"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[orora]

Unless the child was drugged?

 

[brit1981]

I disagree with tink on the carrying position. When I have lifted sleeping children to put them in their own bed or something I have picked them up like this - under knees and upper back as it did not change their sleeping position much and I did not want them to wake up. Also if there were two abductors and one handed madeleine to the second abductor out the window (I think Ian horrocks suggested this) then that would also be a plausible way to position the child.
We know they must be telling the truth about using the patio door because Wilkins saw Gerry come down the patio path and the patio door could not be locked from the outside. There are lots of explanations as to why the first statement says key - gerry had to tell the interpretor what happened bit by bit, the interpretor had to change this to portuguese ad it had to be written down so gerry had no idea if the statement he signed was actually correct. then we are reading another translation so it has gone from english to portuguese to english, and the last translation may not have been done by a professional just someone who could read both languages. because of the way statements are taken it is quiet easy for mistakes to creep in when describing the doors especially if there was confusion as to which one was considered the front door. A inconsistency such as which door Gerry walked in through when we have an independent witness who backs up his claim of leaving throguh the patio door is not significant, especially given the translating back and forth that has occurred. With so much translating of the staement there are going to be inconsistency.

Other independent witnesses have claimed there were men watching the flat in the days leading up to the abduction, there is even one who puts a stranger near flat 5B next door to the mccanns. So it is not a leap to imagine this watching continued the night of the abduction. The road was not so easy to see from the patio, but the tapas bar was as it was lit up. So someone could have seen gerry, but not seen jeremy. besides jeremy was not of the group, so would not ave been watched. He had walked up an down the street and presented no threat. he did not know madeleine so all he would have seen at most is an unknown with an unknown child in a place where there were hundreds of unknown parents.
I still think the timing was probably the best they could hope for given the frequency of checks. ian horrocks wrote about the timings and I think that was his belief. he wrote quite a good analysis of the timings.

 

[Tink]

You might lift a child under her knees and upper back initially, but you wouldn't keep her in that position and walk down a road with her. Her head would hang down and that feeling would wake her up, and she'd no longer feel the security of something against her back (or tummy). It would also be tiring for the arms to carry a child in that position, with all the weight on your forearms.

Usually, you pick up a sleeping child that way (one arm under the knees, one behind the shoulders) but quickly move the child so that her head is against your shoulder and her chest against your chest. This makes the child feel secure - her head isn't dangling - and she feels something solid under her body, so she's much less likely to wake up.

Tink

 

[fabgod]

I disagree with tink on the carrying position. When I have lifted sleeping children to put them in their own bed or something I have picked them up like this - under knees and upper back as it did not change their sleeping position much and I did not want them to wake up. Also if there were two abductors and one handed madeleine to the second abductor out the window (I think Ian horrocks suggested this) then that would also be a plausible way to position the child.
We know they must be telling the truth about using the patio door because Wilkins saw Gerry come down the patio path and the patio door could not be locked from the outside. There are lots of explanations as to why the first statement says key - gerry had to tell the interpretor what happened bit by bit, the interpretor had to change this to portuguese ad it had to be written down so gerry had no idea if the statement he signed was actually correct. then we are reading another translation so it has gone from english to portuguese to english, and the last translation may not have been done by a professional just someone who could read both languages. because of the way statements are taken it is quiet easy for mistakes to creep in when describing the doors especially if there was confusion as to which one was considered the front door. A inconsistency such as which door Gerry walked in through when we have an independent witness who backs up his claim of leaving throguh the patio door is not significant, especially given the translating back and forth that has occurred. With so much translating of the staement there are going to be inconsistency.

Other independent witnesses have claimed there were men watching the flat in the days leading up to the abduction, there is even one who puts a stranger near flat 5B next door to the mccanns. So it is not a leap to imagine this watching continued the night of the abduction. The road was not so easy to see from the patio, but the tapas bar was as it was lit up. So someone could have seen gerry, but not seen jeremy. besides jeremy was not of the group, so would not ave been watched. He had walked up an down the street and presented no threat. he did not know madeleine so all he would have seen at most is an unknown with an unknown child in a place where there were hundreds of unknown parents.
I still think the timing was probably the best they could hope for given the frequency of checks. ian horrocks wrote about the timings and I think that was his belief. he wrote quite a good analysis of the timings.

Brit
To be Honest, I didnt rate the Horrocks report at all but that doesnt matter really.
If we are working off the timeline, there isnt really any point in saying that Gerry might have said this and it could be lost in translation.
Gerry McCann signed his name to his statement, I dont think that he is particularly the kind of person that would just sign anything being a Doctor, but who knows?

da chave according to all the translators i can find is "key"

entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva can anybody translate that for us?

