Sadie's theory, the watcher and a getaway car.

[sadie]

Quote from: sadie on Today at 12:00:39 AM

Not worried about your boredom threshold


Only worried about trying to find the truth


Luv ya faith

That's lovely sadie. I just pity you.

Yep it'a a bit sad that I love you, isn't it? .... but I am very forgiving .........  

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sadie,

Thanks for your theory. I like your thinking.

However, a couple of questions come to mind:

1. As far as the little balcony is concerned, why would the abductor / accomplice pick a vantage point with such an important blind spot?

2. A team of two (or more) people equates, or could equate, with a so-called 'professional' abduction. But what 'professional' would wet his pants, as you put it, if something went wrong? (You suggest that the person with the car panicked and fled the scene upon seeing Jerry /Jez). Wouldn't a 'professional' person keep cool and proceed to plan B? Why would a higher-up in any chain hire a pant-wetter, when there are plenty of hardened criminals available for work? (Can't find an icon here for a pant-wetter - maybe someone can design one...)

3. If this was plan A, what was plan B?

4. I just wanted to clarify - are you saying the man / woman with the car chickened out and never met up with the abductor after that? Or did they meet, somehow, at another point?

Thanks again

Sherlock

[AnneGuedes]

Elementary, if I may.

[sadie]

Hi Sherlock,

I like your name.  Welcome to M of J Madeleine Section


It is good that my theory is being questioned and I will do my best to answer.  It is only a theory and all theories must be tested. 

Sherlock

However, a couple of questions come to mind:

1. As far as the little balcony is concerned, why would the abductor / accomplice pick a vantage point with such an important blind spot?

By blind spot, I think you must mean that the watcher could not see the corner where Gerry and Jez chatted?  And possibly could not see the reception and the tapas outdoor restaurant?

Before any of the party walked by, it didn't matter so much if he was seen having a fag on that balcony.  He need not stand in the shadow.  It was a cool gusty night, so it was unlikely Mrs Fenn was on her balcony and very few people passed by.  Anyone coming to the Tapas area from the NE or the NW, he could easily see.  Others coming from the South and the East /SEast were not a problem, cos they never got as far as 5A if they were going to the tapas, which was almost the only place anyone would be going to .  Very very few other people were likely to pass by.   PdL, even in June/july, when we visited, is a really quiet place.

From the extreme northwest corner of the balcony, he could see the Jez and Gerry corner and also even see the Tapas group eating.  The corner of the flats that he was in was obscuring the actual reception area.  So he had a VERY good sight of everything excepting the Reception.  It is doubtful whether there was a better all round view from anywhee else ... and so convenient, virtually opposite 5A front door, with the getaway car parked immediately adjacent to the back garden gate of the flats where he was standing.

So long as he vanished into the shadows when anyone came
... there was no reason why a person might not have a fag on that balcony.  Altho it would hardly be a flat owners/renters first choice if they had a big balcony of their own with seats.

So he had a superb view of everything, yet was in no real danger of being noticed.

2. A team of two (or more) people equates, or could equate, with a so-called 'professional' abduction. But what 'professional' would wet his pants, as you put it, if something went wrong? (You suggest that the person with the car panicked and fled the scene upon seeing Jerry /Jez). Wouldn't a 'professional' person keep cool and proceed to plan B? Why would a higher-up in any chain hire a pant-wetter, when there are plenty of hardened criminals available for work? (Can't find an icon here for a pant-wetter - maybe someone can design one...)

My thought are that they were semi professional employed by a true professional who had previously been a lone operator.  He had already accomplished 6 abductions and fluffed one.  No it was not necessarily Gerry on his own that phased him out.  It was Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abduction that did it, along with Gerry.  imo. 

Why risk his own neck?  Let us remember that with the Carolina abduction, as soon as the man was spotted walking Carolina way, he loosed her hand and walked off around the corner.

3. If this was plan A, what was plan B?

Did i mention a Plan A and B?  Cant remember where.  Can you pls give me the post number to point me to it

4. I just wanted to clarify - are you saying the man / woman with the car chickened out and never met up with the abductor after that? Or did they meet, somehow, at another point?

