UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Benice on June 09, 2013, 08:55:50 AM
-
Was the possiblity of Madeleine being taken away by boat ever investigated by the Pj ? I've personally haven't found any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to in a dingy by the nannies.
IIRC The man seen by the Smith was heading towards the beach.
-
There's nothing like a harbour in PDL. No catamaran was missing. The maritime police was of course alerted and did its job, it's in the files.
-
Was the possiblity of Madeleine being taken away by boat ever investigated by the Pj ? I've personally haven't found any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to in a dingy by the nannies.
IIRC The man seen by the Smith was heading towards the beach.
from where he was seen by the Smiths he could have been heading
South towards the rocky tiny beach and any number of places,
East towards the Church, Sergio Malinkas and the main little town of Praia de Luz ... any number of places
But not west (have proved that in another thread)
OR, could have been meeting up with the getaway car that seemingly had scarpered previously.
With the tidal conditions, the rocky foreshore and the roughening sea, it seems unlikey to me that he would have gone down to that little beach. but it is not impossible. Desperate people do desperate things
ETA: Since this was written, I have given this more thought.
Instead of a tiny boat being on that beach, which is only rocks at high tide (no sand), it is possible that a larger boat at sea sent a small boat in to pick bundleman and madeleine up. Bundleman could have then waded out up to his thighs maybe and clambered on board this little boat to be whizzed away to safety.
I still think that the original plan was for the getaway car to pick him up on Jane Tanner corner and whizz them away to a boat somewhere. As that failed, cos of Jane Tanner witnessing it all, he took refuge at his accomplises flat in OC Staff Quarters. There he phoned for instructions and was told to either go to a house/flat elsewhere, to a certain place where car would drive in and pick him up ... or to walk down to the beachy/rocky little cove ready to be picked by boat there.
It is a tricky way down, but someone who regularly did it and with a torch shining from his his head might do it. It is also possible that there is a smugglers tunnel to that cove. Then it would be easy.
But Heri thinks differently and I acknowledge that he might be right.
it is more likely that, with the pick up failed, a boat came in and picked him up. before being taken out to sea and the rendevous with a larger boat. One was moored under 4 miles away at Lagos harbour, just outside the gates to the harbour. Moved out there just before the gates were closed for the night. In other words ready to go. May not have been that one, but it might have been. That boat had connections with a name in the case. Cant remember which for absolute certain, but have it recorded somewhere.
I have ideas where that boat went to, but they are only ideas. However the ideas fully fit around other sightings and the timings are perfect, whilst the drop off point at around dawn (semi darkness) is quite isolated with excellent adjacent vehicle access. Only ideas tho; like my * sadies theory *. Like that everything is plausible.
-
from where he was seen by the Smiths he could have been heading
South towards the rocky tiny beach and any number of places,
East towards the Church, Sergio Malinkas and the main little town of Praia de Luz ... any number of placeess
Or West towards whereever ... but it seems from a previous thread from the description given by one of the Smith stragglers that the man had definitely NOT gone west
OR, could have been meeting up with the getaway car that seemingly had scarpered previously.
With the tidal conditions, the rocky foreshore and the roughening sea, it seems unlikey to me that he would have gone down to that little beach
But Heri thinks differently and I acknowledge that he might be right.
He might have been taken out to sea and rendevoused with a larger boat. One was moored just a very few miles away at Lagos harbour, just outside the gates. In other words ready to go. May not have been that one but it might have been. That boat had connections with a name in the case. Cant remember which, but have it recorded somewhere
-
The study of the boats, IIRC, was fairly comprehensive, though, wasn't there a yacht that somehow "disappeared" that they were never able to trace? Sailing under Swedish or Scandinavian flag, if I'm not totally mistaken of course?
-
from where he was seen by the Smiths he could have been heading
South towards the rocky tiny beach and any number of places,
East towards the Church, Sergio Malinkas and the main little town of Praia de Luz ... any number of placeess
Or West towards whereever ... but it seems from a previous thread from the description given by one of the Smith stragglers that the man had definitely NOT gone west
OR, could have been meeting up with the getaway car that seemingly had scarpered previously.
With the tidal conditions, the rocky foreshore and the roughening sea, it seems unlikey to me that he would have gone down to that little beach
But Heri thinks differently and I acknowledge that he might be right.
He might have been taken out to sea and rendevoused with a larger boat. One was moored just a very few miles away at Lagos harbour, just outside the gates. In other words ready to go. May not have been that one but it might have been. That boat had connections with a name in the case. Cant remember which, but have it recorded somewhere
Or he could have turned right at the bottom of the street, secreted the body in a concealed place and carried on up the hill.
-
So where on that stretch would you hide a body so well that not ONE of the GNR dogs, or officers, or helicopters or specialist search teams & all local residents would NOT find it? Despite of the entire area being searched through meticulously for DAYS on end?
-
There's nothing like a harbour in PDL. No catamaran was missing. The maritime police was of course alerted and did its job, it's in the files.
But weren't the children taken out to a bigger boat by dinghy - which I assume would be from PdL beach?
It's not impossible that the same scenario happened that night if she was taken out of the country by sea
It's an option which completely dispenses with the dangers of being stopped and discovered whilst travelling through the country by car.
-
So where on that stretch would you hide a body so well that not ONE of the GNR dogs, or officers, or helicopters or specialist search teams & all local residents would NOT find it? Despite of the entire area being searched through meticulously for DAYS on end?
In a bin perhaps ?
-
So where on that stretch would you hide a body so well that not ONE of the GNR dogs, or officers, or helicopters or specialist search teams & all local residents would NOT find it? Despite of the entire area being searched through meticulously for DAYS on end?
GNR dogs were either rescue or sniffer ones = cadaver avoiding ones.
-
In a bin perhaps ?
You mean none of the officers involved in the search thought about checking the bins? Do you have a source for that, as I find it highly unlikely that trained officers would be THAT negligent, that'd be one of the first places to look, I'm sure.
-
LOL What dogs are "cadaver avoiding" dogs. In fact, ALL dogs are cadaver FINDING dogs by natural instinct. How many times have you heard "body found by person walking DOG"?
-
In the Channel 4 programme 'Searching for Madeleine' this is what the four experts had to say about the bins :
JS: Back in town, our team discover another intriguing hiding place. They spot large industrial bins all over the resort.
DB: (to camera) There have been cases in the UK where bodies have been disposed of in wheelie bins and then taken directly to refuse tips and dumped there in the hope that they would be covered up.
