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: icabodcrane on October 14, 2013, 09:52:32 PM
-
He ( the man thought to be the 'abductor' for over six years ) has come now come forward to explain it was almost certainly him that Jane saw that night
He was carrying his own child who he had collected from the night creche
Can someone tell me where the night creche is ? ... and would someone leaving it be emerging from the the back of the McCann's apartment block ?
-
He ( the man thought to be the 'abductor' for over six years ) has come now come forward to explain it was almost certainly him that Jane saw that night
He was carrying his own child who he had collected from the night creche
Can someone tell me where the night creche is ? ... and would someone leaving it be emerging from the the back of the McCann's apartment block ?
Did you watch the show? It was indicated on the map.
-
He ( the man thought to be the 'abductor' for over six years ) has come now come forward to explain it was almost certainly him that Jane saw that night
He was carrying his own child who he had collected from the night creche
Can someone tell me where the night creche is ? ... and would someone leaving it be emerging from the the back of the McCann's apartment block ?
Strange that this news comes to light now. An ideal way of giving Jane Tanner a get out card while not completely calling her a liar? I'd like to know who this father is (was a name given?)
-
Did you watch the show? It was indicated on the map.
You saw the locations and still don't see the error in the direction he was depicted walking?
-
Strange that this news comes to light now. An ideal way of giving Jane Tanner a get out card while not completely calling her a liar? I'd like to know who this father is (was a name given?)
No, and why should a name be given? So that people like you can start digging into his background and posting rubbish about him online?
-
No, and why should a name be given? So that people like you can start digging into his background and posting rubbish about him online?
No, that's the job of the pros who like to try and "out" sceptics. With laughable accuracy if I'm any judge 8(0(*
-
Did you watch the show? It was indicated on the map.
No, I didn't notice to be honest 8()-000(
Has anyone got a map of the resort ready to post ? ( showing where the night creche is ... and the route this innocent dad took to bring him to be where Jane saw him )
-
No, and why should a name be given? So that people like you can start digging into his background and posting rubbish about him online?
Gosh, that was an awful reply Victoria. What on earth makes you think that I'd go digging his background and post rubbish about him online?
-
If I was reading the PdL map correctly, I agree with the sceptics. Bundleman was not walking from the creche, unless he had got badly lost !
Would like to see a replay before I commit myself absolutely to that opinion to make sure That I have the right spot for the night creche
-
He ( the man thought to be the 'abductor' for over six years ) has come now come forward to explain it was almost certainly him that Jane saw that night
He was carrying his own child who he had collected from the night creche
Can someone tell me where the night creche is ? ... and would someone leaving it be emerging from the the back of the McCann's apartment block ?
Totally absurd. The creche is above the main reception.
-
If I was reading the PdL map correctly, I agree with the sceptics. Bundleman was not walking from the creche, unless he had got badly lost !
Would like to see a replay before I commit myself absolutely to that opinion to make sure That I have the right spot for the night creche
Oh no. Can anyone see four horsemen anywhere in the sky? Or sense a deep frozen chill from deep down under the earth in the location that could be known as "hell" ?
-
Yeah, I didn't get that either, the creche is/was not near the McCann's apartment. But surely SY know that and there's another explanation for him walking in that direction with his daughter.
-
Strange that this news comes to light now. An ideal way of giving Jane Tanner a get out card while not completely calling her a liar? I'd like to know who this father is (was a name given?)
A "get out" card from what? I'd also echo what other posters have said, why should this gentleman's name be released?
-
A "get out" card from what? I'd also echo what other posters have said, why should this gentleman's name be released?
I don't think it should be either. But I don't believe the person exists for a minute! Or if they do there were nowhere near the vicinity of the McCann apartment. They had no earthly reason to be there at that time. The coincidence of them just happening to wander past at that exact moment is so enormous that there aren't enough zeroes in mathematics to cope.
-
A man, some hours back, was horribly accused to have kept his feeling the little girl he saw was Madeleine. In spite of having been informed the original statement didn't say so, the same poster insisted in vilifying the man.
Now CW has exhibited another man coming from nowhere but untouchable who has through his silence obstructed the PJ investigation and some posters applaud !
What about Ms Tanner who put Madeleine's pyjamas on ex-Bundleman's daughter ? From pyjamas to Madeleine, a quick step that obstructed the investigation as well.
