Paint Stripper and the Open window

Rosie

If the man was local and going home (or to a hideout), why is here such a big gap in time between when JT saw him and the Smiths saw him.

This only makes sense if

a) both sightings are true
and
b) the man stopped for something and then had to continue on. I originally thought he was a paedophile, stopped for (????) and then was disposing of Madeleine. BUT, this doesnt make any sense (and I know that paedo;s dont have to make sense but???), as he would have got straight out of town ie straight to the beach or somewhere, to ensure he wasnt caught either molesting the child or carrying her, or carrying a dead body. So now I am back to him having to drop into somewhere for another purpose altogether.

Post deleted

Martin Smith already sued someone about false/imaginary declarations he might have made, and won. And a second process is running, which makes him a very trustworthy person in the eyes of many trustworthy people.

Now, that Amaral would like very much to twist his statements, there I agree . But unfortunately for him, Martin Smith already answered, in writing, to the rogatory letter sent to him. In that letter, it is asked if he could POSITIVELY identify Gerry, and he answered he was 60 to 80% sure BASED IN HIS MANNERISMS. This is a very clear 'NO' to the question asked. So, Amaral can hide (again) information, he can manipulate, speculate, whatever. It is there, in writing. And may even be that if he goes too far, Martin Smith gets fed up and sues him for it...

Note - As we are back to the Smiths. As you all know, I believe the family, and Martin in particular, gave statements in good faith, and true to their best knowledge. But one small detail keeps banging in my head. On the 26th May, Martin Smith notices that the man carrying the child had a strange mannerism as if he 'wasn't used to it' (his words). Now, the fact that he thinks that Gerry's mannerism is 60 to 80% similar to that guy means that Gerry is not used to carry a child??? Is it what you 'read' in those videos of Gerry carrying Sean downstairs or even later, when reading his declaration at the airport? I don't, I think he shows himself as a person who knows how to carefully carry a child...

I think I'm repeating myself tough...

I think that the Smith family are credible, but I think they may be mistaken on the time lines, as I think each witness may be mistaken on time lines.
No one continually looks at their watch while they are out socialising and also, people's watches may very well report different times. So I think it is quite possible for the Smith sighting to have reported a different time because his watch may have been set differently. Don't forget they are on holiday and would have probably adjusted their watches and if not, they would be adjusting the time mentally between British time and Portuguese time.
This is quite possibly just a simple error and all credible police officers will allow for errors of timing as apparently it is the number one thing that a great many witnesses report incorrectly!

I am concerned with the Smith sighting where somehow months later he suddenly thinks that Gerry could be the man because of the way he carried a child down the plane steps, this to me is ludicrous and I bet Martin Smith did not report it quite like that.

For a start the man Smith saw carrying Madeleine was carrying the child across his arms, Martin Smith commented on Gerry coming down the plane steps carrying Sean across his shoulder, so how could the two be compared? No body in their right mind would carry a child across both arms in front of them while descending a flight of stairs, it is dangerous, one trip and the child is going to be pivoted forward into the air and both would fall down the stairs.

By the time that the Smiths saw the man carrying the child, the man's arms would have been aching and he wold be adjusting the way he is carrying the child, this is probably why Smith thought he was unused to carrying a child. Also it is my opinion that Smith subconsciously tuned into the subliminal signs that the man he saw carrying the child was not supposed to have the child. Often we think things are odd and they capture our attention without realising what it is that strikes us as odd.

The reason why *good* detectives want to interview witnesses as soon as possible, is before they forget things and superimpose things in that the witness genuinely believes but are not factually correct, especially when the circumstances are as harrowing as this.

I think it is possible that the Smiths saw the Man and that he did not stop off anywhere, or if he did, this was to hide and get strength back in his arms before continuing on with the journey.

But I still think that this was a planned abduction by more than one person and that the planned get away with Madeleine was thwarted because Gerry and Jes stood talking in the road, probably near to where the car was parked and the man walked back past the road in the hope that when he got there they would be gone.

If I were the McCanns I would be insisting that this villa is located and searched properly, if it has not been used between times, then it is quite possible, if Madeleine was taken there then there would still be her DNA and it is possible it may still be there anyway.

One of the things that I have heard from virtually all experts who have expressed an opinion is this lack of a coordinated search in the immediate vicinity where Madeleine disappeared.

It is something I used to mention a lot on the DX, the Portuguese police namely Goncalo Amaral, FAILED to carry out a 15k ring-search which should have been done ASAP. They did NOT search all buildings and outhouses, barns etc and they did NOT search all empty apartments in the OC, which should have been done. Madeleine could have been in one.

The basic failures are there for all to see. Goncalo Amaral did NOT even attend the scene, an incident room should have been set up immediately in the OC and the place locked down and everyone there prevented from leaving. There should have been a list of staff on the premises at that time. Nothing like this was ever done. How can you have a senior policeman who has the abduction of a child on his hands, yet despite that he must have KNOWN about the attacks of tourists children, he would have been aware of every reason why attending the scene would have been imperative, yet he did not bother to attend!

Again we are back to the incompetence and arrogance of Goncalo Amaral.
If this is not bad enough, the absence of the time from a vital eye witness on their official statement is simply ridiculous.

Who was present as an interpreter when the Smiths gave their statement?

I'm away from home so I can't check on the translator. But the second statement, we have it in our DVD thread and it is a transcription, not a translation.

As to everything else you said, from times to child carrying, I do agree with it all, and that's what I've been trying (wanting) to say all along. With a little tiny difference: I do think that the Smiths sighting was somewhere between 21:45 and 22:00. I believe one of the statements gives me that degree of certainty, I'll go back and look for it.

But that's a detail, an important detail that should have imediately been checked by PJ.

As to the search, our police knows how to make a proper search, if they want to do it. Barra da Costa, a former PJ inspector, one of the 20 Leonor witnesses that were refused by that court, says in his book exactly that, the search should have been done 'the english way' and he describes it. Yes, you are right, it is ALL wrong from the beginning thanks to Amaral.

maria wrote:Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

I have never thought this sighting was of a child. An abductor would never walk this way in full view of anyone either going to the apartments and using the front doors (back) as they could easily be seen surely.

IF someone had been watching the apartments they would have seen that mainly at the beginning the group were using this longer route to check the children and would have avoided walking straight into someone going home.

I would think that anyone who wanted to remove a child from the room a small child that is would place the child in a bag, go out through the front door and across left of the car park into the bush AWAY from PDL to a waiting car. The car park to me doesnt appear very bright it wouldnt take much to open the front door quietly and quickly see if anyone is about and then move away in the shadows.