CP: We were told to search everywhere, including the bins and in Praia da Luz they're quite big and scary-looking. Although I saw police searching, I personally didn't see police looking in the bins like we did. But I don't think we looked in every bin.
GL: There's a world of difference to looking in a refuse bin and tipping it on its side, emptying it all out, looking in every bag and re-filling it. When you've done that then you can say there's no pyjamas, there's no body in there.
JS: Dispatches has learnt that the bins are emptied nightly between midnight and 4am. And even though a major search for a missing child was going on, they were still emptied on the night Madeleine disappeared. Since the collections were not stopped, there's another area Gary Ligg knows needs prompt attention but it's thirty kilometres away.
GL: We need to find out where the land-fill site is; talk to the authorities, find out where it went and try to identify which area of the land fill these particular bins were emptied.
CS: (to camera) Ideally you would secure all of the bins in the immediate area and make sure that the local authority don't dispose of any of the contents until the search team have had the opportunity to check them all.
JS: We asked the Portuguese police whether the bins and local landfill had been searched. They chose not to comment.
The experts were :
CS = Chris Stevenson (former Detective Chief Superintendent, Cambridgeshire Police)
DB = David Barclay (Former Head of Physical Evidence UK National Crime and Operations Faculty)
DC = David Canter (Director, Centre for Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool)
GL = Gary Ligg (Former Senior Search Adviser, West Yorkshire Police)
-
But weren't the children taken out to a bigger boat by dinghy - which I assume would be from PdL beach?
It's not impossible that the same scenario happened that night if she was taken out of the country by sea
It's an option which completely dispenses with the dangers of being stopped and discovered whilst travelling through the country by car.
Maritime Police has to be very active in Portugal : see the kilometres of coast there is (which are also external frontiers of Europe), and all sorts of trafic and illegal fishing and Spain having better boats invading Portuguese territorial waters, etc.
-
LOL What dogs are "cadaver avoiding" dogs. In fact, ALL dogs are cadaver FINDING dogs by natural instinct. How many times have you heard "body found by person walking DOG"?
Mrs.B, I'm glad you find it funny, I don't.
I was mentioning trained dogs.
Rescue dogs are trained to alive human scents, without any discrimination.
Sniffer dogs are trained to, given a certain person's scent through some object belonging to him/her, pick up the same alive scent and follow it.
Dog walkers don't train their dogs' smelling capacity, those follow whatever they're curious of.
-
Please not - this topic spun off from another thread.
After the Smiths sighting - Where could this mystery man have gone?
-
In the Channel 4 programme 'Searching for Madeleine' this is what the four experts had to say about the bins :
JS: Back in town, our team discover another intriguing hiding place. They spot large industrial bins all over the resort.
DB: (to camera) There have been cases in the UK where bodies have been disposed of in wheelie bins and then taken directly to refuse tips and dumped there in the hope that they would be covered up.
CP: We were told to search everywhere, including the bins and in Praia da Luz they're quite big and scary-looking. Although I saw police searching, I personally didn't see police looking in the bins like we did. But I don't think we looked in every bin.
GL: There's a world of difference to looking in a refuse bin and tipping it on its side, emptying it all out, looking in every bag and re-filling it. When you've done that then you can say there's no pyjamas, there's no body in there.
JS: Dispatches has learnt that the bins are emptied nightly between midnight and 4am. And even though a major search for a missing child was going on, they were still emptied on the night Madeleine disappeared. Since the collections were not stopped, there's another area Gary Ligg knows needs prompt attention but it's thirty kilometres away.
GL: We need to find out where the land-fill site is; talk to the authorities, find out where it went and try to identify which area of the land fill these particular bins were emptied.
CS: (to camera) Ideally you would secure all of the bins in the immediate area and make sure that the local authority don't dispose of any of the contents until the search team have had the opportunity to check them all.
JS: We asked the Portuguese police whether the bins and local landfill had been searched. They chose not to comment.
The experts were :
CS = Chris Stevenson (former Detective Chief Superintendent, Cambridgeshire Police)
DB = David Barclay (Former Head of Physical Evidence UK National Crime and Operations Faculty)
DC = David Canter (Director, Centre for Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool)
GL = Gary Ligg (Former Senior Search Adviser, West Yorkshire Police)
After hearing this, I asked a French ex-inspector whether the French police would have immediately stopped the collecting. He said likely not. But then I spoke to a Canadian inspector and he said yes, because it happens there.
These 4 experts thought of it because it had happened in the UK that bodies were disposed of in bins.
It seems it is the most radical way of concealing a body for good.
The PJ visited all the bins and went on a landfill, but it was days after.
-
You mean none of the officers involved in the search thought about checking the bins? Do you have a source for that, as I find it highly unlikely that trained officers would be THAT negligent, that'd be one of the first places to look, I'm sure.
They were searching an alive little girl. And I think they were right. Better let escape a body than risk to come too late to save a still alive child.
-
Very gruesome I know, but surely if Madeleine had been dumped on a landfill site, a wild dog would have come across her?
Or any dog come to that.
-
Very gruesome I know, but surely if Madeleine had been dumped on a landfill site, a wild dog would have come across her?
Or any dog come to that.
No. Those are closed sites. Special trucks go there. Between the collection and the deposit, there's processing.
Now if someone is buried in the country side, wild animals are a risk.
-
I would imagine any bin in the area near the apartment would have been searched.
In any case, why after concocting a story of cover up because they didn't want the body to be discovered, would they just dump it in a bin, which is the most likely place anyone would search?
-
I would imagine any bin in the area near the apartment would have been searched.
Kate herself says she searched bins.
A police officer and 3 employees of the Lagos municipality searched 188 (including underground) containers on the 7th, much too late.
Mrs McCann was the only one who thought Madeleine could be dead and looked into a bin, but this was after the truck passed (daily except for Sunday).
-
A police officer and 3 employees of the Lagos municipality searched 188 (including underground) containers on the 7th, much too late.
How could so few people thoroughly check the contents of 188 containers in one day?
-
How could so few people thoroughly check the contents of 188 containers in one day?
People have the best interest, in a hot country, and even if containers are emptied every day, to keep them clean. Nobody throws solid residues (this is how it is called here) away without putting them into special solid bags that are closed.
-
The police did quite an extensive amount of work into various yachts.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS.htm
However, that wouldn't exclude a privately moored dinghy, surfboard or anything else that that could have gone unnoticed.