-
willl those who have said for years this man took maddie apologize??
-
A "get out" card from what? I'd also echo what other posters have said, why should this gentleman's name be released?
This 'gentleman' has, apparently, allowed the police to waste resources for six years ... looking for a suspected abductor who did not exist ... and, in the meanwhile, a missing child to be suffering God knows what !
-
I don't think it should be either. But I don't believe the person exists for a minute! Or if they do there were nowhere near the vicinity of the McCann apartment. They had no earthly reason to be there at that time. The coincidence of them just happening to wander past at that exact moment is so enormous that there aren't enough zeroes in mathematics to cope.
Just to be clear then - you think the Met is making it up?
-
Those PJ's picture described by DC thingy as 'uncannily similar' did look remarkably different to me. The colour, the lack of ruffles...
I suspect that JT might have been desperately trying to help. I hope she's not blaming herself now.
-
I don't think it should be either. But I don't believe the person exists for a minute! Or if they do there were nowhere near the vicinity of the McCann apartment. They had no earthly reason to be there at that time. The coincidence of them just happening to wander past at that exact moment is so enormous that there aren't enough zeroes in mathematics to cope.
The PJ Files can't be bypassed. If Faceless Bundleman is real and if his statement is sufficient to put the events of that night in a quite different perspective, allowing to understand what happened, how it happened and who made it happen, then SY has to present this evidence to the MP in order to reopen the case.
-
As far as I am concerned Bundleman and the Jane Tanner sighting are firmly back in the picture
-
He ( the man thought to be the 'abductor' for over six years ) has come now come forward to explain it was almost certainly him that Jane saw that night
He was carrying his own child who he had collected from the night creche
Can someone tell me where the night creche is ? ... and would someone leaving it be emerging from the the back of the McCann's apartment block ?
The night crèche is above the main Ocean Club reception Icabodcrane. You know, way down the village towards the beach.
This has all been discussed at length before, there was no reason for this man carrying a child to emerge from the west when the crèche was way to the south relative to Ocean Club Garden.
-
A man, some hours back, was horribly accused to have kept his feeling the little girl he saw was Madeleine. In spite of having been informed the original statement didn't say so, the same poster insisted in vilifying the man.
Now CW has exhibited another man coming from nowhere but untouchable who has through his silence obstructed the PJ investigation and some posters applaud !
What about Ms Tanner who put Madeleine's pyjamas on ex-Bundleman's daughter ? From pyjamas to Madeleine, a quick step that obstructed the investigation as well.
The use of the word 'obstructed' seems to suggest something sinister.
-
Just to be clear then - you think the Met is making it up?
I think they have found someone in the files who has vaguely alluded to picking their child up at a vaguely similar time in a vaguely similar part of the resort and creatively put them altogether in a neat little package, yes. I don't doubt that "a guest" exists. I do doubt that their story anything like matched what crimewatch just spewed out!
-
As far as I am concerned Bundleman and the Jane Tanner sighting are firmly back in the picture
Isn't this a bit like a christian picking and choosing which bits of the bible to believe in? Surely as the other McCann supporters will say, SY know best?
-
I think they have found someone in the files who has vaguely alluded to picking their child up at a vaguely similar time in a vaguely similar part of the resort and creatively put them altogether in a neat little package, yes. I don't doubt that "a guest" exists. I do doubt that their story anything like matched what crimewatch just spewed out!
How do we know? For obvious reasons, it's something the programme failed to dwell on.
-
As far as I am concerned Bundleman and the Jane Tanner sighting are firmly back in the picture
Have you lost all confidence in Scotland Yard now Sadie since they have binned the Tanner sighting. They say they are "almost certain".
-
Those PJ's picture described by DC thingy as 'uncannily similar' did look remarkably different to me. The colour, the lack of ruffles...
I suspect that JT might have been desperately trying to help. I hope she's not blaming herself now.
I suspect that Mr Redwood, to save the face, is ready to make a lot of faceless guys jump out of his black top hat.
-
Have you lost all confidence in Scotland Yard now Sadie since they have binned the Tanner sighting. They say they are "almost certain".
john bare in mind i have not watched the show but is that SY saying there is no evidence of a bndleman being in the area of the mcanns apartment at the time of maddies vvanaishing??
