it seems many do.

 

[brit1981]

The thing is we cannot discount the sighting because that is not a normal way to carry a child, like Gord says it is not normal to abduct a child. Abduction is not normal, and I have seen cctv of a man trying to kidnap a sixteen year old girl by carrying her that way (it was somewhere in britain, try searching the bbc).

I do not think we should discount a detective with experience of kidnappers just because he was paid by the sun. Who do you think the court would listen to more, him or us? It does not mean he is correct, and I notice at the end he speaks of the other attacks, but it does mean we have to consider the fact an expert things there was a window of opportunity.

The thing is an abductor could have got in there in the time frame, it would not have taken a long time. Gerry left the flat, walked a bit down the street and was in conversation with Jeremy by the time Jane made the sighting. that was plenty of time for someone to have walked in one door, grabbed a child and got out again in time to be seen by jane. perhaps it was one abductor, perhaps it was two, but so far no-one has come up with any evidence to discount the sighting. Does not mean it was a sighting of an abductor just that we cannot discount. Now scotland yard have stated they believe it was a stranger abduction so they must think there was an opportunity for an abduction to happen, remembering the timings all night would have been tight.

Going back to the carrying position (and I agree that the horrocks statement on this is a bit thin), I do think it could be indicitive of her being handed out of a window. One reason for this is thta if someone was going out of the car park door, it woudl have not been very easy to hold her in this way, but to pass her out of the window in this position would have been much easier thna holding her upright, and for all we know the abductor wa sin a car a minute after they went out of jane's sight, so we are talking about carrying the child in that position for just two three minutes (and again for all we know she may have woken after a couple of minutes).

 

[fabgod]

The thing is we cannot discount the sighting because that is not a normal way to carry a child, like Gord says it is not normal to abduct a child. Abduction is not normal, and I have seen cctv of a man trying to kidnap a sixteen year old girl by carrying her that way (it was somewhere in britain, try searching the bbc).

I do not think we should discount a detective with experience of kidnappers just because he was paid by the sun. Who do you think the court would listen to more, him or us? It does not mean he is correct, and I notice at the end he speaks of the other attacks, but it does mean we have to consider the fact an expert things there was a window of opportunity.

The thing is an abductor could have got in there in the time frame, it would not have taken a long time. Gerry left the flat, walked a bit down the street and was in conversation with Jeremy by the time Jane made the sighting. that was plenty of time for someone to have walked in one door, grabbed a child and got out again in time to be seen by jane. perhaps it was one abductor, perhaps it was two, but so far no-one has come up with any evidence to discount the sighting. Does not mean it was a sighting of an abductor just that we cannot discount. Now scotland yard have stated they believe it was a stranger abduction so they must think there was an opportunity for an abduction to happen, remembering the timings all night would have been tight.

Going back to the carrying position (and I agree that the horrocks statement on this is a bit thin), I do think it could be indicitive of her being handed out of a window. One reason for this is thta if someone was going out of the car park door, it woudl have not been very easy to hold her in this way, but to pass her out of the window in this position would have been much easier thna holding her upright, and for all we know the abductor wa sin a car a minute after they went out of jane's sight, so we are talking about carrying the child in that position for just two three minutes (and again for all we know she may have woken after a couple of minutes).

Nobody is saying the sighting is discounted because of the way he was carrying the child,
I am saying I think that the sighting wasnt Madeleine because I dont think that she could have been taken in the minutes preceeding the sighting.

Thats my personal opinion, I havent seen anything to make me think otherwise here or anywhere else.
I personally think Horrocks view is badly flawed, It may well be what he believes but If I am to consider that this is a report from a previously high ranking police officer, then that concerns me as to the standard of policing in the UK.

I dont think a court would give precedence to a retired police officer over a regular non criminal member of the public in a trial of any sort, that is akin to saying that if a retired policeman said I scratched his car and I said I didnt, that the court would take his word over mine, the whole point is evidence and proof.

You keep returning to Scotland Yard saying its a stranger abduction, just to correct you, that is one of the theories they say they are working on, they do not say it is the only one and that is what they should be saying.

Scotland Yard are also not saying, that Jane Tanners sighting is key evidence and that the timing is correct, they could be looking at a later time frame as far as you or we know.
As I have said before, I do not understand the reason for this almost desperate need to make Jane Tanners sighting the key to the story, there are plenty of other windows in the timeframe that would fit.