-
I would imagine any bin in the area near the apartment would have been searched.
In any case, why after concocting a story of cover up because they didn't want the body to be discovered, would they just dump it in a bin, which is the most likely place anyone would search?
Because that's what an abductor may do, and if you want it to look like an abduction, make it look like an abduction ?
-
Because that's what an abductor may do, and if you want it to look like an abduction, make it look like an abduction ?
If Madeleine was found dead from an accident, why hide the body?
-
Because that's what an abductor may do, and if you want it to look like an abduction, make it look like an abduction ?
If the issue was to dispose of a body in such a way that it would never ever be found for whatever reason, this was imo the unique practical way.
-
If the issue was to dispose of a body in such a way that it would never ever be found for whatever reason, this was imo the unique practical way.
What are you referring to?
-
If the issue was to dispose of a body in such a way that it would never ever be found for whatever reason, this was imo the unique practical way.
What in a bin?
Risking the body being found?
-
What are you referring to?
2 months and a cadaver dog (I suppose the murderer confessed where he had disposed of the body)
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/05/body-of-pregnant-teen-found-in-calif-landfill/all/?print
-
The point I am making is this.
If Madeleine died from an accident in the apartment. It would have been very easy for the McCann's to say either that she climbed on the sofa when they were there before they went out, or that she must have fallen during the night.
The reason that some say they had to dispose of her body is that they had over dosed her with drugs or had done something else to her which would be found out if they didn't hide the body.
So to say that they would just put her in a bin, which is the place most people would look, and risk her being found, is something I just can't believe happened.
-
2 months and a cadaver dog (I suppose the murdered confessed where he had disposed of the body)
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/05/body-of-pregnant-teen-found-in-calif-landfill/all/?print
I believe Eugene Zapata also, eventually, confessed to disposing of his wife's body parts in landfill. Her body has never been found.
-
I believe Eugene Zapata also, eventually, confessed to disposing of his wife's body parts in landfill. Her body has never been found.
Have you an idea of the cost of such a search ? All sorts of machines and devices have to be used.There's another case where numbers were given, I'll try to find it.
-
The point I am making is this.
If Madeleine died from an accident in the apartment. It would have been very easy for the McCann's to say either that she climbed on the sofa when they were there before they went out, or that she must have fallen during the night.
The reason that some say they had to dispose of her body is that they had over dosed her with drugs or had done something else to her which would be found out if they didn't hide the body.
So to say that they would just put her in a bin, which is the place most people would look, and risk her being found, is something I just can't believe happened.
I really don't think that anything could have been "very easy". It is hypothetical but not fictional.
-
I really don't think that anything could have been "very easy". It is hypothetical but not fictional.
I shall word it another way then.
It would not be 'impossible'.
-
Not impossible, that's right. Certainly emotionally very distressing.
-
No. Those are closed sites. Special trucks go there. Between the collection and the deposit, there's processing.
Now if someone is buried in the country side, wild animals are a risk.
So Gerry couldn't have taken a fridge freezer to one of these sites?
Like we were led to believe in 2007.
-
Not impossible, that's right. Certainly emotionally very distressing.
Oh definitely I agree.
That is another reason why I think the McCann's are innocent of hiding Madeleine's body. How could they carry on eating dinner, laughing and joking after doing so?
-
Oh definitely I agree.
That is another reason why I think the McCann's are innocent of hiding Madeleine's body. How could they carry on eating dinner, laughing and joking after doing so?
The poet says human kind cannot bear too much reality.
-
Was the possiblity of Madeleine being taken away by boat ever investigated by the Pj ? I've personally haven't found any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to in a dingy by the nannies.
IIRC The man seen by the Smith was heading towards the beach.
PJ had in informal interviews with the two sailing instructors and found nothng to take up any further
instructors working for mark warners giving kids a fun day out on little yellow boats are suspects? i mean, is there anyone here who ISNT a SUSPECT? i mean really....who is NOT suspect in team mccanns views?
8-)(--)
After a while it gets preposterous but then again thats the only thing this case has become once team mccann stuck their paws into it
SY will be havihg a very hard time, best thing redwood can do is chuck ALL metodos files in the incinerator pdq otherwise he and his employees will be up more garden paths than the whole of them have had hot dinners, that will be about 12m quid and another 3 years, but Im sure they are not STUPID, they should aldo investigate kennedy and his interference here withM3
8((()*/
-
PJ had in informal interviews with the two sailing instructors and found nothng to take up any further
instructors working for mark warners giving kids a fun day out on little yellow boats are suspects? i mean, is there anyone here who ISNT a SUSPECT? i mean really....who is NOT suspect in team mccanns views?
8-)(--)
After a while it gets preposterous but then again thats the only thing this case has become once team mccann stuck their paws into it
SY will be havihg a very hard time, best thing redwood can do is chuck ALL metodos files in the incinerator pdq otherwise he and his employees will be up more garden paths than the whole of them have had hot dinners, that will be about 12m quid and another 3 years, but Im sure they are not STUPID, they should aldo investigate kennedy and his interference here withM3
8((()*/
I have never made any such claim. Nowhere did I say or even hint that Mark Warner employees should be suspects. I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to. I went on to make the point that it was possible to get out to sea from PdL beach.
-
I have never made any such claim. Nowhere did I say or even hint that Mark Warner employees should be suspects. I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to. I went on to make the point that it was possible to get out to sea from PdL beach.
The dingies and sailing boat kids were taken out on belonged to mark warners, not some lurking paedo abductor murderer
AND the FACT remains that a few people ,including KM with her stupid insinuations, in her book, who here speculate that everyone and anyone in PDL could be suspect, thats totally unrealistic and thats not including the scores OUTSIDE PDL who are also potential suspects, as promulgated by the stupid british media, imo its pathetic
how about you swing it, and point to evidence that the mccanns could NOT have been responsible, as the LP said, there is nothing in the files that eliminates them
-
The dingies and sailing boat kids were taken out on belonged to mark warners, not some lurking paedo abductor murderer
AND the FACT remains that a few people ,including KM with her stupid insinuations, in her book, who here speculate that everyone and anyone in PDL could be suspect, thats totally unrealistic and thats not including the scores OUTSIDE PDL who are also potential suspects, as promulgated by the stupid british media, imo its pathetic
how about you swing it, and point to evidence that the mccanns could NOT have been responsible, as the LP said, there is nothing in the files that eliminates them
Once again you are trying to put your words into my mouth. As far as I was aware the people who took the children out on boats were employed by Mark Warner, and I merely stated that I had not seen any statements from those people. If they were used to sailing around in that area, then they might have noticed any boats they had not seen before.
