Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.

[sadie]

Why exactly would anyone be saying Madeleine's name, however?

That I dont know Sherlock.  But maybe Madeleine had stirred ....  Maybe he had some sort of need to talk to her ....

We just dont know, but Caroline Carpenter heard tbe words, [according to Maria,] whispered or murmured.  Her interpretation of the strength of the sound.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That I dont know Sherlock.  But maybe Madeleine had stirred ....  Maybe he had some sort of need to talk to her ....

We just dont know, but Caroline Carpenter heard tbe words, [according to Maria,] whispered or murmured.  Her interpretation of the strength of the sound.

When you say 'he', are we are assuming that these words came from the mouth of bundleman?

[Carana]

That I dont know Sherlock.  But maybe Madeleine had stirred ....  Maybe he had some sort of need to talk to her ....

We just dont know, but Caroline Carpenter heard tbe words, [according to Maria,] whispered or murmured.  Her interpretation of the strength of the sound.

Are you sure you're not mixing it up with something else, Sadie?

Steve Carpenter's original statement is listed as one of the missing statements on the DVD.

The police officer had a copy of his 17 May statement which she read out to him during his rog interview, and I quoted the passage about his wife earlier. There's no mention of whispering in it.

[sadie]

When you say 'he', are we are assuming that these words came from the mouth of bundleman?

Those are my thoughts. 

Remember this was immediately after Jane Tanners sighting.  We do not know exactly at which part of the Carpenters walk back these words were heard but their semi circular route in an easterly direction touched  / crossed bundlemans route if he was circling back to the car park.  The little car park where it seems likely the get-away vehicle had stood.

There would be very few people around at that time of night.  Luz is a sleepy little place (with a lot of charm)

Madeleine is not a common name ...  and until a couple of months ago, I had never come across a Madeleine in real life.

[sadie]

Are you sure you're not mixing it up with something else, Sadie?

Steve Carpenter's original statement is listed as one of the missing statements on the DVD.

The police officer had a copy of his 17 May statement which she read out to him during his rog interview, and I quoted the passage about his wife earlier. There's no mention of whispering in it.

sadie

Ediited to add:  What's happened to my response ?  About Maria?

Has it been wiped?

A very kind Portuguese lady called Maria used to help with translations and anything Portuguese.
I know that the English Language very often has several words with slightly different meanings that equate to a single word in different languages, including PT.    Explaining this, I made a point of asking her how she saw the translation of a specific Portuguese word or phrase to do with the hearing of the words Madeleine Madeleine. 

She came back with either "whispered" or "murmured" as being the closest she thought.   I cant remember which now from nearly 6 years ago.


Admin/Mods please do not wipe.  I am answering a question
 

[Lyall]

But when did you start writing crime fiction?

[sadie]

But when did you start writing crime fiction?

Facetious comments do not add to the discussion. Or help find out what happened to Madeleine

[Mr Moderator]

Please keep to the thread topic.

If your post is going to take the thread off topic feel free to start a new thread.

[icabodcrane]

I'm revisiting this thread because I think it is a perfect example of how an  'abduction'  theory can take on a life of it's own

Over it's eleven pages this thread relentlessly accomodated the McCanns own abduction theory  ...  that Madeleine was abducted just minutes after Gerry had checked,  and the abductor himself was seen making his way off with her by Jane Tanner

All anomalies regarding such a scenario were imagined away,  and even the  psyche of the  'abductor'  was analysed in order make his, apparent,  erratic behaviour appear explicable

Now,  we are told by Scotland Yard,   that the 'abductor'  in question was not an abductor at all   ...   and  the many questions and anomalies  thrown up are addressed and answered with that,  most simple of  explanations

It is the determined effort   ( as demonstrated on this thread  )  to leave unaddressed that most obvious explanation,  which was always a possibility,    that interests me though

I wonder if the members who contributed here,   and who,  apparently,  felt the claim that Jane Tanner had seen an abductor was unquestionable,  now feel that  any   theory of abduction should be viewed with a healthy degree of scepticism   

[Sherlock Holmes]

You raise a very good point, Icabod.