Yep, that is what I am thinking, that he/she chickened out.  I am wondering if they met up later maybe at the Staff Quarters, or maybe at the tiny beach, or ..... ? 

These, I can only hazard unstructured guesses at ....  but The Staff Quarters are very interesting to me. 

The Smiths sighted ?bundleman only 50 - 80 metres, before The Staff Quarters and down the same road, Rua D'Escola.  None of The Smiths could see The Staff Quarters at that point of their walk home.  He had come from that direction



A soujourn there, getting moral support, grabbing a quick drink and maybe phoning around for instructions ...... or to alert a boat in Lagos (3+ miles) to come, would explain the long delay between JT's sighting and The Smiths sighting. 


Phone calls about 9.20 - 10.00 pm could be very interesting


Hope this makes sense to you?

I want to re-iterate that this is only a theory, but seems to me that it ticks all the boxes.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi Sherlock,

I like your name.  Welcome to M of J Madeleine Section


It is good that my theory is being questioned and I will do my best to answer.  It is only a theory and all theories must be tested. 

Sherlock
By blind spot, I think you must mean that the watcher could not see the corner where Gerry and Jez chatted?  And possibly could not see the reception and the tapas outdoor restaurant?

Before any of the party walked by, it didn't matter so much if he was seen having a fag on that balcony.  He need not stand in the shadow.  It was a cool gusty night, so it was unlikely Mrs Fenn was on her balcony and very few people passed by.  Anyone coming to the Tapas area from the NE or the NW, he could easily see.  Others coming from the South and the East /SEast were not a problem, cos they never got as far as 5A if they were going to the tapas, which was almost the only place anyone would be going to .  Very very few other people were likely to pass by.   PdL, even in June/july, when we visited, is a really quiet place.

From the extreme northwest corner of the balcony, he could see the Jez and Gerry corner and also even see the Tapas group eating.  The corner of the flats that he was in was obscuring the actual reception area.  So he had a VERY good sight of everything excepting the Reception.  It is doubtful whether there was a better all round view from anywhee else ... and so convenient, virtually opposite 5A front door, with the getaway car parked immediately adjacent to the back garden gate of the flats where he was standing.

So long as he vanished into the shadows when anyone came
... there was no reason why a person might not have a fag on that balcony.  Altho it would hardly be a flat owners/renters first choice if they had a big balcony of their own with seats.

So he had a superb view of everything, yet was in no real danger of being noticed.


My thought are that they were semi professional employed by a true professional who had previously been a lone operator.  He had already accomplished 6 abductions and fluffed one.  No it was not necessarily Gerry on his own that phased him out.  It was Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abduction that did it, along with Gerry.  imo. 

Why risk his own neck?  Let us remember that with the Carolina abduction, as soon as the man was spotted walking Carolina way, he loosed her hand and walked off around the corner.

Did i mention a Plan A and B?  Cant remember where.  Can you pls give me the post number to point me to it

 

Yep, that is what I am thinking, that he/she chickened out.  I am wondering if they met up later maybe at the Staff Quarters, or maybe at the tiny beach, or ..... ? 

These, I can only hazard unstructured guesses at ....  but The Staff Quarters are very interesting to me. 

The Smiths sighted ?bundleman only 50 - 80 metres, before The Staff Quarters and down the same road, Rua D'Escola.  None of The Smiths could see The Staff Quarters at that point of their walk home.  He had come from that direction



A soujourn there, getting moral support, grabbing a quick drink and maybe phoning around for instructions ...... or to alert a boat in Lagos (3+ miles) to come, would explain the long delay between JT's sighting and The Smiths sighting. 


Phone calls about 9.20 - 10.00 pm could be very interesting


Hope this makes sense to you?

I want to re-iterate that this is only a theory, but seems to me that it ticks all the boxes.

Thanks for the welcome, Sadie, and the thorough response.

I see what you are saying about the balcony. It does have a very good general view of the area.