-
I've yet to read a credible reason to explain why this man has taken so long to come forward.
-
I think they have found someone in the files who has vaguely alluded to picking their child up at a vaguely similar time in a vaguely similar part of the resort and creatively put them altogether in a neat little package, yes. I don't doubt that "a guest" exists. I do doubt that their story anything like matched what crimewatch just spewed out!
I don't want to agree with this cause I don't want to believe that the world works like that.
I can't come up with another sensible explanation though. Either I have to believe that the facts are being twisted by sy and the Beeb, or some guy wandered around with his child across his arms in a really uncomfortable position in the wrong direction at just the right time, then waited for 6 years before mentioning it.
-
I don't want to agree with this cause I don't want to believe that the world works like that.
I can't come up with another sensible explanation though. Either I have to believe that the facts are being twisted by sy and the Beeb, or some guy wandered around with his child across his arms in a really uncomfortable position in the wrong direction at just the right time, then waited for 6 years before mentioning it.
Which would, of course, be a McCoincidence with large fries and a side order of cheese and no mistake!
-
I think they have found someone in the files who has vaguely alluded to picking their child up at a vaguely similar time in a vaguely similar part of the resort and creatively put them altogether in a neat little package, yes. I don't doubt that "a guest" exists. I do doubt that their story anything like matched what crimewatch just spewed out!
Possibly, they have found one British father who picked up his child (sex irrelevant) after 9 at the night creche (the night creche register isn't in the files, but they asked MW and the list of all the guests is in the files, not very long..) and he said he doesn't remember, but may be, etc. no map (like in the rogs) etc. and that was it. They badly needed it because they had no explanation for the 45' walking around PDL.
Anyhow Ms Tanner passing transparently less than 1m far from Mr W and Mr McCann goes on unexplained.
And Mr McCann is now without any alibi.
-
Possibly, they have found one British father who picked up his child (sex irrelevant) after 9 at the night creche (the register isn't in the files, but they asked MW) and he said he doesn't remember, but may be, etc. no map (like in the rogs) etc. and that was it. They badly needed it because they had no explanation for the 45' walking around PDL.
Anyhow Ms Tanner passing transparently less than 1m far from Mr W and Mr McCann goes on unexplained.
And Mr McCann is now without any alibi.
exactly anne it sounds like SY are saying gerry was the only person around the apartment at the time???
-
Have you lost all confidence in Scotland Yard now Sadie since they have binned the Tanner sighting. They say they are "almost certain".
It shouldn't be too difficult to be "certain". Fly ex-Bundlman to PDL, borrow a 4years old, and ask him to do the route he did and observe how long he resists with the kid on his stretched arms. The register indicates whether it was the first time Mr B was walking back home and possibly lost his way.
-
Deleted
-
Was it said that the man had collected his child from the crèche? I can't remember, could be he was taking his child to the crèche.
-
I've yet to read a credible reason to explain why this man has taken so long to come forward.
He may not have come forward. It seems more likely to me that SY traced all the parents who left their children at the creche that night and contacted them.
-
On reflection during the night, my early thoughts wee incorrect
Please refer to http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2652.0
Was it said that the man had collected his child from the crèche? I can't remember, could be he was taking his child to the crèche.
Not likely Lace at 9.15pm I should have thought.
Jane Tanner is back in the picture. THe creche was SE of where JT saw bundleman. Bundleman was walking to the east. Unless that man was somewhat lost and chosing not to take the alleyway route, he would be unlikely to be walking the direction that Jane saw him going
Unless (just thought of something).
Unless he was walking the MUCH longer route, somewhat similar to that John and Angelo insisted that David Payne would have walked, in order to alert the main reception at about 10.10pm. THis was immediately after Madeleine was discoverd gone. Also, if he also made a minor route mistake at Baptistas Supermarket, then it could be correct.
Otherwise I cant see it.
gilet will remember it
Upon reflection it was I that got my initial thoughts wrong. For explanation see http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2652.0
ETA. Sorry am repeating myself a little. Thought that I was posting on a different thread
-
Mr Payne never went to the reception, Mr Oldfield did.
Ms Tanner interpreted the pyjamas, she could have done the same with the direction. The opposite direction would make sort of sense, if the guest was staying in the G4.