Anyway,
I posted a timeline as you asked for, but all we seem to be doing is posting what if's and maybe an abductor could have done this or maybe Gerry meant that.
The whole point of the timeline was to see if there was a way to fit an abduction in,
The logical place to start is to see if an abduction could be accomplished around the Jane Tanner sighting, I think its obvious that that is a struggle so far.
If we cannot find a suitalbe time, we still have another 45 minutes to go at.

I really dont understand why the Jane Tanner sighting "has" to be made to fit, its uncorroborated by anyone else, so its not really worth much on its own anyway.

Where are the witnesses that saw people watching the flat by the way? are these the ones similar to the two blonde men on a balcony?

Next, why are there now two abductors?
there is nothing to prove there was one so how do we get two?

Finally, are you aware that the opening part of the window was 100 cm x 50 cm that 39 inches high by 18 inches across, you would need two abductors to get a child out of that window because you wouldnt be getting a man and a child out any other way in a hurry.

 

[brit1981]

first, the abductor was probably not used to caring for children, and secondly we have no idea how far she was carried like that.

 

[fabgod]

You might lift a child under her knees and upper back initially, but you wouldn't keep her in that position and walk down a road with her. Her head would hang down and that feeling would wake her up, and she'd no longer feel the security of something against her back (or tummy). It would also be tiring for the arms to carry a child in that position, with all the weight on your forearms.

Usually, you pick up a sleeping child that way (one arm under the knees, one behind the shoulders) but quickly move the child so that her head is against your shoulder and her chest against your chest. This makes the child feel secure - her head isn't dangling - and she feels something solid under her body, so she's much less likely to wake up.

Tink

I agree with you Tink,
We have a 4 year old, he is big for his age, but I am 6 foot and fairly fit, I struggle to carry him for very long even in the position you state, so holding him out in front of me would be like torture after a few yards

 

[fabgod]

first, the abductor was probably not used to caring for children, and secondly we have no idea how far she was carried like that.

You are summising that they were not used to carrying, how can we say that?

 

[brit1981]

well dads do not tend to abduct other children. Apart from anything else, a family might notice the dad coming home with an abducted child. IF Jane tanner did see an abductor then they would not have to be carrying the child like a parent would.
We also have no idea how far the person carried the child for - they could have got into a car a minute after jane tanner saw them for all we know. I do not think the sighting can be dismissed because it is not a normal carrying position.

Ill try to find the ian horrocks article as well as the timings, he also writes about the carrying position I think.
The carrying positon does make me wonder if madeleine (assuming it was madeleine) was handed to the person like that because although it is not the easiest carrying positon it was maybe easier and quicker to not bother changing the position and just take the child and go.

 

[fabgod]

Why do we need the Ian Horrocks timeline, we have a timeline on post #362 all taken from the statements of the Tapas group plus Jeremy Wilkins, are you now saying that they are all wrong as well?

Instead of trying to find a reason why Jane Tanners sighting has to be MAdeleine, just tell me what times the abductor could have gotten in to the apartment and then got out carrying Madeleine, to tie in with what they all said were the timings.

 

[fabgod]

Levi Bellfield, to use your abductor, has 11 children

 

[fabgod]

Peter Tobin, the other abductor you put into a post has 4 children, like I said, its no use just summising.

 

[brit1981]

No I am saying a detective with experience of kidnappers opinion on the timeline might be useful when forming opinions about the timeline.

http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-alive

in it he says the time after nine was ideal. he does have experience in kidnappings, why dismiss his opinions.

As for bellfield, and Tobin, they both went for young women, Milly dowler was thirteen and she was the youngest victim. Whereas Madeleine was a toddler.

But people are summising on this thread by saying an abductor would nto have taken this and this risk. Tobin kidnapped one of his victim by picking her and a male friend up when they were hitchiking, and took the victim after the friend had got left. he did not care there was a witness. bellfield took a masisve risk in his attacks. he snatche dmilly dowler in broad dayglight in a populated area that had a lot of cctv. it was a huge risk, and if the police had actually spoken to all of the residents they probably would have found in. he also attacked another girl after she had seen his van, on a populated street, and attacked two other girls on the common after driving there and beign caught on cctv - that is how he ended up getting caught. So if we are going to us etobin and bellfield to discount the idea that the abductor might not be used to carryign a child (and that is just one possible reason why they carried the child in that way), then we have to dismiss the idea that an abductor would not take risks. The fact is that anyone who is going to committ a crime against a child is going to take risks, there is no risk free way of committing a crime, if there was there would be no convictions, and no cass of attempted crimes i.e attempted abductions.