Regarding the 'professional' aspect to the case, I just feel that a seasoned abductor / accomplice of any description would not have chickened out at the juncture they did. You make a good point about the Carolina case, but things are different here in that, if we are putting things together correctly, the abductor was firmly holding his prize when the second person, as you suggest, gave up on him. Stage one had been reached. An incredible achievement, coming as it did through much audacity, planning, and luck. Why give up now?

Of course, nerves may have got the better of him/ her. But what about the adrenaline, and the 'professionalism'?

Another thought about the chickening out is that if Jane Tanner and others had intervened at the time, as you suggest was wetpants' fear, and the abductor had been caught and questioned, the abductor's loyalty to wetpants would have gone out the window. How then would wetpants have been protecting himself by driving off? Driving off left the abductor in a much more vulnerable position, greatly increasing his chances of being apprehended and being forced to spill the beans. Again, not so smooth.

Finally, I don't know if you actually did speak about a plan B. What I am getting at, is that a professional person would surely have had a contingency in the face of being disturbed during the abduction. The abductor (s) would have known, having monitored the apartment in advance, that even though the town as a whole was quiet, they were still liable to being disturbed, seen or heard at some point in the operation not only by the McCanns, but by the other 7 whose apartments were very close, plus neighbours and others as well. It seems mighty strange that  the possibility of being seen did not appear to have been incorporated into the plan. It was a given that there were likely to be people in the street at some point, hence the absolute necessity for plan B, and the implausibility of a professional person not formulating one, ergo my question 'so where was it.' Whatever plan B was, presumably it can't have been a very sturdy one, because, according to your theory, wetpants pressed the panic button instead. No plan B, no professional.

Having said all that, Sadie, I do feel strongly that for the abductor to have been parading through the town to be witnessed by the Smiths (and possibly other people as well) at the very time the alarm was being raised, something must have gone badly wrong, hence my interest in your theory.

[sadie]

Thanks for the welcome, Sadie, and the thorough response.

I see what you are saying about the balcony. It does have a very good general view of the area.

Regarding the 'professional' aspect to the case, I just feel that a seasoned abductor / accomplice of any description would not have chickened out at the juncture they did. You make a good point about the Carolina case, but things are different here in that, if we are putting things together correctly, the abductor was firmly holding his prize when the second person, as you suggest, gave up on him. Stage one had been reached. An incredible achievement, coming as it did through much audacity, planning, and luck. Why give up now?

I am thinking that the man who planned all this was a seasoned abductor.  That his series of abductions had been stopped up in the North, so he had to stop abducting (in PT at least) for 5 years.  Then change his area and his choice of victims, altho seems he had history of young girls.  i.e. Claudia Alexandre Silva e Sousa, aged 7, up in the Porto region.  Again a blond.

The crew that executed the actual abduction may not have his experience, but seems they were a pretty slick outfit, if my theory is correct, of course.

That he arranged and organised it but from afar.  That everything was compartmentalised, so that no-one knew anyone else, or the next stage, in the abduction.  To prevent anyone finding out who he was.

Of course, nerves may have got the better of him/ her. But what about the adrenaline, and the 'professionalism'?

The getaway driver didn't have the adrenalin running like bundleman and he didn't want to be caught by the PJ and go to jail.  He saved his own skin.

Another thought about the chickening out is that if Jane Tanner and others had intervened at the time, as you suggest was wetpants' fear, and the abductor had been caught and questioned, the abductor's loyalty to wetpants would have gone out the window. How then would wetpants have been protecting himself by driving off?

He wouldn't have even thought that far ahead, Sherlock.  Blind panic would have taken over.  It is easy in hindsight to think of these things, but at that moment his only thought would have been to scarper as fast as he could, to save his own skin.  IMO

Driving off left the abductor in a much more vulnerable position, greatly increasing his chances of being apprehended and being forced to spill the beans. Again, not so smooth.