Maybe I am missing something re the Tanner sighting

 

[brit1981]

I think if an ex-dectective with experience of kidnapping gave evidence to a court it would be believed over the opinion of someone who can say that they know nothing about policing or kidnapping, but they did read the case files. He has experience, people like us have not.

I do not think there is a desperate need for jane tanner's sighting to be of the abductor, I have always said it could be an innocent. But I see no reason to discount it base don timings. Whenever she was taken the timings were going to be down to a few minutes if we assume that an abductor was going to try avoid most people. Also an abductor did not know Gerry would stop and talk to jeremy, this had not happened on other nights, and if he had been watching the taps bar he could easily have thought that no-one else would be making a check so soon after gerry (jane seems to have made more frequent trips thna the others). It would ahve taken two minutes to carry out the abduction.

 

[gord]

The reason the Tanner sighting is so important is that it is the only witness statement we have about anything unusual that night (ok the smiths too )

Having read her LP statement which was pretty thorough - she was either a great actress or she saw what she saw

The posibilitues are :

It was a local who was going home - again why didint he come forward - also the way of carrying a child would be more relevant here - if it was a normal person walking home they would be more likely to carrying their child upright. It is the very fact that it was unusual to see a chile being carried that way that strikes me as odd - as it did JT - it is odd things that break cases

or

Jane Tanner is lying and complicit in everything - again until I see something more concretet than just gut feel - ie an actual theory on how they were complicit and how they disposed of the body and why what motive - I have never seen anything that remotely explains that except more far fetched conspiracy theories about goverments , cover ups etc which I find ludicrous

I am happy to look at other time lines and other scenarios - I am sure that the police did so as well - I would welcome as many Horrocks as possible to look at the cold case - who cares if it is the sun or not that pays - it keeps the case in the public eye and gives us more chance that one day something might drop - maybe an arrest one day for another crime and someone says something -

Again with the discussion here and looking at the timeline that involves Tanners sighting - it to em that is - does not look impossible - granted there is only a period of 5 to 7 minutes where there could have been a window - but that to me does not seem impossible - knowing how quick it would be for an individual to walk into a room open a shutter and window and hand a child out - I reckon that could take 2 minutes - that is scary .

I picked my sleeping daighter the other night from our room and walked her through stone asleep to her bed - 30 seconds - no probably 15 seconds . I have picked my som from the car up the stairs and into bed in a minute

so this excercise has been interesting I re read the Tanner statement which was much much more detailed than anything that came out of Portugal - looking at teh statements from the 4th May I am now surprised at how short and lacking in detail they were

 

[fabgod]

The reason the Tanner sighting is so important is that it is the only witness statement we have about anything unusual that night (ok the smiths too )

Having read her LP statement which was pretty thorough - she was either a great actress or she saw what she saw

The posibilitues are :

It was a local who was going home - again why didint he come forward - also the way of carrying a child would be more relevant here - if it was a normal person walking home they would be more likely to carrying their child upright. It is the very fact that it was unusual to see a chile being carried that way that strikes me as odd - as it did JT - it is odd things that break cases

or

Jane Tanner is lying and complicit in everything - again until I see something more concretet than just gut feel - ie an actual theory on how they were complicit and how they disposed of the body and why what motive - I have never seen anything that remotely explains that except more far fetched conspiracy theories about goverments , cover ups etc which I find ludicrous

I am happy to look at other time lines and other scenarios - I am sure that the police did so as well - I would welcome as many Horrocks as possible to look at the cold case - who cares if it is the sun or not that pays - it keeps the case in the public eye and gives us more chance that one day something might drop - maybe an arrest one day for another crime and someone says something -

Again with the discussion here and looking at the timeline that involves Tanners sighting - it to em that is - does not look impossible - granted there is only a period of 5 to 7 minutes where there could have been a window - but that to me does not seem impossible - knowing how quick it would be for an individual to walk into a room open a shutter and window and hand a child out - I reckon that could take 2 minutes - that is scary .

I picked my sleeping daighter the other night from our room and walked her through stone asleep to her bed - 30 seconds - no probably 15 seconds . I have picked my som from the car up the stairs and into bed in a minute

so this excercise has been interesting I re read the Tanner statement which was much much more detailed than anything that came out of Portugal - looking at teh statements from the 4th May I am now surprised at how short and lacking in detail they were

All good points gord,
My point has never been about Jane Tanner lying and being complicit in the death and cover up of Madeleine, i feel like I am flogging a dead horse here!

