Video demonstrating how Madeleine could have been abducted.

Video demonstrating how Madeleine #McCann could have been abducted




Published on May 25, 2012 by tinman918

This short video was filmed by me on May 23rd 2012 at about 11am.

The purpose is to illustrate just how easy someone could have escaped Luz having just taken little Madeleine.
My belief is that someone entered the apartment through the rear patio door. This person, hidden by darkness would have seen Gerry McCann leave the apartment, he would have climbed over the balcony wall, quietly enter the apartment and gone into the child's room. The window and shutters would have been opened to firstly provide light to the room and secondly to provide an escape option should he be disturbed. He would have taken the sleeping child from her bed and left the apartment through the front door. This would have taken 90 seconds, tops!

He would have made his way out of the car park, across the street (where he was seen by Tanner) towards a vehicle that was either already running or being driven by his accomplice.

He would have left no forensic trace but if he did, it wasn't found.

You will see that with no urgency at all, I walked from 5a towards a waiting car. I drove out of the area and onto the main highway out of Luz, all within 4 and a half minutes. The motorway (A22) to Spain is a further 5 minute drive away. On the night, this would have been done in half the time.

This video provides no proof to what happened that night but illustrates how quickly and how easily someone could get away without being seen. As far as I'm aware, I was seen filming by ONE person and that was at 11am in broad daylight.

If anyone has any information about what happened to Madeleine or where she is now. please contact:

www.findmadeleine.com
www.met.police.uk
www.crimestoppers-uk.org/

Hardlinemarxist | 30/05/2012 at 11:05 pm | Categories: Madeleine McCann case - assorted commentary | URL: http://wp.me/pCs0i-1Wh

In a perfect abduction Madeleine would not have woken up , nor the twins , nor any DNA found in 5a to trace the Abductor.

check out the contact details, guess who has had a hand in this because there has been a lull in "sightings".

OOPS...sorry, here's the link for the video.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/video-demonstrating-how-madeleine-mccann-could-have-been-abducted/

How the hell does that demonstrate how she could off been abducted ?


Was Madeleine standing outside the apt waiting to be abducted?


It doesn't show the shutters being opened, the noise off the shutters.....etc etc.


You show how a person could be abducted by starting from the BEGINNING....I.e. How the person got In....

Errr... it proves that the film maker can walk from the back of an apartment to a car, carrying a video camera, get in the car, and drive. So the point is????

Precisely lol......shall I do a video off me going to the communal rubbish bins.....bet I don't bump Into anyone..

The Mccanns, obviously behind this , trying to persuade us that Madeleine WAS abducted , could have done a more convincing job.

That video just gave me vertigo.......like being on a cross channel ferry!

Bearing in mind that the "Abduction" took place at NIGHT, assuming that Madeleine would have been sitting quietly in the front with her seat belt on ,
because there was no evidence she was drugged.........I'm starting to think this is another hoax, very clever and obviously extracting the Michael at
the McCanns and the Met.

Well that was "interesting", case solved 90 seconds tops! The 90 seconds doesn't seem to include getting into the apartment, taking the child and getting out again. Now another question, if this was how Madeleine was taken, then who the heck was Jane Tanner's eggman? I think there's a word for this video clip, it starts with b and ends with t !

That nonsense video reminded me of the time I heard Gerry McCann say "We were sorry we weren't with Madeleine, the minute she was taken." I thought at the time, what was he going to do wave her off.

Thinking about it, maybe he was partly speaking the truth, when he said he and his wife were sorry they weren't with her the minute she was taken, when she was taken although I don't believe they were sorry. I believe Madeleine was taken out of the apartment, either by one of the McCanns or by someone known to the McCanns and with their blessing. Let's face it, someone took Madeleine, but there is no proof she was abducted.

The ease which this "demonstration" depicts ignores a few basic facts. It ignores the fact that the father is standing a few yards away talking to another holidaymaker thus requiring both the entry and exit to be silent (both necessary to "fit" the Tanner sighting). It does not explain why an abductor who knew the children were alone/had been watching the movements of the parents risk such an entry/exit with a parent outside knowing that once they had moved off there would be a clear run until the next checks were made. The claimed few seconds required to be in and out also pre-supposes the abductor knew the layout of the apartment's interior, which room the children were in and where his/her target slept.

I've just looked at the author of the video and I am not surprised it is tinman 918. I and many others have been at the end of tinman's foul rantings on You Tube, because we dared criticise the McCanns.

I've always thrown back at tinman, what he has thrown at me, but without using the language he has used. Boy does he squeal when he gets back what he's given out. Anyway I got bored with his rantings and I decided to ignore him in future and that goes for his mates, who behave in exactly the same way as he does.

According to tinman I am a holder of many accounts and a user of many screennames, I because everything that I post about the McCanns is lies and any other poster who posts similar, must be me in disguise.

Iv'e never heard of tinman before, but if he is pro McCann, this video does more damage to them than anything we could think of.

Nobody in their right mind would take this video seriously , I wonder who the Cameraman was??

