"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[Donjeta]

The window just seems like a slower getaway to me, not a faster one.
If it could have been opened from the outside it might possibly have been for scouting purposes?

 

[fabgod]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely wrong, you cannot assume anything about where the supposedly two abductors were.
It can be argued that abductor who was standing outside the apartment would have been standing with his back to the road leading from the tapas bar in which case he would have been standing left arm towards window.

Alternatively, he could have been shielding the view from apartment 5b which means his right arm would have been nearest to the window.
Maybe a little research on the window should be done by yourself before stating this and that.
The window is no more than a metre wide and half of that window slides, less the frame.

Its all irrespective anyway, we have no proof at all that the window was used, no proof at all of a second abductor.

Why is the theory now of a second abductor?
Its a stretch to justify Tanners sighting as being involved but how can the leap then be made that there are two?

 

[fabgod]

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 !!!

For the purposes of the abductor fitting, are we saying that the window was indeed open and the shutter, enough to have used?
Do we have this anywhere in statements apart from the Press reporting early on?

 

[brit1981]

Horrocks came up with the theory. But if someone was passed a child from the inside of the window then they would have turned to face the window rather than trying to take the child with their back to them. They woudl have been mirroring the position of the perosn passing the chidl out.
Again there did not have to be a second abductor. there was plenty of time for an abductor to do it on their own.

 

[fabgod]

Horrocks came up with the theory. But if someone was passed a child from the inside of the window then they would have turned to face the window rather than trying to take the child with their back to them. They woudl have been mirroring the position of the perosn passing the chidl out.
Again there did not have to be a second abductor. there was plenty of time for an abductor to do it on their own.

Maybe read the post before commenting, it would be impossible to take a child with their back to them!
You have no idea how anybody would have stood, none at all so please dont try to infer that you do.

It is starting to sound a bit silly now

 

[Donjeta]

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.

I dunno... I think that any extra time that they'd have saved not walking a couple of steps to the door carrying Madeleine would pretty much have been used up fiddling with the window.

 

[brit1981]

Maybe read the post before commenting, it would be impossible to take a child with their back to them!
You have no idea how anybody would have stood, none at all so please dont try to infer that you do.

It is starting to sound a bit silly now

I think you are getting confused. We are speculating that if the child was passed out of the window they would have been in the position Tanner saw them in. One cannot just sya that there is no point in speculating if it was possible to hand a child out of the window because a second abductor may have been facing the other way!
None of us have any idea what really happened. You have no idea that tanner's sighting was not the abductor, nor do you have any idea how long the abduction too so it is just as silly for you to say that the tanner sighting should be discounted because the timings are wrong. The timing all night would be doen to just a few minutes, and scotland yard belive it to be a stranger abduction so they obviously believe an abduction was possibly in a small timeframe.

 

[brit1981]

I dunno... I think that any extra time that they'd have saved not walking to the door carrying Madeleine would pretty much have been used up fiddling with the window.

of course if there was a second abductor they could have opened the window as soon as they saw gerry leave, it would not have taken long. It just depends on the mindset of the abductor(s), it may be that they were just of the mind, lets just get the child out of there. They wanted her, and once one of them was away with her it made it easier to push past, make a run for it etc. lets face it we can speculate until the cows come home, but we are not going to solve the case. Apart from anything not all of the information has been released.
We know it was possible for Madeleine to have been abducted, we know she disappeared from the flat, so I think the focus should not be on what happned in the flat, but what happened after she left? Where coudl she have been taken, by whom, when, etc

 

[Donjeta]

of course if there was a second abductor they could have opened the window as soon as they saw gerry leave, it would not have taken long. It just depends on the mindset of the abductor(s), it may be that they were just of the mind, lets just get the child out of there. They wanted her, and once one of them was away with her it made it easier to push past, make a run for it etc. lets face it we can speculate until the cows come home, but we are not going to solve the case. Apart from anything not all of the information has been released.
We know it was possible for Madeleine to have been abducted, we know she disappeared from the flat, so I think the focus should not be on what happned in the flat, but what happened after she left? Where coudl she have been taken, by whom, when, etc

It would be good to get the answers but how do you suggest we should proceed finding out? Because if we have little available evidence of what happened in the apartment we have no evidence whatsoever available to us about what happened to her afterwards and by whom.