My reason for doing the timeline was to show that it seems unlikely that an abductor/s would have made his/her/there move at the time which coincides with Jane Tanners sighting, I think there are times later that would fit more comfortably.
I thought that the point of Websleuths was to try and look into cases and look for possibilities/ discount by proof, theories, unfortunately in this case, there seems to be many that are not interested in doing that.

I would have thought that we could have looked at the timeline, discussed options, done a little brainstorming, but all that seems to have happened in most cases is that we get posts trying to discredit Dogs, DNA, statements, anything but actually look at the case.
Maybe that is the intention in some posters minds though.

Its nice to hear that you are happy to look at timelines and other scenarios, you may be one of the few lol!

 

[fabgod]

I think if an ex-dectective with experience of kidnapping gave evidence to a court it would be believed over the opinion of someone who can say that they know nothing about policing or kidnapping, but they did read the case files. He has experience, people like us have not.

I do not think there is a desperate need for jane tanner's sighting to be of the abductor, I have always said it could be an innocent. But I see no reason to discount it base don timings. Whenever she was taken the timings were going to be down to a few minutes if we assume that an abductor was going to try avoid most people. Also an abductor did not know Gerry would stop and talk to jeremy, this had not happened on other nights, and if he had been watching the taps bar he could easily have thought that no-one else would be making a check so soon after gerry (jane seems to have made more frequent trips thna the others). It would ahve taken two minutes to carry out the abduction.

Why would I or you be in a court giving evidence on a kidnapping, it is not relevant in the slightest.
If I was in court and it was an ex police officer and myself opposed over a matter that involved no other witnesses, you are stating that he would be believed over me, so if my car had been damaged for example by the police officer, you are saying that he would be beleived over me, because he was a police officer in the past?
A court of law acts on evidence not on reputation, just ecause somebdy did a certain job does not mean that they cannot be a killer or a thief or a rapist, that is a fact, take it to the bank!

 

[fabgod]

gord,
one final point on the Horrocks thing, I can take your point that all press is good press, but other people have said that the press stating that the MCCanns had anything to do with it and the way that Jeremy Wilkins has been treated would deter people from coming forward.
I would ask then, Horrocks statement about Madeleine living with a loving family and being cared for, does that in itself not paint a picture of complacency, in that the urgency to find her is not there?
He has rubbished the idea that she had been taken by paedophiles, why?
I know of very very few cases of a child ever being recovered from a family previously unknown to the abducted child, that hadnt been subsequently held and abused by that family or person?

Horrocks report in my view was not in any way realistic, the only purpose it could have served on a positive note was, as you rightly state - to keep the awareness up

 

[brit1981]

My gut feeling is that the tanner sighting was an abudctor. Someone was watchign saw Gerry leave, saw everyone else had left, went in grabbed the child, eithe rtook her out or handed her out of the window, and walked out again in just a few minutes, and it was just by chance jane happened to see them. If she had left thorty seconds later she woudl have missed them. If she had left a couple of minutes earlier she might have realised what was going on, but given the position of the child it is not likely she woudl have recognized madeleine at the time. the abduction had to have occurred at soem point, it was always going to be risky, why risk waiting any longer when you see you have a few minutes to do it.

Another thing that supports the handing out of a window theory is the position of the child. Not just being carried like they had just been scooped out of bed, but with their head over the persons left arm. Now if you took a child out of bed yourself, from the position of madeleine's bed their head would be over your giht arm. But obviously when you handed the child to someone else, they woudl be facing you so carry them the opposit way i.e head over left arm

 

[fabgod]

My gut feeling is that the tanner sighting was an abudctor. Someone was watchign saw Gerry leave, saw everyone else had left, went in grabbed the child, eithe rtook her out or handed her out of the window, and walked out again in just a few minutes, and it was just by chance jane happened to see them. If she had left thorty seconds later she woudl have missed them. If she had left a couple of minutes earlier she might have realised what was going on, but given the position of the child it is not likely she woudl have recognized madeleine at the time. the abduction had to have occurred at soem point, it was always going to be risky, why risk waiting any longer when you see you have a few minutes to do it.