There could well have been someone walking about I mean Gez Wilkins walked about that particular area for an hour and never saw anyone surely he would have seen somebody loitering about.

I get the feeling that this Tanner sighting has actually made it easier for the real perpretrator to get away with it IMHO as too much emphasis was place on this sighting.

At the beginning way back when, Jane Tanner said she thought she saw someone carrying a bag or a rug or something, she never mentioned a child, I think that the idea that this person COULD have been carrying a child was thought of with good intentions.

Another point too one must remember. It was VERY COLD that night even Jane Tanner in her interview with the police said that it was cardigen weather. I cant imagine anyone taking out a young girl with flimsy pyjamas on in full view of anyone in the very cold May evening, as surely this would just bring attention to themselves and also the cold air would wake the child up and how would she have seen the frills of the pyjamas the child if it was Maddie was wearing quarter length PJ's and when your knees are bent they ride up to your knees (mine do when I am in bed).

No I just think an abductor would not walk that way it would be madness surely.

Another point IF THIS was a planned abduction of a child there was an empty apartment appartenly between the McCanns and the Tanners, could someone have used this to hide with the child until the close was clear? Or could someone with really good knowledge of PDL have used the tunnels to make their escape.

Going back to brians dreams in one of his drawings he wrote RIGHT UNDER YOU. I think this is very very interesting and would make sense to me that someone would use the tunnels to move the child no one would see them.

Anyway thats my thoughts at the moment.

As to Hewlett I think it is too dangerous to focus on this guy, as again we have to stay calm and focused and I think this is just a great big red herring IMHO.

Jayelles wrote:I'm interested in the fact that Raymond Hewlett used paint stripper to subdue his victims. Could this explain the open window? Also the fact that the child who was seen by the witnesses being carried by the man appeared to be sleeping? Could it also explain the twins deep sleep?

In 1972, he was jailed for a year after raping a 12-year-old girl he had lured into his car and knocked out with paint stripper.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20020113/ai_n9711073/

The drug, gamma-butyrolactone, also known as GBL, is commonly used as a paint stripper, rust remover, or industrial solvent

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/815705/death-prompts-new-party-drug-warning

I think we have to not be seduced into thinking that Hewlett actually took Maddy and used paint stripper on her. Hewlett used this form of sedation over 37 years ago, and I think we have moved on since then. Paint Stripper doesnt to me seem a very sensible form of sedation not with a young child its too unpredictable and volatile too why go to the bother of snatching a child and killing her with poison before you have even gone out of the front door.

Maddy and the twins were exhausted that day and were in bed early and might well have not woken up anyway, or had woken up but was told by the person who took her out of her bed that they were taking her to mum and dad. It can happen, and it does happen, a sleepy child warm from sleep perhaps knew who was holding her felt relaxed enough to be taken to find her parents and could quite easily have left quietly and fallen back to sleep. (I think maddy had seen her abductor prior).

No i dont think this would have been used too dangerous. (Also is it actually proved that the window was open I thought there was a question mark over this?).

Hi goldengirl! Yes, it can be confirmed the window WAS found open, as it is in the original GNR report of the first officer to arrive.

vee8 wrote:Hi goldengirl! Yes, it can be confirmed the window WAS found open, as it is in the original GNR report of the first officer to arrive.

Thanks for that there is so much stuff out there I get confused.

I think then the window being open was just to confuse. I cant imagine anyone trying to climb out of a window not a very wide one at that with a child and negotiate a bed under the window too, just seems too dangerous.

Why open the window to get rid of a smell too, surely what would it matter if the abductor used anything its hardly relevant, and also there wouldnt have been much time to set a scene surely.

No the window being open to me is confusing. I still think the abductor went quietly out of the front door. Someone who knew PDL really well IMHO (a burglar perhaps an opportunistic burglar with keys or SOMEONE who worked at PDL with an accomplice).

goldengirl57 wrote:

maria wrote:Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

I have never thought this sighting was of a child. An abductor would never walk this way in full view of anyone either going to the apartments and using the front doors (back) as they could easily be seen surely.

IF someone had been watching the apartments they would have seen that mainly at the beginning the group were using this longer route to check the children and would have avoided walking straight into someone going home.

I would think that anyone who wanted to remove a child from the room a small child that is would place the child in a bag, go out through the front door and across left of the car park into the bush AWAY from PDL to a waiting car. The car park to me doesnt appear very bright it wouldnt take much to open the front door quietly and quickly see if anyone is about and then move away in the shadows.

There could well have been someone walking about I mean Gez Wilkins walked about that particular area for an hour and never saw anyone surely he would have seen somebody loitering about.

I get the feeling that this Tanner sighting has actually made it easier for the real perpretrator to get away with it IMHO as too much emphasis was place on this sighting.

At the beginning way back when, Jane Tanner said she thought she saw someone carrying a bag or a rug or something, she never mentioned a child, I think that the idea that this person COULD have been carrying a child was thought of with good intentions.

Another point too one must remember. It was VERY COLD that night even Jane Tanner in her interview with the police said that it was cardigen weather. I cant imagine anyone taking out a young girl with flimsy pyjamas on in full view of anyone in the very cold May evening, as surely this would just bring attention to themselves and also the cold air would wake the child up and how would she have seen the frills of the pyjamas the child if it was Maddie was wearing quarter length PJ's and when your knees are bent they ride up to your knees (mine do when I am in bed).

No I just think an abductor would not walk that way it would be madness surely.

Another point IF THIS was a planned abduction of a child there was an empty apartment appartenly between the McCanns and the Tanners, could someone have used this to hide with the child until the close was clear? Or could someone with really good knowledge of PDL have used the tunnels to make their escape.

Going back to brians dreams in one of his drawings he wrote RIGHT UNDER YOU. I think this is very very interesting and would make sense to me that someone would use the tunnels to move the child no one would see them.

Anyway thats my thoughts at the moment.

As to Hewlett I think it is too dangerous to focus on this guy, as again we have to stay calm and focused and I think this is just a great big red herring IMHO.

Hi GG, good to meet you.

I agree about Hewlett.

However the JT sighting. I believe her and i think that the abductor was supposed to be picked up by a getaway driver waiting in a vehicle in the little car parking area almost opposite the Tapas reception area.

I believe the pick up was frustrated by the presence of Gerry and Jez and even mopre so by the presence of JT. My thoughts are that as the driver pulled out, he saw them and how JT had seen Madeleine being abducted and thought 'OMG, they have rumbled us'. I believe he drove off in the opposite direction to save his own skin.