If you are so certain that the McCanns 'dunnit' then why don't give us your theory. In six years not one 'sceptic' has ever been able to come up with one that can remotely be considered as credible.
-
Once again you are trying to put your words into my mouth. As far as I was aware the people who took the children out on boats were employed by Mark Warner, and I merely stated that I had not seen any statements from those people. If they were used to sailing around in that area, then they might have noticed any boats they had not seen before.
If you are so certain that the McCanns 'dunnit' then why don't give us your theory. In six years not one 'sceptic' has ever been able to come up with one that can remotely be considered as credible.
no your post specificlly asked about a person whose boat the children were taken to, there is no such person
***
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.
***
oh PS I never said they *dun it* I say I do not believe them,they may have done it or ie covered some accident up, they are LYING about something, I find them deceiptful, thatis 100% true and corredt for me, no doubt whatsoever,and I dont have to have a theory of what happened to suspect them its my right to, its called freedom of thought, thank god thatis still allowed
8((()*/
-
Once again you are trying to put your words into my mouth. As far as I was aware the people who took the children out on boats were employed by Mark Warner, and I merely stated that I had not seen any statements from those people. If they were used to sailing around in that area, then they might have noticed any boats they had not seen before.
If you are so certain that the McCanns 'dunnit' then why don't give us your theory. In six years not one 'sceptic' has ever been able to come up with one that can remotely be considered as credible.
Don't expect any theory from sceptics, Benice : too much of an oxymoron.
You can't bypass using your imagination, this is inspector Amaral's main error, imo. And he has this in common with Mr and Mrs McCann, imo. They're not so different finally. Imo.
-
no your post specificlly asked about a person whose boat the children were taken to, there is no such person
***
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.
***
oh PS I never said they *dun it* I say I do not believe them,they may have done it or ie covered some accident up, they are LYING about something, I find them deceiptful, thatis 100% true and corredt for me, no doubt whatsoever,and I dont have to have a theory of what happened to suspect them its my right to, its called freedom of thought, thank god thatis still allowed
8((()*/
No - I said I thought the children were taken out by dinghy with the nannies to another boat. And then said I had not seen any witness statements from those people (not the nannies). If there was no other boat and they stayed in the dinghys - then that's my mistake. But at no time did I intimate in any way shape or form that any of the people I mentioned should be regarded as suspects. That came from your mind - not mine.
-
No - I said I thought the children were taken out by dinghy with the nannies to another boat. And then said I had not seen any witness statements from those people (not the nannies). If there was no other boat and they stayed in the dinghys - then that's my mistake. But at no time did I intimate in any way shape or form that any of the people I mentioned should be regarded as suspects. That came from your mind - not mine.
i explained to you the people who took the children on the sailing boat were Mark Warner employees, it was not a private boat, they were alice stanley and chris unsbruck or something, mw employees, mark warner property, NO stranger boat owner to interview, which is what YOU intimated, ie why not interview the owner of that boat
i repeat your post, look down......
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.
-
Those "navigators" didn't at least officially give statements. Jeanne darc has an interesting theory on the sailing episode.
-
i explained to you the people who took the children on the sailing boat were Mark Warner employees, it was not a private boat, they were alice stanley and chris unsbruck or something, mw employees, mark warner property, NO stranger boat owner to interview, which is what YOU intimated, ie why not interview the owner of that boat
i repeat your post, look down......
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.
Where do I suggest they are strangers? I referred to them as 'people' - because I didn't know their names. I would take it for granted that anyone taking part in the children's activities were contracted to Mark Warner.
My comment was that I had never seen any statements from these people. The hope being that if there were statements someone would point them out to me.
-
Where do I suggest they are strangers? I referred to them as 'people' - because I didn't know their names. I would take it for granted that anyone taking part in the children's activities were contracted to Mark Warner.
My comment was that I had never seen any statements from these people. The hope being that if there were statements someone would point them out to me.
NO this is your post.....
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.
-----
WHY would ANYONE IF they rented these boats to MW know anything, like they watched MW teaching the kids club kids on them........
nust another ridiculous garden path to waste police time ong
-
NO this is your post.....
I said I had never seen any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to.-----
WHY would ANYONE IF they rented these boats to MW know anything, like they watched MW teaching the kids club kids on them........
nust another ridiculous garden path to waste police time ong
Yes that is what I said and you decided to put your own interpretions on a perfectly innocent statement.
If Madeleine was taken out of the country by boat - then surely people regularly working with boats in PdL would be useful to interview. They would know if any strange boats had been in the same vicinity as they were that particular week. Or whether any people on a strange boat were paying particular attention to a boat which had small children on board or maybe even taking photographs.
I don't understand why you should be so opposed to that line of enquiry.
-
Yes that is what I said and you decided to put your own interpretions on a perfectly innocent statement.
If Madeleine was taken out of the country by boat - then surely people regularly working with boats in PdL would be useful to interview. They would know if any strange boats had been in the same vicinity as they were that particular week. Or whether any people on a strange boat were paying particular attention to a boat which had small children on board or maybe even taking photographs.
I don't understand why you should be so opposed to that line of enquiry.
MAYBE I mistook your post, though its hard NOT to because you pro mccanns think any tom dick or harry within 20 000 miles could have taken her, any line of enquiry has to have evidence for it is all see ya , thats why i hope all m3s documents are incinerated, they were employed to FIND studd which didnt exist IMO
-
Benice, I suggest you study Jeanne Darc's hypothesis.
-
MAYBE I mistook your post, though its hard NOT to because you pro mccanns think any tom dick or harry within 20 000 miles could have taken her, any line of enquiry has to have evidence for it is all see ya
There you go again making wrong assumptions about me. I agree with SY that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. Who that stranger or strangers might be I have no idea. But until evidence is found to the contrary - the McCanns have every right to believe their daughter may still be alive and to try to keep her profile high in the public's mind.
-
There you go again making wrong assumptions about me. I agree with SY that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. Who that stranger or strangers might be I have no idea. But until evidence is found to the contrary - the McCanns have every right to believe their daughter may still be alive and to try to keep her profile high in the public's mind.
You'll admit, Benice, that the good little soldier you are needs arms. There's nothing like this forum to help you furbish them. Nothing like people who think against you. Nothing is more precious and Mr and Mrs McCann should be grateful to you.