Another thing that supports the handing out of a window theory is the position of the child. Not just being carried like they had just been scooped out of bed, but with their head over the persons left arm. Now if you took a child out of bed yourself, from the position of madeleine's bed their head would be over your giht arm. But obviously when you handed the child to someone else, they woudl be facing you so carry them the opposit way i.e head over left arm

BBM
not if the window was only 50cm wide and the child was 1 metre long

 

[brit1981]

No you could still pass a child out of the window you woudl just put them out at an angle, but they woudl end up in the same position

 

[Donjeta]

Another thing that supports the handing out of a window theory is the position of the child. Not just being carried like they had just been scooped out of bed, but with their head over the persons left arm. Now if you took a child out of bed yourself, from the position of madeleine's bed their head would be over your giht arm. But obviously when you handed the child to someone else, they woudl be facing you so carry them the opposit way i.e head over left arm

Are we sure in which position Madeleine slept?
I know from my kids that although the bed stays facing the same way all through the years my kids may be found sleeping in various different positions through the night.

 

[brit1981]

Are we sure in which position Madeleine slept?
I know from my kids that although the bed stays facing the same way all through the years my kids may be found sleeping in various different positions through the night.

But her bed was in such a position that a person picking her up would have had her head over their right arm (assuming she was sleepign with her head towards the pillow end), but if they then handed her to someone else her head would be over their left arm. Obviously that is just be theorizing, we have no idea really. Unless someone comes forward to identify themselves, or the case is solved we will never be able to be certain if Tanner saw an abductor or not.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes, I understood what you meant, was just saying that some kids toss and turn and move so much when they sleep that they may end up sleeping any which way regardless of where the pillow was put.

Madeleine may not have been such a child though, IIRC i saw a photo of her bed and the sheets were barely disturbed, so she might have been a very quiet sleeper.

 

[fabgod]

No you could still pass a child out of the window you woudl just put them out at an angle, but they woudl end up in the same position

What angle would that be?
the only way to pass a child that measure 1 metre in height
is head first
feet first
bend the child in half,
maybe she was a very deep sleeper, It wouldn't matter how you tried to get the child out through the window, you dont even know which way the 2nd abductor is standing and that makes a very big difference. your theory is flawed!

 

[brit1981]

exactly you keep the child in the same position, but either pass them out head or feet first. But looking at that window a child could be passed out of it easily, especialy given that the way their were being held meant they were not stretched out to their full height. besides was the window only 50cm wide, it looks bigger to me.

I think we can assume they were facing the window and therefore the person passing the child out of the window.
I do not see how it is a flawed theory.

 

[Donjeta]

I just don't really understand what benefit the abductors would perceive they get from passing the child through a window. It's not any faster than getting out of the door and if I see someone passing a child through a window I'm going to snap into attention because you just don't see that very often but people walking through doors are a pretty common sight so I might not take any notice of that.

If there were two abductors one could have handed her to another and used the doors anyway.

 

[gord]

I just don't really understand what benefit the abductors would perceive they get from passing the child through a window. It's not any faster than getting out of the door and if I see someone passing a child through a window I'm going to snap into attention because you just don't see that very often but people walking through doors are a pretty common sight so I might not take any notice of that.

If there were two abductors one could have handed her to another and used the doors anyway.

they might well have used the front door - not sure if it was locked with a deadlock ( mortice ) or it was on a yale type or it was even locked atall - cant see.

But the window was open for a reason either as quick getaway or escape route - but we are now getting int the kind of detail that the police on the ground would have done - I suppose - we jsut dont have access to a lot of the info they had so we just speculate a bit more !!!

 

[brit1981]

I just don't really understand what benefit the abductors would perceive they get from passing the child through a window. It's not any faster than getting out of the door and if I see someone passing a child through a window I'm going to snap into attention because you just don't see that very often but people walking through doors are a pretty common sight so I might not take any notice of that.

If there were two abductors one could have handed her to another and used the doors anyway.

Well we are only making assumptions and speculations. But the benefit I can see is that it got madeleine away quicker. She was out of the flat that bit quicker, and if someone had caught the intruder they would initially think they had disturbed an ordinary burguler who would have either hopped out of the window, or pushed past. If madeleine had been in the arms of the abductor anyone interprupting him would have grabbed for madeleine straight away. or the window could just have been opened either from the outside or indisde as a potential escape route, it would not have taken long.

I think you are right this is in some ways riskier, but was the risk mitigated by the extra time gained? Was it dark enough that the chances were no-one would see. Did they have a car near so even if someone did see by the time the alarm was raised they would be gone.