 

[fabgod]

No I am saying a detective with experience of kidnappers opinion on the timeline might be useful when forming opinions about the timeline.

http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-alive

in it he says the time after nine was ideal. he does have experience in kidnappings, why dismiss his opinions.

As for bellfield, and Tobin, they both went for young women, Milly dowler was thirteen and she was the youngest victim. Whereas Madeleine was a toddler.

But people are summising on this thread by saying an abductor would nto have taken this and this risk. Tobin kidnapped one of his victim by picking her and a male friend up when they were hitchiking, and took the victim after the friend had got left. he did not care there was a witness. bellfield took a masisve risk in his attacks. he snatche dmilly dowler in broad dayglight in a populated area that had a lot of cctv. it was a huge risk, and if the police had actually spoken to all of the residents they probably would have found in. he also attacked another girl after she had seen his van, on a populated street, and attacked two other girls on the common after driving there and beign caught on cctv - that is how he ended up getting caught. So if we are going to us etobin and bellfield to discount the idea that the abductor might not be used to carryign a child (and that is just one possible reason why they carried the child in that way), then we have to dismiss the idea that an abductor would not take risks. The fact is that anyone who is going to committ a crime against a child is going to take risks, there is no risk free way of committing a crime, if there was there would be no convictions, and no cass of attempted crimes i.e attempted abductions.

Brit,
WE, arent using Tobin and Bellfield YOU did!
I have no interest in linking Bellfield or Tobin to the case, you brought them up and I used them to disprove your statement about Dads not abducting children. You were wrong to say it as it is clearly not the case.

Are you struggling with the idea a bit?
You asked for a timeline, I produced the timeline from the 4th may 2007 statements, you have since tried to say that they may be mistranslated, you are looking for Ian Horrocks timeline, we have a timeline, the freshest uncorrupted timeline, before anyone could forget parts, imagine parts etc.

The whole point was to try and find a period of time that Jane Tanners sighting could have been Madeleine, thats all.

We dont need Bellfields history, we dont need Tobins MO, we need a period of time where an abductor could have gotten in to the apartment unseen, opened the windows and shutter, taken Madeleine out of the apartment and walked to the top of the street.

From that timeline post#362 on this thread, I dont think you can come up with a period that would make Jane Tanners sighting credible as Madeleine.
I have already stated, there is another 45 minutes where we could look into the possibility of Madeleine having been taken, but you seem hung up on the Tanner sighting.
Just give me the times, thats all

 

[fabgod]

Former Metropolitan Police detective Ian Horrock's report into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

What happened to Madeleine McCann?

In February this year on behalf of The Sun newspaper I travelled to Portugal to review the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann and the circumstances surrounding the offence. My analysis, reasoning and conclusions are shown here, and until the announcement by the Metropolitan Police Review Team in April, I was one of very few that believed that Madeleine may still be alive.

You are kidding me Brit?
Was it not you, who said we shouldnt take notice of the Red tops, owing to the vile headlines they have been fined for running?

line above, snipped from here
http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-alive

 

[BritsKate]

well dads do not tend to abduct other children. Apart from anything else, a family might notice the dad coming home with an abducted child. IF Jane tanner did see an abductor then they would not have to be carrying the child like a parent would.
We also have no idea how far the person carried the child for - they could have got into a car a minute after jane tanner saw them for all we know. I do not think the sighting can be dismissed because it is not a normal carrying position.

Ill try to find the ian horrocks article as well as the timings, he also writes about the carrying position I think.
The carrying positon does make me wonder if madeleine (assuming it was madeleine) was handed to the person like that because although it is not the easiest carrying positon it was maybe easier and quicker to not bother changing the position and just take the child and go.

BBM

I'd love to see the research on this because all the studies I am familiar with do not make such a distinction. (They're generally limited to unrelated, step-parent, parent, relative, acquaintance, to the victim.)

What we know of abductions is that when unrelated males kidnap there is often a sexual motive and the child is murdered and disposed of so quickly there is usually no upset to the perpetrator's normal routine.

Brings to mind how many serial killers lead seemingly normal existences as well. Many also fathers. MOO

 

[Donjeta]

Just because someone may be a father doesn't mean their family has any idea what they do. Some fathers do live alone, or travel alone, or commit crimes alone and then go home.