-
You'll admit, Benice, that the good little soldier you are needs arms. There's nothing like this forum to help you furbish them. Nothing like people who think against you. Nothing is more precious and Mr and Mrs McCann should be grateful to you.
Sorry Anne, but I have no idea what you are talking about or what you think I will admit to. Could you elucidate please?
-
I think Mr & Mrs McCann would be grateful for a lot less self-righteous nit-picking over what they should or shouldn't have done in a catastrophic situation the nit-pickers haven't faced - and a stop to the mindless, often libellous hatred directed at them from other parts of the internet.
-
Sorry Anne, but I have no idea what you are talking about or what you think I will admit to. Could you elucidate please?
Don't you understand that people who don't think like you are very useful ? What's the interest of those who share the same ideas ?
-
Don't you understand that people who don't think like you are very useful ? What's the interest of those who share the same ideas ?
This is not a game of competing "interests," or an academic exercise in an exchange of "ideas." We are talking about a child who has been missing for six years and the efforts of her parents who are desperate to find her - parents moreover who have never been charged with any crime related to the disappearance of the child, yet who are constantly maligned, criticised and libelled on a daily basis.
No - the ideas of the so-called McCann sceptics who wilfully criticise these parents, and perpetrate myths and distortions about this case, their family, friends and supporters do not interest me.
-
No - the ideas of the so-called McCann sceptics who wilfully criticise these parents, and perpetrate myths and distortions about this case, their family, friends and supporters do not interest me.
You call them this way because other words are prohibited here, Chinagirl, please kindly bring evidence about the so-called "myths and distortions" before accusing.
Who is, may be "innocently", at the origin of the long living jemmied shutters rumour, for instance ?
-
You call them this way because other words are prohibited here, Chinagirl, please kindly bring evidence about the so-called "myths and distortions" before accusing.
Who is, may be "innocently", at the origin of the long living jemmied shutters rumour, for instance ?
Awww, Come on Anne. You are a reasonably intelligent woman, are you not?
Rumour and magnification of something that might, or might not, have been said in the panic of the moment. That is all it is.
You are totally human, are you not? Even tho it appears that you are not a mother .... so may not totally understand what the panic would have been like to have lost your much loved child
-
I am perpetually concerned about the apparent absence of a car in this abduction.
Why would a car not be sent to meet the abductor at the place where the abductor was (wherever exactly that may have been, post Tanner fiasco)? Why would a person have the abductor parade through the town, towards a social hub, to meet the car?
In general, a person in a car drives to meet the person he is picking up; the pick-up does not walk distances to meet the car. So why was it different here, particularly given the timing and with so much at stake?
I cannot make sense of it...
-
I am perpetually concerned about the apparent absence of a car in this abduction.
Why would a car not be sent to meet the abductor at the place where the abductor was (wherever exactly that may have been, post Tanner fiasco)? Why would a person have the abductor parade through the town, towards a social hub, to meet the car?
In general, a person in a car drives to meet the person he is picking up; the pick-up does not walk distances to meet the car. So why was it different here, particularly given the timing and with so much at stake?
I cannot make sense of it...
...
There could have been a car, but with Jane making an appearance and Gerry and Jez talking in the road. Maybe it didn't turn up?
Or, it could be someone whose car would have been recognised?
-
In general, a person in a car drives to meet the person he is picking up; the pick-up does not walk distances to meet the car.
Thanks for making me laugh !
-
I am perpetually concerned about the apparent absence of a car in this abduction.
Why would a car not be sent to meet the abductor at the place where the abductor was (wherever exactly that may have been, post Tanner fiasco)? Why would a person have the abductor parade through the town, towards a social hub, to meet the car?
In general, a person in a car drives to meet the person he is picking up; the pick-up does not walk distances to meet the car. So why was it different here, particularly given the timing and with so much at stake?
I cannot make sense of it...
There are car parks all around the apartments, front and back, in the block directly opposite. The most useful one IMO, is the car park along from the front of 5A apartment, only yards from where Jane saw the person. I wouldn't have thought they would park right by 5A, they could have been spotted.
What was stopping them sitting in the car for some time, if they realized someone had seen one of them.
-
I am perpetually concerned about the apparent absence of a car in this abduction.
Why would a car not be sent to meet the abductor at the place where the abductor was (wherever exactly that may have been, post Tanner fiasco)? Why would a person have the abductor parade through the town, towards a social hub, to meet the car?
In general, a person in a car drives to meet the person he is picking up; the pick-up does not walk distances to meet the car. So why was it different here, particularly given the timing and with so much at stake?
I cannot make sense of it...
The car was supposed to pick up on from the pavement almost immediately outside 5A, just along from the drive in IMO. But Jerry and Jez talking stopped the driver driving out of the little car park opposite the tapas Reception. He waited; in the meantime ?bundleman got anxious and walked to meet him.
The driver saw Jane Tanner witness the abduction as bundleman almost ran across that road at J.T. corner. The driver scarpered.
?Bundleman was on his own. He had to walk or leave Madeleine and also lose the chance of a big pay off.
Only my thoughts, but they fit.
-
The car was supposed to pick up on from the pavement almost immediately outside 5A, just along from the drive in IMO. But Jerry and Jez talking stopped the driver driving out of the little car park opposite the tapas Reception. He waited; in the meantime ?bundleman got anxious and walked to meet him.
The driver saw Jane Tanner witness the abduction as bundleman almost ran across that road at J.T. corner. The driver scarpered.
?Bundleman was on his own. He had to walk or leave Madeleine and also lose the chance of a big pay off.
Only my thoughts, but they fit.
Fit with what exactly ?
-
The abductor did not 'parade around' with the child. No one else saw him between Jane and the Smith's sighting.
Who is to say that he didn't hide away somewhere? In waste ground, in a car [then driven on] or an apartment?
Could be the car would have been identified.
To my way of thinking. This man was meeting someone else at a given time.
-
The abductor did not 'parade around' with the child. No one else saw him between Jane and the Smith's sighting.
Who is to say that he didn't hide away somewhere? In waste ground, in a car [then driven on] or an apartment?
Could be the car would have been identified.
To my way of thinking. This man was meeting someone else at a given time.
The Staff quarters on Rua D'Escola, only 50 metres up the road from Peter Smiths sighting are the obvious place, especially if there was OC involvement.