Hindsight is wonderful

Finally, I don't know if you actually did speak about a plan B. What I am getting at, is that a professional person would surely have had a contingency in the face of being disturbed during the abduction. The abductor (s) would have known, having monitored the apartment in advance, that even though the town as a whole was quiet, they were still liable to being disturbed, seen or heard at some point in the operation not only by the McCanns, but by the other 7 whose apartments were very close, plus neighbours and others as well. It seems mighty strange that  the possibility of being seen did not appear to have been incorporated into the plan. It was a given that there were likely to be people in the street at some point, hence the absolute necessity for plan B, and the implausibility of a professional person not formulating one, ergo my question 'so where was it.' Whatever plan B was, presumably it can't have been a very sturdy one, because, according to your theory, wetpants pressed the panic button instead. No plan B, no professional.

Maybe Plan B was for ?bundleman to make his way to the Staff Quarters and phone for instructions. 

Personally with every direction covered visually and everything honed to a fine art, I am inclined to think they felt infallable.  As soon as Gerry left, nobody else in sight, to go for it.

They knew it could be achieved in a minute or so, and pick up was around two corners, so no-one would connect a vehicle parked a short distance away with a pick up a couple of turns away out of sight.

Having said all that, Sadie, I do feel strongly that for the abductor to have been parading through the town to be witnessed by the Smiths (and possibly other people as well) at the very time the alarm was being raised, something must have gone badly wrong, hence my interest in your theory.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Elementary, if I may.

Thanks for the welcome, AnneGuedes

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sadie,

I apologize but I am not sure how to compartmentalize and highlight copied text. Just getting used to this site. Please excuse the format for this answer.

In reply to your previous post, I do want to remark that you seem to know a lot about what has been going on across Portugal. I am new on this case, and will have to brush up.

Regarding wetpants saving his skin, I agree that he wouldn't have had the same sense of urgency as bundleman, certainly now that bundleman was holding the baby. As a matter of interest, do you think their respective roles on the night were pre-designated by the organizer?

But now let's turn to bundleman himself. Did he handle things any better than wetpants? In the absence of any certainties as to what he did in the time immediately following the events of 9.15, let's fast-forward to the Smith sighting. It is almost inconceivable that parading around the town with Madeleine, circa the very time her disappearance was being discovered, could have constituted anyone's plan. It's one thing walking across a road (Rua Martins) to a car park in order to avoid starting a car engine near 5A; quite another to head for the nightspots (the social area near the church which bundleman appeared to be walking towards when he passed Family Smith). Would a jewel thief run the streets amok after a major heist, casting his treasures skyward?

This carless soujourn cannot have been in anybody's plan A; nor was it, I contend, a plan B. Bundleman - a panicker? So were he and wetpants really such a great team?

I would not have employed this pair myself, but I do concede, Sadie, that in general terms, whomever was involved must have been smarter than they looked, because Madeleine went without trace. And we can't only blame PJ incompetence/corruption for that.




[/quote]

[sadie]

Sherlock

In reply to your previous post, I do want to remark that you seem to know a lot about what has been going on across Portugal.   I am new on this case, and will have to brush up.

I think that you are an old hand on this case tbh.  Probably posted, as an anti, on numerous forums?   My apologies in advance if I have that wrong, but all the signs are there.   

However, I will carry on atm.

I researched in depth for about 4 years working exraordinarily long hours, but uncovering amazing things, which others seemed to have missed.  I used unorthodox methods.  In a lesser way, I still am researching. 

I am way past PdL in my research ...  but have enjoyed trying to fathom out how the actual, on the spot, abduction happened.

Regarding wetpants saving his skin, I agree that he wouldn't have had the same sense of urgency as
bundleman, certainly now that bundleman was holding the baby. As a matter of
interest, do you think their respective roles on the night were pre-designated
by the organizer?.

I have no idea, but I suspect so.

But now let's turn to bundleman himself. Did he handle things any better than
wetpants? In the absence of any certainties as to what he did in the time
immediately following the events of 9.15, let's fast-forward to the Smith
sighting. It is almost inconceivable that parading around the town with
Madeleine, circa the very time her disappearance was being discovered, could
have constituted anyone's plan.