 

[fabgod]

Just one more thing on Ian Horrocks for background regarding the Jill Dando murder case

"Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens praised the work of the Dando murder squad, led by Mr Campbell and Detective Inspector Ian Horrocks. He said: 'The team worked exceptionally hard to present compelling evidence to the jury.'"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-57595/George-guilty-Dando-murder.html#ixzz23egGTdQ1


We all know what happened to Barry George dont we?
He was acquitted after retrial in August 2008 at considerable expense to the taxpayers of the UK. Even the best of us get it wrong sometimes

paragraph above snipped from here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-57595/George-guilty-Dando-murder.html

 

[fabgod]

I have just re read the Ian Horrocks report,
to say he was a high ranking police officer, his findings surprise me a little.

He states that the abductors were most likely in the alleyway, all they could see from there is a small section of road and maybe the veranda in front of the patio doors, they could not see anyone else entering or leaving the apartment from the front door or anyone walking back from the apartments.

He says the perfect time was a little after 9 when everyone would have been settled down and eating, thats odd, because nobody was eating until 9.20 and the main course was after 9.30.

He goes on, the abductors would have known they had 20 to 30 minutes, where Ian?
Gerry McCann was speaking to Jeremy wilkins and away from the Tapas from 9.05 to about 9.20

Then he cannot decide if it is one abductor or two, if its two, one will hand Madeleine out of the window to the other, the first one then miracuolously will be waiting in the getaway car while the other saunters across the road alone in front of Jane Tanner and then gets in the car and away they go.

He discounts turning left because it is uphill, yet there is a car isnt there? why not get in the car?

Then we return to what if its just one abductor, he takes Madeleine out of the front door and closes it, because the door was never an issue as to being open.
Abductor leaves the windows open, but closes the door to keep out the draught.How and why would the abductor bother to struggle to close a door with a three year old lying "asleep" across his forearms?

Horrocks then states the car would be parked around the corner because if it had been parked in the car park it would substantially increase the chances of being caught?
So, walking down the street with a stolen child is going to cause less problems than throwing her in the back of a car and being out of sight in seconds?

Then amazingly, using words I have seen before somewhere?
he states that the manner in which he is carrying the child shows that he may not be used to carrying a child and then goes on to say, the way he is carrying the child, shows that the abductor cares for her?

Oh dear!

 

[BritsKate]

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree about what we consider responsible parenting but, as I stated on another thread, it is neither legal nor illegal what the McCann's did in regards to leaving their children as UK neglect law is so broadly defined.

The best any of us can say is that they weren't charged with a crime - but UK law makes absolutely no distinction as to age, distance, time, etc. It simply states if a parent leaves a child in a situation where the child could encounter harm the parent may be charged with a crime. That simple. To say what they did is legal though I believe is false. Neglect cases are on a case by case basis. Just because Gerry and Kate weren't charged doesn't mean another parent may not be in different circumstances.

A sobering reality is the little girl in Wisconsin found dead tonight. 3 year old Reena was only 22 metres from her front door when she presumably drowned. It takes only a moment at that age for something to go tragically wrong. Apparently the family dog had been babysitting her from preliminary news reports.

 

[fabgod]

This is just an observation,
the more I think about the way that "the man with child" is described as carrying the child, the more it seems wrong.
Posters have speculated that maybe the man was not used to carrying a child - that is a fair point.
The man is carrying the child in a very unnatural way, i completely disagree with the Ian Horrocks statement that he was showing signs of "caring for the child".
The more I consider it, the less it seems that it would be a "caring" position.

When someone is carrying a child they hold it towards their body, one reason is as Tink stated, that is, too make them feel less exposed, the cold air not getting through and making them realize they are not on the bed as they were before being lifted.

Another reason for holing close is often to shield the light, keep it dark and dont alert their senses to changes and finally,
I know from my experience that I carry my child close as a protection instinct, by that I mean i am controlling the situation around myself and the child, if i was to trip, my arms would offer a little protection. i would be less likely to spill the child and could turn the child away from danger, putting my body in the way.

The way the abductor carries the child, if he stumbled on a kerb for example, the child would fall forward out of his arms.

To my mind, the way he is portrayed as carrying the child, is consistent with that child being ill or dead. To qualify that, when I have seen photos or film from disasters, accidents etc, the people carrying the injured, often tend to carry the victims outstreched in their arms, as though they are offering the person out to gain assistance or help?

I am not saying this is what I think happened to Madeleine, because I personally do not think that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine that night, I dont think that there was time for Madeleine to have been taken before that sighting, it is purely an observation on the positioning of the man and child that I am commenting on.