To phone for advice or to tell a bopat to come and pick up ?from that little cove
Only my opinion, but it fits
@Stephen
Everything fits Stephen, if you take the time to read instead of scoff. It is only a theory, but it all fits
-
A police officer and 3 employees of the Lagos municipality searched 188 (including underground) containers on the 7th, much too late.
Mrs McCann was the only one who thought Madeleine could be dead and looked into a bin, but this was after the truck passed (daily except for Sunday).
I've never understood how 4 people could thoroughly search 188 refuse containers and a landfill in a single day.
-
The Staff quarters on Rua D'Escola, only 50 metres up the road from Peter Smiths sighting are the obvious place, especially if there was OC involvement.
To phone for advice or to tell a bopat to come and pick up ?from that little cove
Only my opinion, but it fits
@Stephen
Everything fits Stephen, if you take the time to read instead of scoff. It is only a theory, but it all fits
So the staff from the OC who need accommodation live in these quarters and you think the abductor would think this would be a safe place to bring the recently abducted, but one time guest of OC, Madeleine, with the inherent risks of Madeleine being recognised that would go with such a plan ? Or are all OC employees 'in on it ' ?
-
So the staff from the OC who need accommodation live in these quarters and you think the abductor would think this would be a safe place to bring the recently abducted, but one time guest of OC, Madeleine, with the inherent risks of Madeleine being recognised that would go with such a plan ? Or are all OC employees 'in on it ' ?
So we were told on The 3A's.
It is my belief that a key was used to enter and leave by the front door. Reasons given in earlier posts
It is also my belief that it would have been a good idea to have someone that the children knew actually lift Madeleine, because then she would not have been scared. Also if of the tapas group checking had arrived, that known and trusted person could say that s/he was passing and heard crying, so decided to go in and try and placate the crying child.
To go into the Staff quarters was, I agree, was a little dangerous, but desperate people sometimes have to take desperate measures.
Can you imagine what it would have been like carrying a stolen child around? How frightened bundleman must have felt. Likewise the lifter, upon realizing that the getaway car hadn't arrived and bundleman had been left in the lurch and worse, had been witnessed carrying Madeleine away .... well, s/he would have been terrified too.
Good to see you helping me, Faith 8((()*/
-
So we were told on The 3A's.
It is my belief that a key was used to enter and leave by the front door. Reasons given in earlier posts
It is also my belief that it would have been a good idea to have someone that the children knew actually lift Madeleine, because then she would not have been scared. Also if of the tapas group checking had arrived, that known and trusted person could say that s/he was passing and heard crying, so decided to go in and try and placate the crying child.
To go into the Staff quarters was, I agree, was a little dangerous, but desperate people sometimes have to take desperate measures.
Can you imagine what it would have been like carrying a stolen child around? How frightened bundleman must have felt. Likewise the lifter, upon realizing that the getaway car hadn't arrived and bundleman had been left in the lurch and worse, had been witnessed carrying Madeleine away .... well, s/he would have been terrified too.
Good to see you helping me, Faith 8((()*/
So after bundleman has been abandoned by carman, he decides that instead of concealing himself in one of the abandoned building that proliferate the area in order to use his mobile phone to tell carman where he is, he decides it's a better idea to roam half way across PDL with Madeleine in his arms, with the added risk of encountering goodness knows who, in order to get to the staff quarters, a place teeming with people who would recognise Madeleine, to make that call.
Really ?
-
So after bundleman has been abandoned by carman, he decides that instead of concealing himself in one of the abandoned building that proliferate the area in order to use his mobile phone to tell carman where he is, he decides it's a better idea to roam half way across PDL with Madeleine in his arms, with the added risk of encountering goodness knows who, in order to get to the staff quarters, a place teeming with people who would recognise Madeleine, to make that call.
Really ?
Yep, plenty of abandoned buildings in the old part of PdL, but not around OC. All modern there .... no abandoned buildings at all.
Who says he had a mobile phone? We are talking over six years ago in a financially poor country. Where ordinary peeps had few luxuries.
Two years before that, hubby and I wandered across N Spain and then down thru PT, before stiking east via Salamanca, Segovia and wending our way back home.
My hubby likes gizmos and we had a Sat Nav (thank goodness) and we nearly caused pile ups in Leon in Spain, cos all the drivers thought that we were watching TV ! They couldn't believe it and were peering into the car rather than watching the road, in a busy city. ... Leon isn't a backwoods place either.
Now that was in Spain. They were years behind us with electronic gizmos .. and I suspect PT would have been even further behind us. Furthermore, I dont recall seeing anyone using a mobile phone ... but to be fair I wasn't looking especially.
Who says he had a mobile phone? Maybe even if he did, it was thought better that he did not carry one .... ? in case of it ringing or losing it. Also if he were caught, there was a danger of identifying not only him, but additionally his co-abductors.
BTW, how do you know the staff quarters were teeming with people? It is a very big blue and white block and most places in May 2007 were empty. Bet it was half empty, but I dont know. Do you?
Thanks for helping me sort this out 8((()*/
-
No final do 1.º trimestre de 2007 existiam 12,4 milhões de assinantes do Serviço Telefónico Móvel, mais 1,2% que no trimestre anterior e mais 7,1% que no período homólogo.
17.05.2007
Population : 10.555.853 in 2011.
It means that some people have more than 1 cellphone.
I'm not poor, I have none.
-
No final do 1.º trimestre de 2007 existiam 12,4 milhões de assinantes do Serviço Telefónico Móvel, mais 1,2% que no trimestre anterior e mais 7,1% que no período homólogo.
17.05.2007
Population : 10.555.853 in 2011.
It means that some people have more than 1 cellphone.
I'm not poor, I have none.
Same in England now. Everyone has a cell phone these days
Even I do, but I dont use it.
-
Yep, plenty of abandoned buildings in the old part of PdL, but not around OC. All modern there .... no abandoned buildings at all.
Who says he had a mobile phone? We are talking over six years ago in a financially poor country. Where ordinary peeps had few luxuries.
Two years before that, hubby and I wandered across N Spain and then down thru PT, before stiking east via Salamanca, Segovia and wending our way back home.
My hubby likes gizmos and we had a Sat Nav (thank goodness) and we nearly caused pile ups in Leon in Spain, cos all the drivers thought that we were watching TV ! They couldn't believe it and were peering into the car rather than watching the road, in a busy city. ... Leon isn't a backwoods place either.
Now that was in Spain. They were years behind us with electronic gizmos .. and I suspect PT would have been even further behind us. Furthermore, I dont recall seeing anyone using a mobile phone ... but to be fair I wasn't looking especially.