IIRC the Tin Man didn't have a heart.

Panda wrote:
Iv'e never heard of tinman before, but if he is pro McCann, this video does more damage to them than anything we could think of.

Nobody in their right mind would take this video seriously , I wonder who the Cameraman was??

Hello Panda

Tinman is a poster on You Tube. He is so staunch a supporter, that he is completely vile to anyone who dares criticise the McCanns. He won't debate and no matter how many times you ask him to say why he believes the McCanns are innocent, he throws the question back at you. You tell him why you believe they are guilty, but he just calls you a liar.

He has always said he has been over to PDL, to try to find out what happened to Madeleine. I didn't believe him, until I saw the video.

I get the feeling that tinman is either a member of the McCanns family or a member of Team McCann. If he wasn't why would he put links on the bottom of his silly video, for people to contact the police with information about Madeleine?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he is just a weirdo. A weirdo who wants to make himself look important.

Iris wrote:IIRC the Tin Man didn't have a heart.

So what are you suggesting Iris, that he was neither pro nor anti , just a stirrer.?

Iris wrote:IIRC the Tin Man didn't have a heart.

So what are you suggesting Iris, that he was neither pro nor anti , just a stirrer.?

Chris wrote:The ease which this "demonstration" depicts ignores a few basic facts. It ignores the fact that the father is standing a few yards away talking to another holidaymaker thus requiring both the entry and exit to be silent (both necessary to "fit" the Tanner sighting). It does not explain why an abductor who knew the children were alone/had been watching the movements of the parents risk such an entry/exit with a parent outside knowing that once they had moved off there would be a clear run until the next checks were made. The claimed few seconds required to be in and out also pre-supposes the abductor knew the layout of the apartment's interior, which room the children were in and where his/her target slept.

Exactly! The problem with the abduction is always - how would an abductor know which room the victim was in and how would the abductor find that child in the dark? Entry through the window pre-supposes prior knowledge of the sleeping arrangements and of the layout of the apartment in order to select the correct shutters to 'jemmy' and.... ah but wait a moment, the shutters weren't jemmied and entry wasn't through the window it was through the patio door. Hmmm... but according to Oldfield, when entering through the patio door only the twin cots could be seen through the bedroom door - Madeleine's bed was not visible. In spite of this the abductor made his way straight into the room, ignored the little ones asleep in their cots, found Madeleine, snatched her from her bed, opened the window and shutters to lay a false trail or 'red herring' as KM described it and then.... This is confusing, perhaps the abductor opened the window and shutters in order to see what he was doing... Oh bother, but others have testified that the shutters weren't open at all... I'm terribly sorry but, I'm finding this abduction story a little far fetched. Perhaps Scotland Yard can throw a bit more light on the abduction scenario (figuratively speaking of course).

Just supposing Jane Tanner was telling porky pies and she never saw the abductor, or did see someone carrying a child and straight away it had to be Madeleine.

We know the Patio Doors were left unlocked and this is the way any abductor would enter because he knew the McCanns were not in because he had been casing the joint. Maybe he had an accomplice with a Car parked nearby and the idea was to ask for a ransom. Howeverm the "Abductors" didn't
expect such worldwide publicity so abandoned their plan.

It may well be that he didn't see anybody but how does he know that he wasn't seen or noticed? Apart from his little demonstration not being at the same time of night.
If someone or indeed several people had gone round the area asking if they'd seen something unusual - he should have been carrying a large doll at least - I would think he might have been spotted from other apartments, drivers etc. Someone might have noticed his parked car. We don't know because that part of the experiment doesn't exist.

In any case, he should have run the experiment exactly according to the official McCann version. Which didn't involve a car but a man walking with a sleeping child in a fast and purposeful way. I'd put money on lots of witnesses.

tigger wrote:It may well be that he didn't see anybody but how does he know that he wasn't seen or noticed? Apart from his little demonstration not being at the same time of night.
If someone or indeed several people had gone round the area asking if they'd seen something unusual - he should have been carrying a large doll at least - I would think he might have been spotted from other apartments, drivers etc. Someone might have noticed his parked car. We don't know because that part of the experiment doesn't exist.

In any case, he should have run the experiment exactly according to the official McCann version. Which didn't involve a car but a man walking with a sleeping child in a fast and purposeful way. I'd put money on lots of witnesses.

The whole video is rubbish.....he could have been driving in Spain for all we know. This is why I think it is a hoax.

Perhaps the person who made the video is actually the abductor and he's completely p***ed off that most people think it wasn't possible so he's made a retrospective video to prove that it was. I think Scotland Yard should look into this - it's a lead (Well it's as good as the 195 leads they've come up with so far).

Pity he didn't speak as he was driving to explain the route, SY could have gone on a house to house search asking if anyone had seen a car that
night.

Panda wrote:

Iris wrote:IIRC the Tin Man didn't have a heart.

So what are you suggesting Iris, that he was neither pro nor anti , just a stirrer.?

From the Wizard of Oz.