Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Venturi Swirl]

Because, as I said, I find it strange that the abduction evidence can implicate so many different people.
Robert Murat was made an arguido by the PJ on behalf of Grange.
What can he possibly have in common with this 'new' paedo murderer suspect?
Residing in Portugal in 2007?
To me, that doesn't say much about the strength of the abduction evidence.

Robert Murat was not made an arguido on behalf of Grange. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Robert Murat was not made an arguido on behalf of Grange.

My mistake. He was questioned as a witness.
Quite what he could have witnessed from the inside of his mothers kitchen is beyond me.

[Venturi Swirl]

My mistake. He was questioned as a witness.
Quite what he could have witnessed from the inside of his mothers kitchen is beyond me.

I think you’re just feeling very frustrated that the police know stuff that you don’t.  Try to relax and think happy thoughts.

[Wonderfulspam]

I think you’re just feeling very frustrated that the police know stuff that you don’t.  Try to relax and think happy thoughts.

Well then you think wrong.
I'm confident the police have b....r all abduction evidence.  Hence their scatter gun approach to suspects.

[faithlilly]

My mistake. He was questioned as a witness.
Quite what he could have witnessed from the inside of his mothers kitchen is beyond me.

Perhaps it was with regard to his confrontation with the tapas friends.

[faithlilly]

Well then you think wrong.
I'm confident the police have b....r all abduction evidence.  Hence their scatter gun approach to suspects.

The strange thing is that since 2011 there has been not one single official announcement from SY that they are investigating anybody.

[Venturi Swirl]

Well then you think wrong.
I'm confident the police have b....r all abduction evidence.  Hence their scatter gun approach to suspects.

So in your opinion you have exactly the same access to all the evidence as the police do you?   

[Venturi Swirl]

The strange thing is that since 2011 there has been not one single official announcement from SY that they are investigating anybody.

What was that thing with the more recent arguidos?  Was that just for fun?

[pathfinder73]

On the other hand if simeone is spotted they might react by getting rid of the evidence asap.

Possibly but IMO Smithman knew his destination and after passing so many eye witnesses nothing was going to stop him.

[Robittybob1]

Possibly but IMO Smithman knew his destination and after passing so many eye witnesses nothing was going to stop him.

That could be describing any innocent person taking his child home.

[barrier]

That could be describing any innocent person taking his child home.

Along with Tannerman it seems then,SY were almost certain who Tannerman was to be able to move the timeline on,but not a word on Smithman,he's the key,imo.

[Robittybob1]

Along with Tannerman it seems then,SY were almost certain who Tannerman was to be able to move the timeline on,but not a word on Smithman,he's the key,imo.

But from the Smith sightings I'm sure they would have known whether the child was alive or dead.  In Amaral's theory Smithman is carrying a deceased child whereas in the latest theory the German paedophile would be carrying a living child.  Which is it?

[The General]

But from the Smith sightings I'm sure they would have known whether the child was alive or dead.  In Amaral's theory Smithman is carrying a deceased child whereas in the latest theory the German paedophile would be carrying a living child.  Which is it?

I wouldn't be too sure. A limp, sleeping small child will look and act lifeless, with limbs dangling, when slung over the shoulder and cradled with the forearm in that way. In fact I doubt anyone would assume the child was dead, they would default assume it was sleeping, surely.

[Robittybob1]

I wouldn't be too sure. A limp, sleeping small child will look and act lifeless, with limbs dangling, when slung over the shoulder and cradled with the forearm in that way. In fact I doubt anyone would assume the child was dead, they would default assume it was sleeping, surely.

So are we saying we can't be sure if they are seeing a deceased child or just a sleeping child?

Immediately after death a child would be very hard to carry in that position due to the flaccidity.  Maybe as rigor mortis set in a child would look more like a sleeping child.
If it was 2-3 hours after death rigor would be setting in, but then death would be 10:00 PM  minus 2-3 hours which means 7:00 -7:30 PM.  That becomes a time after the kids were put to bed. 

I tend to think it was a living child.

[The General]

So are we saying we can't be sure if they are seeing a deceased child or just a sleeping child?

Immediately after death a child would be very hard to carry in that position due to the flaccidity.  Maybe as rigor mortis set in a child would look more like a sleeping child.
If it was 2-3 hours after death rigor would be setting in, but then death would be 10:00 PM  minus 2-3 hours which means 7:00 -7:30 PM.  That becomes a time after the kids were put to bed. 

I tend to think it was a living child.

I don't know. I do know that passer's by probably wouldn't think.......'that child looks dead to me'.
I'm pretty sure I've been in this position before, walking home at night on holiday, other holidaymakers walking in the opposite direction carrying a kid in exactly the manner described. I wouldn't assume 'dead child', but may wonder why he/she wasn't in a pram.