sherlock
Phone a taxi?
Phone a friend whilst carrying a stolen child?
Oh yeah !
And as I have said before, I dont think he was carrying a phone.
Why go to a "safe house" to leave again on foot?
Where would you go, Sherlock, if you had no-one to turn to except your accomplice, "the lifter", and you were carrying a stolen child?
Maybe there was nobody else willing to help; after all they knew that the abduction had been witnessed about 40 minutes before and the PJ / GNR might be around any second.
Maybe a phone call was made and instructions were given ... if you want your money then rendezvous at a certain place at a certian time ...
or a car will be coming to pick you up but not from outside The Staff Quarters .... make your way to .... xyz ... nobody around at this time of night !
You have a living child on your hands ... you are not a muderer, just a semi professional criminal ... you need the money. No one to call on for help. Your lifter was frightened to "death" and wanted rid of you from the Staff Quarters.
What would you do Sherlock?
This is only a theory remember, but put yourself in his boots.
You are between a rock and a hard stone. You desperately want the mega bucks. Would you risk the walk thru 'deserted' back streets to a rendezvous of some sort?
What would you do?
I don't mean phone a taxi, Sadie. I mean phone someone connected with the operation to help out; someone higher up in the chain of command who would issue new instructions. Apparently this is what bundleman did, according to your theory. You are also saying he had no-one to turn to but the lifter, but apparently he had the higher-ups as well.
But again, why no mobile phone? Why would the so-called professional higher ups not have provided phones? Why would they sanction arrangements which did not involve phones, lending a completely avoidable layer of risk and inconvenience to the situation?
I appreciate bundleman's predicament, but he is in the predicament precisely because things had not been adequately arranged (no phones, no substitute cars, no apparent contingency plans). My whole point is that these would seem to be glaring omissions in the so-called professional abduction you maintain took place. This leads me to wonder if it was 'professional' at all.
The exposure issue underlines this contradiction. On the one hand you are saying that he has to go inside in order to avoid the police search, knowing the abduction had been witnessed, and on the other hand you are suggesting that his instructions were then to then leave SQ on foot and risk ANOTHER sighting, rather than being picked up from his hiding place. By the time he was leaving SQ, it must been assumed that a search involving many people was long under way - an even more dangerous time than before.
And why would the lifter want 'rid of ' him from SQ, if SQ was as quiet as you say?
He certainly was in a fix, I agree, but the picture you are painting of his actions is one of a man drawing far more attention to himself than necessary, and a team of professionals who are giving convoluted instructions when things could have been simpler and safer.
What would I have done if I had been bundleman? I would have had a phone, for starters. Knowing that the other members of the team were unconnected and had little loyalty to each other - as the driver's abandonment of bundleman illustrates - I would not have been willing to walk around phoneless and place my safety and liberty in the hands of their whimsy.
If I was really scared of being caught with a live child in my arms, I guess I would have let her go and relinquished my money, just like the driver.
Keep on buying those lottery tickets...
