The test of reasonableness

[Sherlock Holmes]

Welcome pat.   I agree with you about being reasonable and also about a car or van being involved.

An opportunist in my opinion may very well have carried her off but would have been seen.  Nobody walks the length of a village without being seen by someone so that is why I feel it unreasonable to assume that just because the Tanner sighting has been discredited that the Smithman should be any different.  My view is that they are both not what they once seemed, they are both red herrings.

A professional child abductor would have planned the snatch to the finest detail.  A motor vehicle was essential as was creating a diversion for the only police patrol in the area. A pretend robbery near Odiaxere would be perfect since it took the police to their outer patrol area and would distract them long enough for the perpetrators to get clean away.

Can you tell us more? Sounds interesting.

[Carana]

Either trust that the child will remain asleep, or drug her (with all the complications that brings) or use a car. No matter which way you look at it, anyone with basic common sense and the luxury of planning in advance would use a car. Once you accept that logic, the next stage would be to say that its rational not to use a car that is registered in your name so then we must consider the use of a hire car (hired using false ID), stolen car, false plates or borrowed in some way.

The fact that she hasn't been found does tend to make me think that a means of transport was involved. And some means of disguising ownership would make sense if it was planned. On the other hand, a common model of vehicle might not attract much attention anyway.

A point to bear in mind, perhaps, is that there is far less CCTV in Portugal.

There were burglaries in the area, for example, but were they ever caught?

This is an intriguing one, I find:
 She says that as far as she can remember, during the years that she has worked at the resort, she knows of some thefts from inside the apartments and most recently on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5 L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken.

As far as she knows, as she prepared the papers for the insurance company, the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm

[Carana]

Not screaming due to:

1. she was awake/drowsy but it was father or someone she trusted who comforted her
2. she was drugged
3. it wasn't her
4. she was dead

cant think of any other options. We have no firm evidence re any of these other than there is no reasonable explanation as to why an abductor would put themselves at such great risk when cars are easy to come by. Therefore option 2 does not apply IMHO and option 4 does not apply to an abductor. Option 3 has to be the most likely with option 1 the next most likely. IMHO

I'd agree with your options, with the addition, perhaps of a (2b) variation: that the child had an injury that caused her to black out, assuming that the Smith sighting was her, which it may not have been.

I don't see your reasons for excluding options 2 and 4.

Some people find it absurd that someone would walk more than a few metres with an abducted child, yet don't extend that to the idea of a father doing the same carrying his own dead child around the village.

What makes one more reasonable than the other?

[Wonderfulspam]

I'd agree with your options, with the addition, perhaps of a (2b) variation: that the child had an injury that caused her to black out, assuming that the Smith sighting was her, which it may not have been.

I don't see your reasons for excluding options 2 and 4.

Some people find it absurd that someone would walk more than a few metres with an abducted child, yet don't extend that to the idea of a father doing the same carrying his own dead child around the village.

What makes one more reasonable than the other?

Some people find it absurd that someone would walk more than a few metres with an abducted child, yet don't extend that to the idea of a father doing the same carrying his own dead child around the village.

Around the village? No
Through the alley ways of a village in the dark, just a short distance to maybe another house, or down to the beach? I can go with that, it was dark & apparently not unusual to see tourists carrying their sleeping children around.

[patb]

I have said that option 4 does not apply to the adductor based in the assumtion that you cant abduct a dead body so I think thats fair. I have excluded option 2 for an abductor based on the assumption that if an alleged abductor had the foresight to consider drugging her to keep her quit, they would equally have the foresite to have her in a car rather than walk through the streets. If the child is being carried by a parent or someone she trusts, it doesnt matter if she is drugged or not as she can be comforted by that person and, therefore will not cry.
Re  your option of 2b, either there was have an injury casued by an abductor (unlikely as they want her in good health) or an injury followed by being carried by a trusted person which, again, makes no difference to her behavoir.