Who says he had a mobile phone? Maybe even if he did, it was thought better that he did not carry one .... ? in case of it ringing or losing it. Also if he were caught, there was a danger of identifying not only him, but additionally his co-abductors.
BTW, how do you know the staff quarters were teeming with people? It is a very big blue and white block and most places in May 2007 were empty. Bet it was half empty, but I dont know. Do you?
Thanks for helping me sort this out 8((()*/
I could name 3 abandoned buildings of off the top of my head that were nearer to the OC than the staff quarters.
As to the mobile phone, surely you don't believe that when stealing a child worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, the abductor wouldn't have or be given a mobile phone, just in case, even in Portugal ! As to the phone identifying him or the organiser, how could it if it was a non-registered pay as you go model ?
As to the staff quarters, PDL may have been quiet but the OC would still have been heavily staffed.
-
I could name 3 abandoned buildings of off the top of my head that were nearer to the OC than the staff quarters.
OK .... Name them ... full addresses please
-
OK .... Name them ... full addresses please
Try researching yourself sadie.
-
Faithlily
I could name 3 abandoned buildings of off the top of my head that were nearer to the OC than the staff quarters.
OK .... Name them ... full addresses please
Or a GEarth map posted ... with the abandoned buildings clearly pinpointed would be fine
-
Surely if there was OC involvement, the last thing bundleman would want to do would be to draw attention to the fact by using the staff quarters on the night.
-
Surely if there was OC involvement, the last thing bundleman would want to do would be to draw attention to the fact by using the staff quarters on the night.
Especially if he had left the children's bedroom window open in order to deflect from the fact that a key had been used with the inherent suggestion that it was an inside job.
-
Especially if he had left the children's bedroom window open in order to deflect from the fact that a key had been used with the inherent suggestion that it was an inside job.
He was lucky the twins slept in spite of the chilly wind through the window and the curtains flying over them. Lucky too Mr Oldfield saw nothing, heard nothing, felt nothing.
-
He was lucky the twins slept in spite of the chilly wind through the window and the curtains flying over them. Lucky too Mr Oldfield saw nothing, heard nothing, felt nothing.
It was gusty. That means that it was blowing in gusts with a lull in between, so the curtains would not be blowing all the time. For a man who had just walked around in the 16* temperature, it wouldn't be noticeably cool, even with a window open some.
What are you expecting that he would see, Anne?
What are you expecting that he would hear Anne?
Janes sighting had been several minutes before. Bundleman and Madeleine were gone. We know that he didn't look specifically for Madeleine. Her bed was around the corner out of sight.
-
Especially if he had left the children's bedroom window open in order to deflect from the fact that a key had been used with the inherent suggestion that it was an inside job.
deleted.
-
Surely if there was OC involvement, the last thing bundleman would want to do would be to draw attention to the fact by using the staff quarters on the night.
If my theory is right Sherlock, then bundleman was left carrying a stolen child cos his get-away driver had scarpered
He was holding a very valuable child and didn't want to abandon her. He was scared stiff.
He didn't know what to do, he didn't know where to go for help.
The only person who could help him was the lifter, who I believe was OC staff ...[ two reasons for that belief].
So he made his way to where this person, probably a woman, lived at the Staff Quarters. He didn't want o go there but he had no other choices. He was in real trouble.
Now what I truly cant understand is why some of the posters on here are so adamant that he didn't go there. Why would that be?
Are they afraid that it points to OC staff involvement? Why should that worry them?
There has to be a reason why some posters are so adamant that he didn't go there ? What is it to them ?
For evcrything that is done there is always a reason. Things dont just happen
So why are some posters on here are so adament that he did NOT go there? What is it to them ? .... Hmmm ? >@@(*&)
... And after all it is only a theory, but one that ticks ALL the boxes. >@@(*&)
-
If my theory is right Sherlock, then bundleman was left carrying a stolen child cos his get-away driver had scarpered
He was holding a very valuable child and didn't want to abandon her. He was scared stiff.
He didn't know what to do, he didn't know where to go for help.
The only person who could help him was the lifter, who I believe was OC staff ...[ two reasons for that belief].
So he made his way to where this person, probably a woman, lived at the Staff Quarters. He didn't want o go there but he had no other choices. He was in real trouble.
Now what I truly cant understand is why some of the posters on here are so adamant that he didn't go there. Why would that be?
Are they afraid that it points to OC staff involvement? Why should that worry them?
There has to be a reason why some posters are so adamant that he didn't go there ? What is it to them ?
For evcrything that is done there is always a reason. Things dont just happen
So why are some posters on here are so adament that he did NOT go there? What is it to them ? .... Hmmm ? >@@(*&)
... And after all it is only a theory, but one that ticks ALL the boxes. >@@(*&)
As so many people have said, Sadie, it just sounds like far too risky a place. If he did go there, there were apparently no witnesses to the fact. How likely could that have been?
And if telephoning, why not phone for a car to pick him up there? Why go to the 'safe house' of the SQ, if that is what it was, only to leave again on foot? It does not make sense. Yes, something could have gone wrong with the driver at 5A, but this could have been rectified by sending another car. If these people are 'professional' abductors, surely they would have had more than one car between them at their disposal. Not to mention phones.
Regarding OC involvement, it is not so hard to believe that one, or even two people may have been involved. But a collusion involving a much larger number of people - something that is inherent in the suggestion that bundleman went to SQ in the middle of the abduction - is not credible. People's loyalties change over the years, and there is no way that in the time that has elapsed since the disappearance that several people would have kept quiet.
Most of the OC workers were casually employed with no real loyalty to the company or anyone else, and would have been paid a minimum wage. What incentive would they have to collude in something like this in the first place?
-
As so many people have said, Sadie, it just sounds like far too risky a place. If he did go there, there were apparently no witnesses to the fact. How likely could that have been?
Regarding OC involvement, it is not so hard to believe that one, or even two people may have been involved. But a collusion involving a much larger number of people - something that is inherent in the suggestion that bundleman went to SQ in the middle of the abduction - is not credible. People's loyalties change over the years, and there is no way that in the time that has elapsed since the disappearance that several people would have kept quiet.
Most of the OC workers were casually employed with no real loyalty to the company or anyone else, and would have been paid a minimum wage. What incentive would they have to collude in something like this in the first place?
Oh, I haven't seen others saying it would be too risky. Perhaps they realise that Bundleman was in a real and fearful dilemma. Between a rock and a hard face.