But this was a hypothesis. that was being explored - a perfectly valid and necessary enterprise. The scientist;the detective, must first come up with a hypothesis and then test it against the known facts. That was what was being done here.

I agree that a lot of the 'evidence'; 'facts' here were questionable . But the scientific process is such that we modify the hypothesis as we learn more of the facts. Again, all perfectly valid.

The 'evidence' that was available at the time (or rather the events that were being focused on at the time) namely the Tanner sighting and accompanying events, were accepted - in general terms - by many people.
To attempt to construct a possible picture adding new jigsaw pieces to see if a particular idea 'works' is very reasonable in essence. Only if we stray too far from the facts and start inventing things is that a waste of time.

It is indeed true Icabod that the facts in this case are thin on the ground, and we have to remember that. I agree fully.

It is a case in point as well that we should not become to attached to our own 'theories' and ideas. These are there to guide us, not blind us.

It's all part of a process.

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm revisiting this thread because I think it is a perfect example of how an  'abduction'  theory can take on a life of it's own

Over it's eleven pages this thread relentlessly accomodated the McCanns own abduction theory  ...  that Madeleine was abducted just minutes after Gerry had checked,  and the abductor himself was seen making his way off with her by Jane Tanner

All anomalies regarding such a scenario were imagined away,  and even the  psyche of the  'abductor'  was analysed in order make his, apparent,  erratic behaviour appear explicable

Now,  we are told by Scotland Yard,   that the 'abductor'  in question was not an abductor at all   ...   and  the many questions and anomalies  thrown up are addressed and answered with that,  most simple of  explanations

It is the determined effort   ( as demonstrated on this thread  )  to leave unaddressed that most obvious explanation,  which was always a possibility,    that interests me though

I wonder if the members who contributed here,   and who,  apparently,  felt the claim that Jane Tanner had seen an abductor was unquestionable,  now feel that  any   theory of abduction should be viewed with a healthy degree of scepticism   

It is the determined effort   ( as demonstrated on this thread  )  to leave unaddressed that most obvious explanation,  which was always a possibility,    that interests me though



Thanks for bumping this thread. Very revealing.
There certainly does appear to have been a very determined effort by some to promote Tannerman (& gloss over Smithman) doesn't there.

I wonder why that might be.

[Sherlock Holmes]

PS Icabod

Are we going to shelve entirely the idea of abduction just because this particular sighting has been ruled out?

Is an abduction hypothesis contingent on Ms Jane Tanner and Mr Bundleman?

Now surely that's taking the 'facts' and stretching them!

[jassi]

Nothing should be ruled out until something else has been proved to be true.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is the determined effort   ( as demonstrated on this thread  )  to leave unaddressed that most obvious explanation,  which was always a possibility,    that interests me though



Thanks for bumping this thread. Very revealing.
There certainly does appear to have been a very determined effort by some to promote Tannerman (& gloss over Smithman) doesn't there.

I wonder why that might be.

If you look at the thread entry by entry you will see that for the most part Sadie and I (and others) are going through different points exploring our ideas and relating them to the circumstances of that night as far as we understand them. Perfectly reasonable.

It was not a determined effort  to do anything other than try to work out what happened.

We should each one of us leave our theories open to modification, and not get to attached too them - however obvious or otherwise they may be. That indeed is a lesson learned. A closed mind will never solve a mystery.

None of us know what happened to Madeleine and could all stand to be corrected.

[AnneGuedes]

PS Icabod

Are we going to shelve entirely the idea of abduction just because this particular sighting has been ruled out?

Is an abduction hypothesis contingent on Ms Jane Tanner and Mr Bundleman?

Now surely that's taking the 'facts' and stretching them!

Tannerman gave a sort of credit to abduction of bed since Madeleine was in her bed two minutes before Tannerman was seen, but with Smithman as the person who was carrying Madeleine away, it is stretching facts to exclude a disappearance from the public area. Why is that hypothesis never contemplated ?