Quite.
Left in the lurch, my bet is that after being seen by JT and the pick up car failing to arrive, he turned right down the alleyway Aldeamente The Ocean Club and came to the East side of the little car park where the pick up vehicle had been standing ... but it had gone.

Viewing from that alleyway, without even walking on to the car park, he could see it had gone.

The area that I am referring to is by the semi-circular route that The Carpenters walked back along after their Tapas meal ... where they heard the words "Madeleine, Madeleine" were murmured/whispered and overheard by Caroline Carpenter.(translation by Maria)



[See where the red dots come down?  That is Aldeamente Ocean Club, an alleyway.  See as it goes off the image on the RH side, there is a tree?  That tree is at the western edge of the semi-circular path that goes round the lawn, which is just off the image.  Seems, altho I am not sure that  the Carpenters walked that way home and crossed bundlemans path.  Thank you for reminding me of that Sherlock.  Another pointer to my thoery maybe being correct.

John shows the red spots going back into the car park.  I dont think bundleman needed to walk into that car park.  He could see that there was no vehicle from more or less the alleyway itself.  Being pernicketty, I would have placed the get-away vehicle where the red car is, as that is at the gateway to the pathway coming down from the flats with the fag-end watchers balcony view point.

To see the round lawn and the semi circular path you will have to refer to your own GE as it is just off the picture here.]    Thanks to John for the image

  I think, but am not sure, that this semi circular pathway around the lawn is the route referred to by The Carpenters as their way home.


As I just said, here we have another pointer that my theory might be correct.  Seems bundleman was where we would expect him to be if he tried to reach the getaway vehicle in that little car park

I have no real theory how he got from there to (possibly) the Staff Quarters and beyond to the Smiths sighting    Rua D'escola is a VERY quiet road through almost waste land and with virtually no buildings along its length prior to The Staff Quarters.     It's northern end is directly across the main road from the western end of Ocean Club    My bet is that he tried to keep away from that main road (Rua Primeiro de Maio) and used  Rua d'Escola for probably its entire length instead.   The tricky bit was how did he manage the very first part and get to the northern end of that road?   That would be difficult.   Maybe he took a Northern loop to avoid going past OC?     Dunno, but in such a quiet place it would be very possible to have done that without being seen


 

It's one thing walking across a road (Rua Martins) to a
car park in order to avoid starting a car engine near 5A; quite another to head
for the nightspots (the social area near the church which bundleman appeared to
be walking towards when he passed Family Smith). Would a jewel thief run the
streets amok after a major heist, casting his treasures skyward?.

First, I do not think he meant to walk across that road.   I think he just came to JT corner to look for the pick up vehicle and suddenly realising JT was almost upon him, he carried on walking (almost running according to one of Janes statements) to get away from her

As for walking towards the nightspots of PDL, they are thin on the ground !!! but I appreciate what you are saying.   The route he took circled round the centre of PdL.    As far as we are aware he didn't go into the centre and he kept off main roads.

As far as Aofies sighting is concerned all we can tell is that he did not go west on Rua 25 Abril .   He either went South towards, maybe, the little rocky cove which had a beach at low tide, or east towards Malinkas (from memory about 40 metres) or The Church, The Bull or The Fontezela restaurant, or .... ? Personally I dont think he would have wanted to walk into the "town" centre.   I think that unlikely   
And that is as far as we know

I have thoughts about what happened next, but atm am very busy and will be off forum for several weeks, unless I cant resist it, when I will pop in.     

This carless soujourn cannot have been in anybody's plan A; nor was it, I contend, a plan B. Bundleman - a panicker? So were he and wetpants really such a great team?

I agree that a car was in the plan, but it failed because of fear of being caught on the drivers part.    Bundleman appears to have handled the situation very well, having been left in the lurch.   The driver/ watcher was the weak link ... but what was he to do when suddenly Gerry and Jez were on the scene, then Gawd almighty, Jane actually witnessed the abduction? .... and he didn't want to go to jail. 
He panicked.   Difficult position to be in.

I would not have employed this pair myself, but I do concede, Sadie, that in general terms, whomever was involved must have been smarter than they looked, because Madeleine went without trace. And we can't only blame PJ incompetence/corruption for that.

I disagree on the without traces bit.  There are traces,  but I cant divulge.


Seems Amaral misled a willing group of PJ Officers.  Without even going to the scene, or interviewing the witnesses, he made up his mind immediately that there was no abduction; and that Kate and Gerry were involved.   Seems he leaned upon well known statistics that in the majority of cases the parents are involved, and without any real investigation decided to go with that.

He decided to disbelieve golden witness Jane Tanner and all the British witnesses.

He should not have allowed statistics and gut feelings to rule his mind.   That was his big mistake, imo.    Having taken that path,  was he unable to lose face, so he carried on along this path?  Was he determined by any means to make them take the rap .... and "BIG UP" his name?


All only my thoughts, but all seem to fit.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Another amazing post, Sadie! I am impressed with your devotion to this case!

In actual fact, I am quite new to the Madeleine mystery, having come to it seriously in the past few weeks whilst between assignments (crime in London is disappointingly slow just now).

I am not an 'anti' actually, but I am a devil's advocate in my methodology: testing theories - other people's and my own - by posing as many questions as possible. This is something you appreciate.

Being somewhat of a psychology buff - more Dr Watson's line, I know, but his writings are rubbing off on me - one thing I am doing is attempting to enter the mind of the abductor, trying to construct a psychological profile of bundleman based partly on his apparently erratic movements that fated night. Even if he was let down, I still think that certain aspects of his conduct point to a very unsound mind, which could tell us a lot. But more on that to come.

We do have a case here in which, for most of us, many pieces of the jigsaw are missing: botched forensics; unfollowed leads; a rudderless investigation passed from pillar to post; and a badly-advised Team McCann. 

In the absence of many facts, I am going back to what happened on the night as a starting point, trying to trace the outline of a 'story' from what we have at hand. I am trying see if a skeleton story can be pieced together from the meagre evidence provided, to try and see, logically speaking, if things need to get any more complicated than that. For example, do we need to introduce an accomplice into the equation at apartment 5A, when bundleman's route and 'errors' could perhaps be explained without one?

You seem to be working in a different way, Sadie, bringing a lot of your external information, and looking at a bigger picture. At the same time you are very detail oriented. Interesting work!

I wish you good luck in all your endeavours and await your return to the case.


[/quote]

[DCI]

Thats the car park I mentioned, Sadie. Most obvious one to me, with the red car. The alley way comes onto the car park, but too risky, to use IMO!! It comes out almost opposite the Tapas bar.

[sadie]

Thats the car park I mentioned, Sadie. Most obvious one to me, with the red car. The alley way comes onto the car park, but too risky, to use IMO!! It comes out almost opposite the Tapas bar.

remember, DCI, they were not carrying Madeleine near that car park.  The vehicle was just parked there ready to drive off and round the two corners to near the drive in to 5A car park, where the pick up was exp[ected to be.  also it was after dark.

But Gerry and Jez wre in the way, then JT actually witnessed it, so the get away driver took fright and took off in a southerly direction, leaving Bundleman in the lurch

Only my opinion, of course and am willing to change my views if someone produces something constructive to disprove my ideas

[Lyall]

Sadie, it was abduction by professionals, but one of them leaves fag ends with his dna all over them?

Logical? >@@(*&)

[sadie]

Sadie, it was abduction by professionals, but one of them leaves fag ends with his dna all over them?

Logical? >@@(*&)

Professional planning but semi professional actual abduction imo, Lyall

Have I ikmagined this or was it pointed out somewhere on the forum that the PJ didn't do DNA?

[faithlilly]

Professional planning but semi professional actual abduction imo, Lyall

Have I ikmagined this or was it pointed out somewhere on the forum that the PJ didn't do DNA?

All IYO of course but besides how would the abductor know the PJ weren't world experts in DNA, he certainly wouldn't have the hindsight we do. Surely if the planning had been so professional the abductor employed to carry it out would have been too ? Leaving any evidence that links you to the crime doesn't sound very professional to me.