It seems to me that at least the apartment is a starting point but guessing about anything that happened afterwards is stabs in the dark. There are so many places she could be and so many people who could have done it and how could we find out about them?

 

[fabgod]

I think you are getting confused. We are speculating that if the child was passed out of the window they would have been in the position Tanner saw them in. One cannot just sya that there is no point in speculating if it was possible to hand a child out of the window because a second abductor may have been facing the other way!
None of us have any idea what really happened. You have no idea that tanner's sighting was not the abductor, nor do you have any idea how long the abduction too so it is just as silly for you to say that the tanner sighting should be discounted because the timings are wrong. The timing all night would be doen to just a few minutes, and scotland yard belive it to be a stranger abduction so they obviously believe an abduction was possibly in a small timeframe.

Same old defence, Scotland yard again,
second abductor, window, Jane Tanner, no DNA, no Dogs.
Just for your benefit Brit, I have tried to make the point to you several times on here, that, I am not saying there isnt time for an abduction, I am saying lets find that time and work from there.

You cannot or dont want to do that, everytime that anyone makes a suggestion that doesnt conform to your defence of your perception of events, you bring up the same statements.
That just sends everything around in a circle again, that seems to be all you want to do, if so, fine, I think I can work out why.

 

[brit1981]

I think scotland yard who have all the information saying that a stranger abduction is their theory is pretty good proof there was a window for a stranger abduction to take place. It could have been the tanner sighting, it might have happened later. But there was a small window of opportunity and someone took it. Whether they carried her in an odd way is netiher here nor there they were not normal, yes they took a risk, but abducting a child from her home is always going to be risky. If you honestly feel you have proof it took longer then you really need to let the review team know. It is called oepration grange, and if you google it there have a number you can call if you have information.

But to be honest fab, what is your suggestion as to what happened, rather than as to what did not happen?

 

[fabgod]

I think scotland yard who have all the information saying that a stranger abduction is their theory is pretty good proof there was a window for a stranger abduction to take place. It could have been the tanner sighting, it might have happened later. But there was a small window of opportunity and someone took it. Whether they carried her in an odd way is netiher here nor there they were not normal, yes they took a risk, but abducting a child from her home is always going to be risky. If you honestly feel you have proof it took longer then you really need to let the review team know. It is called oepration grange, and if you google it there have a number you can call if you have information.

But to be honest fab, what is your suggestion as to what happened, rather than as to what did not happen?

BBM
I think you are a little mistaken there Brit, I spent quite a long time putting a timeline together, you suggested that remember?
When I post it, you ignore it, with your statements that two abductors or one, passed Madeleine though a window or a door, put her in a car etc.
You question the statements I used, you then post up Ian Horrocks timeline, that can blatantly be shown up as being wrong, you quote from him as though it is your suggestion, you rubbish the police dogs and the work they do, your rubbish the DNA, you rubbish Amaral you rubbish the papers, the same papers you then go on to quote.
It appears that you think that I am questioning the way that the abductor held the child, read the posts Brit and show me where?
Dont make assumptions about what I think, read my posts and you will see what I think!

I think you might possibly be missing the point somewhere, its about sleuthing from a starting point, agreeing what you can and moving on from there. here is the clue Websleuths!

 

[brit1981]

But what do you think happened? the time line does not say what you think happened to madeleine?

 

[gord]

At the end of the day all we have is opinions and our own view points the police forces of two countries could not sort this one out so what chance has a view interested parties sitting at home -

I am intersted in crime / mysteries - who dun its - hence I am here as I sit in front of a PC all day anyway I can post the odd comment

I dont for a minute - new york or otherwise - think I know what happened . I have my own pet theories and my over view is I think she was taken / abducted - I have no idea of who how many etc just guesse work.