Still happy that option three is the most likely (as was confirmed with the first sighting) with option one next most likely. It just doesnt add up that you abduct a child and walk around with her in public when there are clearly lower risk options available. When you consider that the whole point of carrying someone is to get them to a specific point/location, then a car has every advantage in terms of getting them to that point. Following on from that, carrying her only makes sense if your aimed location is within walking distance. You would hardly park the car even 500 meters away and then carry her to the car from the apartment. On this basis, if we go with the abductor theory, what is a reasonable theory as to the location they were taking her to? Clearly, any place locally is extremely risky due to police searches etc so you would want to be as far away as quickly and smoothly as possible. Trying to be open minded but logic moves you away from the abductor walking down the street theory.

[pathfinder73]

At present I believe it could've been Smithman who was carrying Madeleine as he seemed to be moving quickly through those back streets straight after she was reported missing by Kate. I notice the church is in that direction. Interesting.

[jassi]

A reasonable assumption to make in the absence of any evidence to the contrary

[Mr Gray]

I have said that option 4 does not apply to the adductor based in the assumtion that you cant abduct a dead body so I think thats fair. I have excluded option 2 for an abductor based on the assumption that if an alleged abductor had the foresight to consider drugging her to keep her quit, they would equally have the foresite to have her in a car rather than walk through the streets. If the child is being carried by a parent or someone she trusts, it doesnt matter if she is drugged or not as she can be comforted by that person and, therefore will not cry.
Re  your option of 2b, either there was have an injury casued by an abductor (unlikely as they want her in good health) or an injury followed by being carried by a trusted person which, again, makes no difference to her behavoir.

Still happy that option three is the most likely (as was confirmed with the first sighting) with option one next most likely. It just doesnt add up that you abduct a child and walk around with her in public when there are clearly lower risk options available. When you consider that the whole point of carrying someone is to get them to a specific point/location, then a car has every advantage in terms of getting them to that point. Following on from that, carrying her only makes sense if your aimed location is within walking distance. You would hardly park the car even 500 meters away and then carry her to the car from the apartment. On this basis, if we go with the abductor theory, what is a reasonable theory as to the location they were taking her to? Clearly, any place locally is extremely risky due to police searches etc so you would want to be as far away as quickly and smoothly as possible. Trying to be open minded but logic moves you away from the abductor walking down the street theory.

I disagree about the car. Cars are easily traced and a strange car parked near the apt may well have been seen, recorded on cyv and its number taken. A man carrying a child , although seen is much harder to trace

[jassi]

I thought it had been established that in Portugal CCTV does not point into the street as in the UK, but rather towards private properties.

[Mr Gray]

I thought it had been established that in Portugal CCTV does not point into the street as in the UK, but rather towards private properties.

another myth?  there are just so many

[patb]

fair enough but its dangerous to start making assumptions just because evidence does not exist to disprove the theory (Bertrand Russell's flying teapot). The same logic was used re the first sighting and time and resources have possibly been wasted due to people making a connection rather then it being a co-incidence. The way the human brain works, we always look for connections and it is tempting to see them (and want them) even when there is little or no evidence. Yes, the timings a similar so that makes it more likley but does it make it more likely that it was somene else. Obviously, we dont know how many other kids were in the area being carried by an adult so its hard to get the exact odds (obviously, this leaves asside the possible claim via the witness that it actually was GM which is a massive game changer)

[jassi]

Not as far as I'm aware. It was fully explained by Anne a couple of days ago. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate to the contrary please feel free.

[Mr Gray]

Not as far as I'm aware. It was fully explained by Anne a couple of days ago. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate to the contrary please feel free.

well anne is here...can she confirm that all cameras point towards private properties  is that what she said...until confirmed I will continue to regard it as amyth

[jassi]

well anne is here...can she confirm that all cameras point towards private properties  is that what she said...until confirmed I will continue to regard it as amyth

It was you that claimed it was a myth. Perhaps the onus is on you to prove that correct.

[Mr Gray]

It was you that claimed it was a myth. Perhaps the onus is on you to prove that correct.

perhaps you need to read my post again and then your post will be more accurate