Also there is the corroberating evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. The Carpenters left the Tapas reception in the same time band as JT. They went in an easterly direction as Bundleman did and Mrs Carpenter heard the words 'Madeleine Madeleine' whispered/murmured en route.

This is in the Rogatory Statements.

Are you sure that JT said that she thought that she had seen a bundle? Some people are saying that this was made up, but i haven't checked the Statements myself for that.

From several weeks before the Rogatory Statements had been made public I thought that Bundleman had gone East (Contrary to Amaral) then turned right in a southerly direction, probably down 'Aldeameanto The Ocean Club', a narrow Alleyway that the Carpenters had to cross. The route can be seen on Google Earth.

If a rapid getaway by car from that corner was expected, then no bag was needed

goldengirl57 wrote:

vee8 wrote:Hi goldengirl! Yes, it can be confirmed the window WAS found open, as it is in the original GNR report of the first officer to arrive.

Thanks for that there is so much stuff out there I get confused.

I think then the window being open was just to confuse. I cant imagine anyone trying to climb out of a window not a very wide one at that with a child and negotiate a bed under the window too, just seems too dangerous.

Why open the window to get rid of a smell too, surely what would it matter if the abductor used anything its hardly relevant, and also there wouldnt have been much time to set a scene surely.

No the window being open to me is confusing. I still think the abductor went quietly out of the front door. Someone who knew PDL really well IMHO (a burglar perhaps an opportunistic burglar with keys or SOMEONE who worked at PDL with an accomplice).

I agree about the abductor entering and leaving by the front door rather than by the window or the patio doors.

However, I think that

1) the window was used for communication between the two people doing the actual lifting and removing; there was a watcher outside who was almost certainly bundleman

2) to give moral support to the person (probably a woman known to Madeleine) doing the drugging and actual lifting

3) to pass any drugging apparatus in and out,

4) to allow gentle light to fall on the scene within the room. The abductors would not want to use the light or a torch, because it might alert K and G or any passersby

5) and possibly to disperse any drug/body smells. The abductors may possibly have smelt pretty high with fear.


i also believe the window was left in an almost closed position, but not latched. It was quite windy that night - not really cold, but quite breezy

Weather conditions

FACTS

There was a full moon on May 2nd 2007, so the night would be pretty light on the third

Sunrise, 3rd May 2007 was 6.38am West

Sunset, 3rd May 2007 was 8.25pm West

The days were lengthening by about one minute in the morning and one minute in the evening, so the 4th May had sunrise at 6.37am West

Tides:



3rd May



High 3.35am West ........Low 9.33am West

High 3.49pm West ........Low 9.53pm West


4th May



High 4.07am West ........Low 10.02am West







Temperature at 10pm = 60*F (16*C) on 3rd May

All the above conditions were for nearby Lagos

...................oooooooo...........................

All the following conditions were for Faro airport which is about 50+ miles away (80+km). The airport is right by the sea front

Barometric pressure

2nd May Barometric pressure was dropping quite rapidly (it seems to me) - I am not knowledgeable in this area - does this mean a storm/poor sea conditions?

1014hPa (29.95 Hg) at midnight, dropping to 1006hPa (29.7 Hg) at 5.30pm
Wind speeds: Ave.27km/hr.....Max. 39km/hr
Visibility: 10km, Cloudy early evening. Temp at 10pm: 57*F (14*C)

3rd May Barometric pressure rising

1009 hPa (29.8Hg) at midnight, rising to 1013hPa (29.92 Hg) at 10.00pm
Wind speeds: ave. 16 km/hr..... Max. 30km/hr
Visibility: 10Km, Clear sky. Temp at 10pm: 60*F (16*C)


4th May Barometric Pressure rising

1013 hPa (29.8 Hg) at midnight, rising to 1016 hPa (30Hg) in evening, and still steadily rising through the 5th May

Dont know whether any of the above means anything to you? Ocean sailors might understand the statistics better than i do.


On the 3rd, there were gusts up to 30km/hr (approx 20mph).

Kate described on her Oprah interview how she opened the bedroom door and suddenly the curtains whooshed open. I would like to bet that the window silently swung further open at the same time. On another forum (3A's possibly) someone said that wind speeds such as those would make flying a small aircraft very difficult.

Another thing that must be taken into account is the Venturi effect, which is too complex for me to describe here, (Wikipeadia will explain it if you wish), but this is common where there are large building masses and small appertures.

The practical effect of this is something like the phenomena we see when we drive along a fairly busy 3 lane motorway. When the motorway is suddenly closed down to a single lane, the traffic grinds to an almost halt preceeding the narrowing, but as soon as it gets into the narrow bit it speeds up amazingly.

Think of the wind driving into the tapas side of the large building; it cant get through and more wind keeps coming behind it, so it escapes as best it can by speeding up and whooshing through the narrower spaces where it can get. The inequality of the wind pressures on either side of the building assist this.

i have no idea as to the exact speed of the wind going through that apartment. but it is likely that it was well in excess of 20mph. Maybe some of you, prior to Central heating, will have seen your parents with a draw plate almost blocking the fireplace as they try to kindle the flames as they light a fire? Same principle.

OK Science/engineering lesson over

sadie wrote:

goldengirl57 wrote:

vee8 wrote:Hi goldengirl! Yes, it can be confirmed the window WAS found open, as it is in the original GNR report of the first officer to arrive.

Thanks for that there is so much stuff out there I get confused.

I think then the window being open was just to confuse. I cant imagine anyone trying to climb out of a window not a very wide one at that with a child and negotiate a bed under the window too, just seems too dangerous.

Why open the window to get rid of a smell too, surely what would it matter if the abductor used anything its hardly relevant, and also there wouldnt have been much time to set a scene surely.

No the window being open to me is confusing. I still think the abductor went quietly out of the front door. Someone who knew PDL really well IMHO (a burglar perhaps an opportunistic burglar with keys or SOMEONE who worked at PDL with an accomplice).

I agree about the abductor entering and leaving by the front door rather than by the window or the patio doors.

However, I think that

1) the window was used for communication between the two people doing the actual lifting and removing; there was a watcher outside who was almost certainly bundleman

2) to give moral support to the person (probably a woman known to Madeleine) doing the drugging and actual lifting

3) to pass any drugging apparatus in and out,

4) to allow gentle light to fall on the scene within the room. The abductors would not want to use the light or a torch, because it might alert K and G or any passersby

5) and possibly to disperse any drug/body smells. The abductors may possibly have smelt pretty high with fear.


i also believe the window was left in an almost closed position, but not latched. It was quite windy that night - not really cold, but quite breezy

Weather conditions

FACTS

There was a full moon on May 2nd 2007, so the night would be pretty light on the third

Sunrise, 3rd May 2007 was 6.38am West

Sunset, 3rd May 2007 was 8.25pm West

The days were lengthening by about one minute in the morning and one minute in the evening, so the 4th May had sunrise at 6.37am West

Tides:



3rd May



High 3.35am West ........Low 9.33am West

High 3.49pm West ........Low 9.53pm West


4th May



High 4.07am West ........Low 10.02am West







Temperature at 10pm = 60*F (16*C) on 3rd May

All the above conditions were for nearby Lagos

...................oooooooo...........................

All the following conditions were for Faro airport which is about 50+ miles away (80+km). The airport is right by the sea front

Barometric pressure

2nd May Barometric pressure was dropping quite rapidly (it seems to me) - I am not knowledgeable in this area - does this mean a storm/poor sea conditions?

1014hPa (29.95 Hg) at midnight, dropping to 1006hPa (29.7 Hg) at 5.30pm
Wind speeds: Ave.27km/hr.....Max. 39km/hr
Visibility: 10km, Cloudy early evening. Temp at 10pm: 57*F (14*C)

3rd May Barometric pressure rising

1009 hPa (29.8Hg) at midnight, rising to 1013hPa (29.92 Hg) at 10.00pm
Wind speeds: ave. 16 km/hr..... Max. 30km/hr
Visibility: 10Km, Clear sky. Temp at 10pm: 60*F (16*C)


4th May Barometric Pressure rising

1013 hPa (29.8 Hg) at midnight, rising to 1016 hPa (30Hg) in evening, and still steadily rising through the 5th May

Dont know whether any of the above means anything to you? Ocean sailors might understand the statistics better than i do.


On the 3rd, there were gusts up to 30km/hr (approx 20mph).

Kate described on her Oprah interview how she opened the bedroom door and suddenly the curtains whooshed open. I would like to bet that the window silently swung further open at the same time. On another forum (3A's possibly) someone said that wind speeds such as those would make flying a small aircraft very difficult.

Another thing that must be taken into account is the Venturi effect, which is too complex for me to describe here, (Wikipeadia will explain it if you wish), but this is common where there are large building masses and small appertures.

The practical effect of this is something like the phenomena we see when we drive along a fairly busy 3 lane motorway. When the motorway is suddenly closed down to a single lane, the traffic grinds to an almost halt preceeding the narrowing, but as soon as it gets into the narrow bit it speeds up amazingly.

Think of the wind driving into the tapas side of the large building; it cant get through and more wind keeps coming behind it, so it escapes as best it can by speeding up and whooshing through the narrower spaces where it can get. The inequality of the wind pressures on either side of the building assist this.

i have no idea as to the exact speed of the wind going through that apartment. but it is likely that it was well in excess of 20mph. Maybe some of you, prior to Central heating, will have seen your parents with a draw plate almost blocking the fireplace as they try to kindle the flames as they light a fire? Same principle.

OK Science/engineering lesson over

Hi Sadie you have obviously taken a lot of interest in the case and make good comments.

BUT for me the window of opportunity was so slim, there would not have been time for 2 people to be passing to and thro from a window IMHO, or sedating children. They had no time IF the Tanner sighting is correct. 9.10 Gerry was in the apartment it cant be any earlier really as David Payne was late going to the Tapas just after 9pm (Matt had gone off looking for them as they were very late). David Payne said he came into the Tapas bar and sat down next to Gerry and they had a conversation about the day etc etc. I would think that 5 minutes say to chat, then Gerry gets up and walks to the apartment and checks the children, then bumps into Gez Wilkins at 9.15 just as Jane Tanner is walking past and sees the man walking along with a child. No I dont see how it could work, Gerry would be in the apartment surely he would notice a window open as the if their was sedation and Gerry thought the abductor was in the apartment wouldnt he smell something or see something amiss? He said he looked down at Maddy and thought how lucky he was.

No I dont get the timeline not at all that is why i think the tanner sighting is a no go.

Now for me the perfect time would be after Matt Oldfield checked at 9.30. I think someone texted an accomplice and told them that the party were all sat at the table.

This would then give someone time to go in and take the child. No I think the Smiths sighting is significant. 9.50 would do if for me. The person could have used the tunnels as they go right under and come out similar to where the smiths saw him.

Now I think this was a european man, and english looking man and there is the confusion with Smith saying it was Gerry. Couldnt have been Gerry was in the Tapas.

I think the child was then taken to the beach and moved by boat from there.

Well thats my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth.

But yes I like what you say I knew it was cold in PDL that is why I dont think someone would walk out with a child.

IF there was a car waiting why didnt Gez see it whilst he was walking about?

Anyway I wish we could find her poor little mite.

This business of the way the unidentified man was seen carrying a child, like he had scooped her up from a bed. To me this shows he had not planned on taking her very far, because it is an awkward position to hold a child in. And heavy for the arms. That´s why to me it spells clearly that it was a credible sighting. That man had only to get a few hundred yards away at the very most. A car, or another building was his destination, somewhere close by.

I don´t think the open shutters had anything to do with anything. Just a shutter which got jammed by someone or a workman. They are used in modern apartments nowadays and they are a damned nuisance as they leave the rooms in darkness all the time but are the only security for the windows and are meant to be used as security for when the building is unoccupied. Not like a window which can be locked but is always open to light I think someone who didn´t understand how they worked (would be on an electric motor or remote control) tried to force them open at some previous time in order to get some light in the room.

sadie wrote:

goldengirl57 wrote:

maria wrote:Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

I have never thought this sighting was of a child. An abductor would never walk this way in full view of anyone either going to the apartments and using the front doors (back) as they could easily be seen surely.

IF someone had been watching the apartments they would have seen that mainly at the beginning the group were using this longer route to check the children and would have avoided walking straight into someone going home.

I would think that anyone who wanted to remove a child from the room a small child that is would place the child in a bag, go out through the front door and across left of the car park into the bush AWAY from PDL to a waiting car. The car park to me doesnt appear very bright it wouldnt take much to open the front door quietly and quickly see if anyone is about and then move away in the shadows.

There could well have been someone walking about I mean Gez Wilkins walked about that particular area for an hour and never saw anyone surely he would have seen somebody loitering about.

I get the feeling that this Tanner sighting has actually made it easier for the real perpretrator to get away with it IMHO as too much emphasis was place on this sighting.

At the beginning way back when, Jane Tanner said she thought she saw someone carrying a bag or a rug or something, she never mentioned a child, I think that the idea that this person COULD have been carrying a child was thought of with good intentions.

Another point too one must remember. It was VERY COLD that night even Jane Tanner in her interview with the police said that it was cardigen weather. I cant imagine anyone taking out a young girl with flimsy pyjamas on in full view of anyone in the very cold May evening, as surely this would just bring attention to themselves and also the cold air would wake the child up and how would she have seen the frills of the pyjamas the child if it was Maddie was wearing quarter length PJ's and when your knees are bent they ride up to your knees (mine do when I am in bed).

No I just think an abductor would not walk that way it would be madness surely.

Another point IF THIS was a planned abduction of a child there was an empty apartment appartenly between the McCanns and the Tanners, could someone have used this to hide with the child until the close was clear? Or could someone with really good knowledge of PDL have used the tunnels to make their escape.

Going back to brians dreams in one of his drawings he wrote RIGHT UNDER YOU. I think this is very very interesting and would make sense to me that someone would use the tunnels to move the child no one would see them.

Anyway thats my thoughts at the moment.

As to Hewlett I think it is too dangerous to focus on this guy, as again we have to stay calm and focused and I think this is just a great big red herring IMHO.

Hi GG, good to meet you.

I agree about Hewlett.

However the JT sighting. I believe her and i think that the abductor was supposed to be picked up by a getaway driver waiting in a vehicle in the little car parking area almost opposite the Tapas reception area.

I believe the pick up was frustrated by the presence of Gerry and Jez and even mopre so by the presence of JT. My thoughts are that as the driver pulled out, he saw them and how JT had seen Madeleine being abducted and thought 'OMG, they have rumbled us'. I believe he drove off in the opposite direction to save his own skin.

Also there is the corroberating evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. The Carpenters left the Tapas reception in the same time band as JT. They went in an easterly direction as Bundleman did and Mrs Carpenter heard the words 'Madeleine Madeleine' whispered/murmured en route.

This is in the Rogatory Statements.

Are you sure that JT said that she thought that she had seen a bundle? Some people are saying that this was made up, but i haven't checked the Statements myself for that.

From several weeks before the Rogatory Statements had been made public I thought that Bundleman had gone East (Contrary to Amaral) then turned right in a southerly direction, probably down 'Aldeameanto The Ocean Club', a narrow Alleyway that the Carpenters had to cross. The route can be seen on Google Earth.

If a rapid getaway by car from that corner was expected, then no bag was needed

Hi Sadie, I believe JT too. It is my understanding, as confirmed by Gerry, that she gave a description of the childs Pajamas before she even knew what Madeleine was wearing. I'm certain it is also in her statement which has been covered on here somewhere and there is also a piece on it in the J4 book.

If madeleine was drugged by paint stripper on a cloth and held over her nose would it really leave much of a smell in the room?If there inly a small amount on a cloth and held over her nose until she as passed out ?IM not sure.But to be honest i don't buy the theory that he could of also held pain stripper over the twins nose to.Unless there were two or more people in the room doing it.One man alone would have to have more time in order to knock all three children out.Unless of course he was hiding in the room as Gerry suggested someone could have been. To be honest i think madeleine was just picked up carefully and carried away.No drugs etc.

When a small child is asleep and they are picked up and carried to another place they don't always wake up,and if they do they usually fall back off to sleep and just assume its someone they know ,mam dad nanna grancha etc carrying them.And if madeleine did stir when she was picked up she wouldn't necessary have thought....omg who's this carrying me.She was only 4(almost) she would probably have just fallen back off to sleep assuming her daddy was carrying her.
.................if he only had a few feet to go with madeleine before placing her into a car or van would she have woken by then,or would she still be in a sleepy head state and not fully aware that she was with a stranger.

goldengirl57 wrote:

sadie wrote:

goldengirl57 wrote:

vee8 wrote:Hi goldengirl! Yes, it can be confirmed the window WAS found open, as it is in the original GNR report of the first officer to arrive.

Thanks for that there is so much stuff out there I get confused.

I think then the window being open was just to confuse. I cant imagine anyone trying to climb out of a window not a very wide one at that with a child and negotiate a bed under the window too, just seems too dangerous.

Why open the window to get rid of a smell too, surely what would it matter if the abductor used anything its hardly relevant, and also there wouldnt have been much time to set a scene surely.

No the window being open to me is confusing. I still think the abductor went quietly out of the front door. Someone who knew PDL really well IMHO (a burglar perhaps an opportunistic burglar with keys or SOMEONE who worked at PDL with an accomplice).

I agree about the abductor entering and leaving by the front door rather than by the window or the patio doors.

However, I think that

1) the window was used for communication between the two people doing the actual lifting and removing; there was a watcher outside who was almost certainly bundleman

2) to give moral support to the person (probably a woman known to Madeleine) doing the drugging and actual lifting

3) to pass any drugging apparatus in and out,

4) to allow gentle light to fall on the scene within the room. The abductors would not want to use the light or a torch, because it might alert K and G or any passersby

5) and possibly to disperse any drug/body smells. The abductors may possibly have smelt pretty high with fear.


i also believe the window was left in an almost closed position, but not latched. It was quite windy that night - not really cold, but quite breezy

Weather conditions

FACTS

There was a full moon on May 2nd 2007, so the night would be pretty light on the third

Sunrise, 3rd May 2007 was 6.38am West

Sunset, 3rd May 2007 was 8.25pm West

The days were lengthening by about one minute in the morning and one minute in the evening, so the 4th May had sunrise at 6.37am West

Tides:



3rd May



High 3.35am West ........Low 9.33am West

High 3.49pm West ........Low 9.53pm West


4th May



High 4.07am West ........Low 10.02am West







Temperature at 10pm = 60*F (16*C) on 3rd May

All the above conditions were for nearby Lagos

...................oooooooo...........................

All the following conditions were for Faro airport which is about 50+ miles away (80+km). The airport is right by the sea front

Barometric pressure

2nd May Barometric pressure was dropping quite rapidly (it seems to me) - I am not knowledgeable in this area - does this mean a storm/poor sea conditions?

1014hPa (29.95 Hg) at midnight, dropping to 1006hPa (29.7 Hg) at 5.30pm
Wind speeds: Ave.27km/hr.....Max. 39km/hr
Visibility: 10km, Cloudy early evening. Temp at 10pm: 57*F (14*C)

3rd May Barometric pressure rising

1009 hPa (29.8Hg) at midnight, rising to 1013hPa (29.92 Hg) at 10.00pm
Wind speeds: ave. 16 km/hr..... Max. 30km/hr
Visibility: 10Km, Clear sky. Temp at 10pm: 60*F (16*C)


4th May Barometric Pressure rising

1013 hPa (29.8 Hg) at midnight, rising to 1016 hPa (30Hg) in evening, and still steadily rising through the 5th May

Dont know whether any of the above means anything to you? Ocean sailors might understand the statistics better than i do.


On the 3rd, there were gusts up to 30km/hr (approx 20mph).

Kate described on her Oprah interview how she opened the bedroom door and suddenly the curtains whooshed open. I would like to bet that the window silently swung further open at the same time. On another forum (3A's possibly) someone said that wind speeds such as those would make flying a small aircraft very difficult.

Another thing that must be taken into account is the Venturi effect, which is too complex for me to describe here, (Wikipeadia will explain it if you wish), but this is common where there are large building masses and small appertures.

The practical effect of this is something like the phenomena we see when we drive along a fairly busy 3 lane motorway. When the motorway is suddenly closed down to a single lane, the traffic grinds to an almost halt preceeding the narrowing, but as soon as it gets into the narrow bit it speeds up amazingly.

Think of the wind driving into the tapas side of the large building; it cant get through and more wind keeps coming behind it, so it escapes as best it can by speeding up and whooshing through the narrower spaces where it can get. The inequality of the wind pressures on either side of the building assist this.

i have no idea as to the exact speed of the wind going through that apartment. but it is likely that it was well in excess of 20mph. Maybe some of you, prior to Central heating, will have seen your parents with a draw plate almost blocking the fireplace as they try to kindle the flames as they light a fire? Same principle.

OK Science/engineering lesson over

Hi Sadie you have obviously taken a lot of interest in the case and make good comments.

BUT for me the window of opportunity was so slim, there would not have been time for 2 people to be passing to and thro from a window IMHO, or sedating children. They had no time IF the Tanner sighting is correct. 9.10 Gerry was in the apartment it cant be any earlier really as David Payne was late going to the Tapas just after 9pm (Matt had gone off looking for them as they were very late). David Payne said he came into the Tapas bar and sat down next to Gerry and they had a conversation about the day etc etc. I would think that 5 minutes say to chat, then Gerry gets up and walks to the apartment and checks the children, then bumps into Gez Wilkins at 9.15 just as Jane Tanner is walking past and sees the man walking along with a child. No I dont see how it could work, Gerry would be in the apartment surely he would notice a window open as the if their was sedation and Gerry thought the abductor was in the apartment wouldnt he smell something or see something amiss? He said he looked down at Maddy and thought how lucky he was.

No I dont get the timeline not at all that is why i think the tanner sighting is a no go.

Now for me the perfect time would be after Matt Oldfield checked at 9.30. I think someone texted an accomplice and told them that the party were all sat at the table.

This would then give someone time to go in and take the child. No I think the Smiths sighting is significant. 9.50 would do if for me. The person could have used the tunnels as they go right under and come out similar to where the smiths saw him.

Now I think this was a european man, and english looking man and there is the confusion with Smith saying it was Gerry. Couldnt have been Gerry was in the Tapas.

I think the child was then taken to the beach and moved by boat from there.

Well thats my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth.

But yes I like what you say I knew it was cold in PDL that is why I dont think someone would walk out with a child.

IF there was a car waiting why didnt Gez see it whilst he was walking about?

Anyway I wish we could find her poor little mite.

Well, you could be right, GG, but two rogatory statements tie it down to the 9.15pm to pre-9.30pm slot, so I am inclined to go along with that, - especially as the name Madeleine was heard in the rough area where i expected Bundleman to be.

I dont think the abduction would take long, a couple of minutes or so with a slick set up, I would have thought. It was all planned; I feel sure of that.


As for the getaway car:

I believe it was parked in a small parking area on the opposite side of the road to the Reception - and that parking area is slightly downhilll from the Tapas reception. Anyone leaving the tapas reception and walking up the hill, unless crossing the road, would not even look in that direction as they came out of reception. Jez probably wouldn't have noticed anything either, because this parking area was a number of cars deep; it was dark and he wasn't expecting anything to be looking out for.

I think the driver started to pull out and was firstly shocked at seeing Gerry and Jez, then thoroughly alarmed at seeing JT 'watching' the abductor hurry away. I bet he thought that the alarm would go up any minute and wanted to put as many miles between himself and OC as he could!

Personally, I think that Gerry is the type of guy who puts his everything into his conversations and wouldn't even notice a vehicle pulling out, pausing and then driving off the other way. It was after dark and people drive off frequently; why should he notice it? He didn't even notice JT and neither did Jez. When I am in deep conversation, I don't notice things either.

Certainly Bundleman was heading towards the tiny beach where there might have been a boat, but he was also heading towards Malinkas and the staff quarters, I believe. In fact he could have been heading for the church (tunnels) or a reserve pick up point or the house that Jenny Murat identified, or anywhere really.

This bit and the bit between JT's sighting and the Smiths sighting are the main mystery bits IMO. Where did he go; what did he do; who did he see (anyone?) in that period?

If you are interested, there are (huge) lists of boats in the area at about the period of the abduction. These lists were copied from the 3A's and i believe them to be correct. There are also maps of Portugal, the Algarve, the local area etc., but these have been truncated by the new mauve cheeks to the smart new forum and these are not so much use now. Unfortunately, lots of info has vanished.

To see these please go into 'A Complete review of.....' and then into 'A COMPLETE REVIEW OF MA....' and you will find most facts somewhere in the middle to later part of that thread. Hope this is helpful to you.

Keep your ideas coming GG. I put some pretty wild theories together at times and I could be completely wrong; I accept that, although i have put endless hours into looking at it all, as have a number of others. We need new input; you might just introduce the one thing that we have missed, and that is the key to it all - so keep them coming.

Good to have new faces on board. Welcome goldengirl57 .

sadie

clairesy wrote:If madeleine was drugged by paint stripper on a cloth and held over her nose would it really leave much of a smell in the room?If there inly a small amount on a cloth and held over her nose until she as passed out ?IM not sure.But to be honest i don't buy the theory that he could of also held pain stripper over the twins nose to.Unless there were two or more people in the room doing it.One man alone would have to have more time in order to knock all three children out.Unless of course he was hiding in the room as Gerry suggested someone could have been. To be honest i think madeleine was just picked up carefully and carried away.No drugs etc.

When a small child is asleep and they are picked up and carried to another place they don't always wake up,and if they do they usually fall back off to sleep and just assume its someone they know ,mam dad nanna grancha etc carrying them.And if madeleine did stir when she was picked up she wouldn't necessary have thought....omg who's this carrying me.She was only 4(almost) she would probably have just fallen back off to sleep assuming her daddy was carrying her.
.................if he only had a few feet to go with madeleine before placing her into a car or van would she have woken by then,or would she still be in a sleepy head state and not fully aware that she was with a stranger.

I think that paint stripper would stink, Clairesy. have you done any paint stripping?

Personally, I think that paint stripper is too crude to use as a drug, but i know hewlett is supposed to have used it before; it's horrible stuff to handle too.

I wish that you are right about no drugs being used because that presents an amateur set up, rather than the professional one, or even a ring, that i fear.

I do believe that JT saw this man carrying Madeleine away, it would be easier to think that JT had made a mistake, but I do not believe she did.
The time lines do fit, because the next person to check the children was Matt Oldfield and he admits he did not actually see Madeleine, he just listened and all was quiet. So there was a gap there.
Gerry only suggests that the abductor was in the room, he does not say for certain. I believe he could be right, and at the point Gerry entered to check the children, nothing was amiss, or at least he did not notice it was, pretty hard to see if anything was actually amiss as they were on holiday, their belongings did not have a hard and fast place to be, so it is doubtful that anything would have bothered him even if it was out of place or moved by the abductor.

The abductor either entered by the patio doors or by the window, if it was the window then they probably knew it was faulty, either tipped off, or had been in the apartment before, or the window was purposefully left in such a way it could be opened from outside. I believe the abductor was already in the apartment, probably hiding in the wardrobe in one of the rooms, it was certainly big enough. Either that or they went in via the patio door and could very possibly have been hiding in the flowerbeds and bushes outside the apartment waiting for Gerry to come out and then he would enter immediately (this is not the first time people have been caught here). What the idiots should have been asking themselves is if this was the scenario, then Eddie picked up a scent in the wardrobe and the flower bed, was this intruder a cook or a butcher, who handled meat?
Not try to blame this on the parents, in doing this they missed huge vital clues!

The window could have been opened to let the odour of something used to knock the children out with, it could have been that whatever was used the abductor did not want to be overcome by the fumes too!
Tying in with wondering in the intruder was a butcher, could he have worked in an abattoir and also have access to some kind of sedative used on animals before they are slaughtered? Just a thought!
However, I think the window was opened for a 2nd person to call in if they noticed anything untoward happening and I also think it is possible that Madeleine was passed picked up from bed and passed out across the arms to another waiting pair of arms, that window looks big enough to me and it is certainly low enough for that to have happened.
Also they may have used the window because the door may have been security locked with the McCanns having the key, so they could not open it, they may have tried but found it was locked so they could not go out of the patio doors, so they had no choice but to use the window, not ideal, but they did and they had to take the risk because there was no other option.
I think he walked that way with the child because there was no other way for him to walk.
Jes and Gerry frustrated the plan because unexpectedly, they stood in the road chatting, making the pick up impossible.
I think the original plan was to take Madeleine out of the patio doors down the steps and into a car that would have driven up stopped, the child and abductor get in and then off immediately, there is no way a planned abduction would have had the car parked outside ready and waiting, it would have been seen. I think the car was probably parked in that road but nowhere near the apartment, the abductor walked that way with Madeleine hoping and expecting Gerry and Jes to have gone by the time he walked there, they were not, so he had no choice but to continue walking.
I think there was at least two of them.
Or it could have been one abductor on his own and his car was in fact parked in the road away from the apartment and this is why he walked that way, hoping that Jes and Gerry would have been gone by the time he got there so he could use his car.

Or he was local and had to walk that way to where he lived.


Also I am going to stick my neck out here, I think it is too suss and far too conspicuous to have all these known paedophiles in this area at this time, there was a reason for this and I think it had something to do with tourists and their children.
We now know that there were tourist targeted break-ins and intruders were caught in a child's room staring at the child. This is not a coincidence, it has something to do with Madeleine, two such attacks actually happened after Madeleine was abducted, yet the PJ kept this from everyone, why?

Something very sinister and corrupt happened in PDL that night and it has been purposefully confused and covered up to protect the people involved and the tourist industry. It is simple, but then when we learn the truth (and we will) the truth is likely to be simple. I firmly believe this.

I believe that Raymond Hewlett knows something and I also believe his partner knows something too.
I don't care what he said, the day I believe a lowlife violent paedophile scum like him, will be the day.
He is not stupid, he knows that his DNA sample will reveal nothing, it is my belief he has already been made aware of this.

Best getting hold of that Dodge truck and forensically sweeping that, before he is discounted.
When he dies far from us never knowing, we are likely to learn the truth.
That man has evaded being questioned by the McCanns detectives and I believe he has done this because he has something to hide and he knows the police well, he knows they will pick this up if they speak to him. He does NOT want to answer questions on Madeleine, not the kind of questions that the McCanns detectives will ask anyway!

Sorry I do not trust him, and the things he has said to reporters and the other witnesses are extremely revealing.

Has anyone heard of the Rule 43 gang?

Has anyone heard of 'The Finders'?


The Rule 43 Gang:

These are people who have been jailed for paedophilia and have been banged up together away from the other inmates (for their protection). These people get their kicks in jail by reading each others Court/case Notes and they all get to know each other very well. I think the reason they are called Rule 43 prisoners is because of the way they are segregated and of course because of the crime they have committed.

Wonder if any of Hewletts mates have been looked at? Could they be part a the Rule 43 gang and maybe work as a team? i just dont know?

On the 3A's, there is an interesting thread about Lesley Molseeds murder which the older ones of us will remember. Apparently Peter Sutcliffe and Raymond Hewlett were suspects in that case, but other names were mentioned here and elsewhere including a guy called Michael Horgan. Also there was a mystery suspect and the 3 A's seemed to think that it was some Elite person (my interpretation, which might not be correct). My undestanding is that some guy who was a slow learner, or something like that, took the rap and that evidence was destroyed (Which implicated the Elite?) which could have proved his innocence

It's worth a quick read if you have the time. I have read all around it too - but you need a strong stomach for that! :compsmash:

The thread name is:

Michael Horgan, Raymond Hewlett and Carter Ruck

http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=33665&start=15

Historically, around the Rochdale area there were a group of Paedophile cases over a period of years and also a group of paedophilees who became very clever with their methods of disguising their abductions etc. There was satanic abuse up there too (and in several other places in the UK).

In Nottinghamshire there was a group of very middle class people who abused kids and the kids were transported to the houses by tunnels - old coal mining tunnels .........Hmm (praia da Luz)

There was a guy who lived in a van who was involved in some way too and i am not talking about Hewlett...........Hmm (joanna Cipriano)


'The Finders' are something else, and i am not sure that i should post about them on a public forum - especially what and who they are 'finding' for - it's all too disturbing.

Not paint stripper, it is caustic, it is an acid it would have burnt. I know one paper said stripper but I think that was an error, I thin it was paint thinners, which is a different thing entirely. I believe it was paint thinners and yes I have used it, loads and loads of times and it does smell, but it dissipates quickly in a ventilated room when the source is removed. If the container with a brush is soaking in thinners is in the room, it does smell but only when it is first used and when it is taken away, the odour soon goes.

Also to hold a cloth soaked in paint thinners under the noses of the twins would not have take too long, they were asleep and so was Madeleine, it would have been quite easy and quick.

Also entering the apartment and then out again with a child could have been done surprisingly quickly, probably 5 mins tops and they would not want to be hanging around in there, in and out as quickly as possible, which is probably why this man walked around the back and then doubled back, he had a precise reason for doing that!

Stefan Kisco was convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed but after doing 16 years he was released. Then Ronald Castree was convicted, but Raymond Hewlett was questioned, because he was a taxi driver and his cab was seen parked in a lay-by near where Lesley's body was found and I think Ronald Castree, has put Hewlett in the frame for Lesley's murder, although Ronald Castree, was convicted of raping Lesley, Raymond Hewlett is suspected of stabbing her 12 times and murdering her.

Nice people those 3 A's members aren't they, defending convicted predatory paedophile Raymond Hewlett!

Royal wrote:

Firstly, I am sorry Marilyn but I am convinced Jane Tanner 'did see' a man carrying a child, how could you possibly immagine such a thing? Next, I was under the impression Kate's fingerprints were the only ones on the window but I admit I stand to be corrected on that one. Thirdly my first belief was that Maddie was abducted by sea and I still do not rule out that possibillity, but as regards passing Madeleine through the window which was my next favoured theory after the sea route I am still not a 100% sure that is the case. The reason for my doubt is that it would require an accomplice to be outside the window to receive the child but as far as I know there has never been any strong evidence of a second persons involvement. Others were seen in the area at the time but there has been no proven connection. As for the use of thinners or what ever to subdue the children, it is my belief PDL can develop strong sea breezes especially in the evenings and if both window and door were wide open any unusual odours would quickly dissipate and pass outside. In any case the investigators have suggested the abductor entered through the door so why would he not leave the same way carrying the child? All these different theories are quite mind boggling and unfortunately it's possible we may never know all the answers.

Alroy.

The thing is though if we are to believe the sighting by Jane Tanner, then we have to also believe that Hewlett had nothing to do with the abduction.

The sighting by Jane Tanner which she confirmed in her rogatory interview was:

“Brown
male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very dark hair, thick, long
at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the back). He was
wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a "Duffy" type
coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes, of a
conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping
child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the
impression that he wasn't a tourist.”

So it can hardly be Hewlett she saw as Hewlett in 2007 was an OLD AGE PENSIONER, has very thin and balding straggly hair and would hardly be the type IMHO to wear conventional black shoes.


This would also negate the reasons for the window being open to get rid of the smell of paint thinners, as Hewlett was not there.

I dont think that JT didnt see someone I just think she was confused to what she saw. It was dark, the guy was walking quickly how did she see so much? How did she have time to see things like pink pyjamas and patterns? She even agreed that the light made everything orange so how could she see PINK?. No I think she saw someone just walking along maybe going out for a drink something and then auto suggestion set in. IF she was so convinced it was a man with Maddy why did she take so long to tell someone Rachel what she saw? No I agree with Marilyn, I think this sighting is confusing the timeline, and I really cant see how anyone could have taken the child so quickly within MINUTES without someone hearing something. Why did Gerry and Gez not see her that bothers me too. Was it that dark and were they that engrossed in a conversation?

So if we believe Jane Tanner we need to put hewlett to rest.

I dont think he had anything to do with it to be honest and this is just taking away the focus from the real perpetrator.

I'm not an apologist for Hewlett but I just dont think there is a link with Maddy and this guy. We musnt give up looking for this child and pinning hopes on a death bed confession etc to me is not going to help find her at all and the real culprits will be getting away with it IMHO.

Hi Goldengirl,

Firstly welcome to our forum.

Re Jane Tanner, I believe she is a credible witness and the reason I give her sighting credibility is because the description she gave is pretty much identical to the one Mr. Smith gave.

I know people question how could she have seen this, that and the other, but she obviously did because imo with exception to the time line, The Smiths sighting corroborates with the details Jane gave and Janes statement was made long before the Smiths.

I believe there is too much emphasis put on the time line, as we all know different people's watches are all set differently, especially in a holiday setting, where people would have actually altered their watches to coincide with hat country's time zone. The fact is that there could have been a gap in the time line for several explanations, which are quite plausible.
Jane Tanner was reported to have given her description and included the colour of the pyjamas, before she knew what Madeleine was wearing.

The thing with eye witnesses giving statements, is that the police want to get eye witness statements ASAP, before they have a chance to superimpose something in their minds which isn't correct and we all know what a fiasco the SOC was that evening.

For those that doubt JT, let me give you a little scenario that happened to me.

Once I was eye witness to an incident outside my house, it was very dark and raining and only a small amount of light from the street lamp and I caught sight of someone for no more than approximately 10 secs, yet i gave a full description to the policeman, my OH asked me how I could possibly know that in such a short space of time, he had witnessed the same thing yet could not relay anything much.

2 hours later there was a knock on the door and the police were there, telling me that they had apprehended someone and that was thanks to the description I had given.

My point is, that you can take an awful lot in, in just a few seconds.
The same thing happened when someone broke into my car in town, I saw the man for just about 4/5 seconds in the dark and I was able to pick his photo out and he was arrested and had my radio! (Without the face as the face was in my bag!) So I quite believe that JT was able to give that description and also understand that from where she was she NEVER actually saw the face and she insisted that she had not seen his face. But her description of that man and clothes etc has coincided with the description of other eye witnesses gave after she gave hers.