I am happy to hear from those who think the Mccanns were involved their theories on how and when and more importantly where the body was disposed - would be interesting to see,

anyway I am off on hols tomorrow so will be giving sleuthing a rest for a while !! I doubt we will have a breakthrough anytime soon but you never know

 

[fabgod]

At the end of the day all we have is opinions and our own view points the police forces of two countries could not sort this one out so what chance has a view interested parties sitting at home -

I am intersted in crime / mysteries - who dun its - hence I am here as I sit in front of a PC all day anyway I can post the odd comment

I dont for a minute - new york or otherwise - think I know what happened . I have my own pet theories and my over view is I think she was taken / abducted - I have no idea of who how many etc just guesse work.

I am happy to hear from those who think the Mccanns were involved their theories on how and when and more importantly where the body was disposed - would be interesting to see,

anyway I am off on hols tomorrow so will be giving sleuthing a rest for a while !! I doubt we will have a breakthrough anytime soon but you never know

Have a good holiday and no doubt the circle will stil be repeating when you get back:seeya:

 

[fabgod]

But what do you think happened? the time line does not say what you think happened to madeleine?

the timeline is a timeline!

Is there an icon for weary anywhere?

I dont know what happened, none of us do,
I think personally there is more to this than a simple (if that is the word) abduction.
For me, if it was a simple abduction, then Madeleine is no longer with us, but I dont think it was that simple

I think that she was taken from the room, why? I dont know, but something about it doesn't fit right for me.
I dont think that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine at that time, she may have seen her at a different time but not the publicised time.
I think that the story is at best, not very plausible, if however there is another element that we are not privy to, then a lot more about certain peoples actions would fit, for the record, no, I dont think it was a death covered up by all the tapas and half of the world.

Gut feeling, (which is worth nothing) Some element of the story has not been told, we are trying to make a jigsaw with pieces missing, what they are or why I wouldnt speculate.

 

[Donjeta]

If any of us knew what happened to Madeleine she would not be missing.

 

[MissJames]

the timeline is a timeline!

Is there an icon for weary anywhere?

I dont know what happened, none of us do,
I think personally there is more to this than a simple (if that is the word) abduction.
For me, if it was a simple abduction, then Madeleine is no longer with us, but I dont think it was that simple

I think that she was taken from the room, why? I dont know, but something about it doesn't fit right for me.
I dont think that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine at that time, she may have seen her at a different time but not the publicised time.
I think that the story is at best, not very plausible, if however there is another element that we are not privy to, then a lot more about certain peoples actions would fit, for the record, no, I dont think it was a death covered up by all the tapas and half of the world.

Gut feeling, (which is worth nothing) Some element of the story has not been told, we are trying to make a jigsaw with pieces missing, what they are or why I wouldnt speculate.

BBM here ya go
:banghead: :waitasec: fftobed::websleuther: :nevermind: :waiting: :sigh::crosseyed::headache: :deadhorse: :sheesh: :shakehead:

 

[fabgod]

How about the timeline devised by the people involved?

This is the timeline that Gerry made on the evening of Madeleine going missing apparently.
It was made out of a childs colouring book and written down as shown on Badhorsies' post here.

My question is, apart from the times being wrong, wasnt Gerry and Kate supposed to be unaware of Jane Tanners sighting until much later?

 

[SapphireSteel]

This is the timeline that Gerry made on the evening of Madeleine going missing apparently.
It was made out of a childs colouring book and written down as shown on Badhorsies' post here.

My question is, apart from the times being wrong, wasnt Gerry and Kate supposed to be unaware of Jane Tanners sighting until much later?

The childs colouring book in question belonged to Madeleine.

The fact that they would use her possession as scrap paper chills me to the bone and tells me all I need to know about this pair.

No doubt another poster will come along and pour scorn all over what I have just said, but if you are knowlegeable about behavioural analysis at all, you know this is an act that illustrates a belief that their child is not coming home.

:moo: