Author Topic: So what actual searching was there?  (Read 411272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline misty

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1575 on: January 03, 2016, 12:20:23 AM »
The sight was common so not a  risk in that regard but

Tannerman = by time and location maxed out risk strategy
Smithman - not so high risk for both reasons

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that Tannerman was not the alledged abductor...disputed obviously by some

It is far less easy to identify a man carrying a child around a tourist resort in darkened streets than it is to identify a vehicle seen unusually parked near a crime scene for a short period of time.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1576 on: January 03, 2016, 02:02:30 AM »
It is far less easy to identify a man carrying a child around a tourist resort in darkened streets than it is to identify a vehicle seen unusually parked near a crime scene for a short period of time.

Gerry, Jez, Jane, Russell and Matt didn't see a vehicle parked near to the crime scene on their checks so what vehicle are you referring to? The Moyles were out on their balcony above and said all was quiet. When the 9 arrived at the tapas bar at different times none said there was a vehicle parked close to the apartment or seeing anybody close by. Nobody heard or saw a car pulling away fast on the night so before you start claiming possibilities then first have some  evidence to back it up. No tractor was seen either! By all accounts a child disappeared on a quiet deserted night with many people passing by. The missing child was as quiet as her twin siblings. The PJ biggest mistake was not testing them straight away before Mad Buck arrived on the scene. The McCanns for not demanding it to be done is most suspicious. They knew their daughter had been abducted and their twins didn't wake up (the mother checking they were breathing!) and they did nothing about it. Any good detective would be keeping a close eye on them!
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 02:11:18 AM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline misty

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1577 on: January 03, 2016, 02:19:51 AM »
Gerry, Jez, Jane, Russell and Matt didn't see a vehicle parked near to the crime scene on their checks so what vehicle are you referring to? The Moyles were out on their balcony above and said all was quiet. When the 9 arrived at the tapas bar at different times none said there was a vehicle parked close to the apartment or seeing anybody close by. Nobody heard or saw a car pulling away fast on the night so before you start claiming possibilities then first have some  evidence to back it up. No tractor was seen either! By all accounts a child disappeared on a quiet deserted night with many people passing by. The missing child was as quiet as her twin siblings. The PJ biggest mistake was not testing them straight away before Mad Buck arrived on the scene. The McCanns for not demanding it to be done is most suspicious. They knew they're child had been abducted and their twins didn't wake up and they did nothing about it. Any good detective would be keeping a close eye on them!

I was referring to a vehicle being a higher-risk strategy than open walking with a child in arms after dark in an area where this was not abnormal. A vehicle, if observed, is more easily traceable than a man carrying a child.
In 8 years, a man carrying a child in Rua 25 de Abril was only seen by one family and has never been identified.
In 8 years a man carrying a child across the junction at Rua de Martins may or may not have been identified.
A stationary vehicle is difficult to conceal. It is static until getaway.
A person has fluid movement, capable of better concealment & increased number of routes for getaway.

The PJ's biggest mistake was leaving the GNR to handle the situation overnight.

Offline pegasus

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1578 on: January 03, 2016, 03:42:35 AM »
I was referring to a vehicle being a higher-risk strategy than open walking with a child in arms after dark in an area where this was not abnormal. A vehicle, if observed, is more easily traceable than a man carrying a child.
In 8 years, a man carrying a child in Rua 25 de Abril was only seen by one family and has never been identified.
In 8 years a man carrying a child across the junction at Rua de Martins may or may not have been identified.
A stationary vehicle is difficult to conceal. It is static until getaway.
A person has fluid movement, capable of better concealment & increased number of routes for getaway.

The PJ's biggest mistake was leaving the GNR to handle the situation overnight.
Transporting someone or something on foot without using a bag means everyone can see exactly what is being transported.
Use a car, and no-one can see what is being transported.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1579 on: January 03, 2016, 10:00:10 AM »
Transporting someone or something on foot without using a bag means everyone can see exactly what is being transported.
Use a car, and no-one can see what is being transported.

Smithman didn't have a car and that is obvious. The Smiths only saw the last stage not the first.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 10:03:49 AM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1580 on: January 03, 2016, 01:40:01 PM »
Smithman didn't have a car and that is obvious. The Smiths only saw the last stage not the first.
Smithman did not have a car at the time he was seen by the Smiths.  As has been pointed out a possibility is that he parked a car just to the north of the sighting, where there is ample parking, and continued to his destination on foot.

Strangely enough, a lot of people drive cars in Luz, and several of those feature around the time of the disappearance.  The idea that Luz was a car-free zone at the time is nonsense.
What's up, old man?

Offline pathfinder73

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1581 on: January 03, 2016, 03:54:19 PM »
Smithman did not have a car at the time he was seen by the Smiths.  As has been pointed out a possibility is that he parked a car just to the north of the sighting, where there is ample parking, and continued to his destination on foot.

Strangely enough, a lot of people drive cars in Luz, and several of those feature around the time of the disappearance.  The idea that Luz was a car-free zone at the time is nonsense.

Strangely enough many places have cars but it's irrelevant. I follow evidence not shadows. The first stage was by foot just like the last but at different times - he ain't dumb! Detectives would have investigated all the night creche parents and none match.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline John

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1582 on: January 03, 2016, 04:03:27 PM »
Given the number of people who were wandering around Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared I cannot see any kidnapper wanting to carry his victim for any great distance.  In reality, a kidnapper, if there was one, would have parked a vehicle nearby just out of sight and carried his victim the shortest distance possible.  I think this was explained by Sadie yonks ago.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1583 on: January 03, 2016, 04:06:20 PM »
I agree if this was a normal kidnapping but it wasn't.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1584 on: January 03, 2016, 08:45:36 PM »
Strangely enough many places have cars but it's irrelevant. I follow evidence not shadows. The first stage was by foot just like the last but at different times - he ain't dumb! Detectives would have investigated all the night creche parents and none match.
Please feel free to follow evidence, not shadows.

The PJ Files are full of cars that night.
What's up, old man?

Offline G-Unit

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1585 on: January 03, 2016, 09:15:39 PM »
No.

How long was it in May and was it cut in that time.

If they had short hair at the time and it was cut......

The twins had a hair cut before the tests, and we don't know what substances they were tested for.

Gerry's blog 26th May;
Some of you may have noticed that Sean and Amelie did manage to squeeze in a hair cut!
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id13.html
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline misty

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1586 on: January 03, 2016, 09:29:03 PM »
The twins' hair in early September 2007.

Offline misty

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1587 on: January 03, 2016, 09:31:13 PM »
Given the number of people who were wandering around Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared I cannot see any kidnapper wanting to carry his victim for any great distance.  In reality, a kidnapper, if there was one, would have parked a vehicle nearby just out of sight and carried his victim the shortest distance possible.  I think this was explained by Sadie yonks ago.


You wouldn't need or risk a car if your house/garage/storage area was in close proximity to 5a.

Offline mercury

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1588 on: January 03, 2016, 09:48:25 PM »
Deleted...irrelevant now

Offline mercury

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #1589 on: January 03, 2016, 10:01:48 PM »

You wouldn't need or risk a car if your house/garage/storage area was in close proximity to 5a.

Youd need to be insane or at least a sociopath though or a wannabee marvel comic character if that were the case....got suggestions?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 10:12:48 PM by mercury »