Perhaps they realise that most peeps in PdL go to bed really early, especially ones that have an early start. Tis a sleepy place ... rather nice.
Most OC staff members appear to be PT peeps, long established residents from the Lagos area. The Staff Quarters are big (two tennis courts IIRC). It was probably almost empty .... and a pebble thrown at a window would soon alert the "lifter".
It was in the lifters interest to take bundleman in. She/he would also get into terrible trouble if bundleman were picked up carry a stolen Madeleine
Only my thoughts Sherlock. They seem very different from yours.
-
sherlock
And if telephoning, why not phone for a car to pick him up there? Why go to the 'safe house' of the SQ, if that is what it was, only to leave again on foot? It does not make sense. Yes, something could have gone wrong with the driver at 5A, but this could have been rectified by sending another car. If these people are 'professional' abductors, surely they would have had more than one car between them at their disposal. Not to mention phones.
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?
-
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 outsideh 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?
Too many ifs and maybes making up your theory sadie. There has to be some tangible evidence to underpin evena theory, do you have any ?
I'm sure your theory would make a rather entertaining film if produced by Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie though.
-
Too many ifs and maybes making up your theory sadie. There has to be some tangible evidence to underpin evena theory, do you have any ?
I'm sure your theory would make a rather entertaining film if produced by Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie though.
Oh Sherlock faith, thank you for your prompt response.
Can you tell me "Why is it SO VERY important to you to prove that Bundleman did NOT go to The Staff Quarters" ?
There has to be a reason
-
Oh Sherlock faith, thank you for your prompt response.
Can you tell me "Why is it SO VERY important to you to prove that Bundleman did NOT go to The Staff Quarters" ?
There has to be a reason
It seems to me that it is more important to you to prove that Bundleman DID go to the staff quarters, now why is that ?
Are you a double agent sadie, posting to divert forum members from what really happened ? Are you in fact working for MR BIG ?
Just my thoughts but after reading your posts for several months IT ALL FITS !
-
It seems to me that it is more important to you to prove that Bundleman DID go to the staff quarters, now why is that ?
Are you a double agent sadie, posting to divert forum members from what really happened ? Are you in fact working for MR BIG ?
Just my thoughts but after reading your posts for several months IT ALL FITS !
Very observant of you Faith 8@??)( @)(++(*
Please don't tell the DCI .... erm Andy ... erm .... erm ... 8(0(*
-
Sadie,
You keep stressing that your theory 'fits', but the fact is that the gap into which any theory would have to 'fit' is extremely large, being that we have so few facts to work with. To say that something 'fits' into an enormous gap is not saying very much.
We would have to have many more pieces of the jigsaw in place before being able to say, with any real meaning, 'this fits' or 'that fits'.
We could say Madeleine was abducted by aliens between 9 and 10pm on 3rd May and there is nothing to prove disprove that statement, but we wouldn't say 'that fits.' I'm not saying your theory is as far-fetched as that, just that we need a lot more concrete information before conjecture is of assistance.
-
It seems to me that it is more important to you to prove that Bundleman DID go to the staff quarters, now why is that ?
Are you a double agent sadie, posting to divert forum members from what really happened ? Are you in fact working for MR BIG ?
Just my thoughts but after reading your posts for several months IT ALL FITS !
Yes there are reasons. It does fit the theory, which may ... or may not be correct ..... but, ,as you say, everything fits1) The accomplice was very likely an OC person. And that is where non native Portuguese OC personnel lived. Having been let down by the getawway driver, he needed the support of a "friend"
2) A soujourn there explains the time difference between the JT sighting and The Smith sighting
3) According to the 3A's, a scream was heard coming from there.
4) Having been left in the lurch, it was a good place to recharge his batteries and to phone on for instructions . Where to, what next? Everything was compartmentalised about this abduction. !it was planned, so that no-body knew more than the next in line. Kept the top bod safe.
Now why are you soooo keen to disprove that Bundleman didn't go there?
-
Do we know for sure that the accomplice was an OC person?
How exactly?
Is is because of the assumption that a key was used in entering 5A?
Couldn't bubdleman or someone else have pinched a key from under a plant pot? A key could have been acquired months or even years before the disappearance and for an entirely different operation, or for speculative use, given the general vulnerability of apartment 5A.
-
Yes there are reasons. It does fit the theory, which may ... or may not be correct ..... but, ,as you say, everything fits1) The accomplice was very likely an OC person. And that is where non native Portuguese OC personnel lived. Having been let down by the getawway driver, he needed the support of a "friend"
2) A soujourn there explains the time difference between the JT sighting and The Smith sighting
3) According to the 3A's, a scream was heard coming from there.
4) Having been left in the lurch, it was a good place to recharge his batteries and to phone on for instructions . Where to, what next? Everything was compartmentalised about this abduction. !it was planned, so that no-body knew more than the next in line. Kept the top bod safe.
Now why are you soooo keen to disprove that Bundleman didn't go there?
So one of the main planks of your theory is something claimed on a forum years ago. BTW sadie who do you think was screaming ?
-
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...
-
Was the possiblity of Madeleine being taken away by boat ever investigated by the Pj ? I've personally haven't found any witness statements from the people whose boat the children were taken to in a dingy by the nannies.
IIRC The man seen by the Smith was heading towards the beach.
No darling. The Navy, Airforce and all the stupid men and women that searched the sea and air, the beaches and caves all around the Algarvian coast were phantoms.
-
I am not angry at you, but I am angry at your MEDIA. You are being played as fools.
-
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.
Camparmentalised Sherlock. No phones to trace. Seemingly perfect plan that could not go wrong, but it did.
They thought that everything was covered.
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.
Already three peeps involved. For safety (keeping it secret), the feweer peeps involved the better
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.
Yep dangerous, but Compartmentalised and only one person (+ possibly the accomplice) is endangered. Bring a car in and it is a completely different ball game. THere might have been a car at a later stage?
And why would the lifter want 'rid of ' him from SQ, if SQ was as quiet as you say?
Obvious.
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.
It was thought to be totally safe. Foolproof.
Amazing timings of JT's arrival and the fact that Gerry and Jez were tucked out of sight messed it up
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.
OK, that is what you would have done, but seems it didn't happen ... if my theory is right
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.
Maybe he was scared of a Mr Big? And desperate for the money? We do not know his driviing forces.
'Tis only a theory Sherlock .... but it fits ..... everything