-
I don't know what SY are up to but I don't buy that bundleman can be ruled out completely; the part that struck me most during the reconstruction was the door being more ajar at 0915 - i.e. a reasonable probability that the intruder was already inside the apartment. So why decide to hang about for half an hour or so before hot footing it to the beach and is it really a co-incidence that both bundleman and the Smith's man wore almost the same clothing?? For me, it just doesn't make sense to completely rule him out. The other thing that really stood out was that any e-fits describing men with shoulder length hair were completely left off.....and there were up to three other independent witnesses who described suspicious looking men with that type of hair. I really hope SY have a strategy that includes throwing people off.....because I don't buy burglars and I don't believe one siting can be ruled out because a British man decides to come forward 6 years later and say that it could have been him.
-
This 'gentleman' has, apparently, allowed the police to waste resources for six years ... looking for a suspected abductor who did not exist ... and, in the meanwhile, a missing child to be suffering God knows what !
8((()*/
-
I don't know what SY are up to but I don't buy that bundleman can be ruled out completely; the part that struck me most during the reconstruction was the door being more ajar at 0915 - i.e. a reasonable probability that the intruder was already inside the apartment. So why decide to hang about for half an hour or so before hot footing it to the beach and is it really a co-incidence that both bundleman and the Smith's man wore almost the same clothing?? For me, it just doesn't make sense to completely rule him out. The other thing that really stood out was that any e-fits describing men with shoulder length hair were completely left off.....and there were up to three other independent witnesses who described suspicious looking men with that type of hair. I really hope SY have a strategy that includes throwing people off.....because I don't buy burglars and I don't believe one siting can be ruled out because a British man decides to come forward 6 years later and say that it could have been him.
Sound reasoning kmc. I agree, but I dont rule out burglars being commisioned to do the actual lifting and removing. But there was a mastermind, an elite ... imo.
-
He was there on Friday, on Saturday, he had a little child too, everybody knew a man had been seen carrying a child and he said nothing ?
Ah and how did he explain the child had almost nothing on and was barefoot ? At the creche, Iirc they lend a blanket.
-
Sound reasoning kmc. I agree, but I dont rule out burglars being commisioned to do the actual lifting and removing. But there was a mastermind, an elite ... imo.
I don't know about burglars - I mean if a 3/4 year old wakes up you would generally leg it because the chances are that they would bellow their head off if you took off.... Anyhow, a good example of what I meant about avoiding anyone with "hair" is that we were almost lead to believe that the guy caught skulking around under the stairs of the apartment with big glasses had closely shaven hair when the witness clearly stated "“He was quite tall and looked sort-of Scandinavian. He had lots of hair, close to his head — like it was glued. It was straight hair. He was about my age now — 45, 46.".... What I really want to know is why SY were so keen to avoid any suspects with anything other than very short/shaven hair.
-
He was there on Friday, on Saturday, he had a little child too, everybody knew a man had been seen carrying a child and he said nothing ?
Ah and how did he explain the child had almost nothing on and was barefoot ? At the creche, Iirc they lend a blanket.
I agree, why didn't he come forward? Do you definitely know that he didn't return home on the Friday? Dont know about the blanket tho, Anne. Never heard that the creche dished out blankets.
-
I don't know about burglars - I mean if a 3/4 year old wakes up you would generally leg it because the chances are that they would bellow their head off if you took off.... Anyhow, a good example of what I meant about avoiding anyone with "hair" is that we were almost lead to believe that the guy caught skulking around under the stairs of the apartment with big glasses had closely shaven hair when the witness clearly stated "“He was quite tall and looked sort-of Scandinavian. He had lots of hair, close to his head — like it was glued. It was straight hair. He was about my age now — 45, 46.".... What I really want to know is why SY were so keen to avoid any suspects with anything other than very short/shaven hair.
Dunno whether this is likely or not, but wigs maybe could have been used?
-
Dunno whether this is likely or not, but wigs maybe could have been used?
Well in my opinion wig or no wig - the e-fit should have included exactly how the man presented.
-
I've yet to read a credible reason to explain why this man has taken so long to come forward.
That's an assumption, isn't it, sika?
Who says he took six years to come forward? We don't have access to every piece of documentation there is on this case, or knowledge of every interaction the PJ and other investigators may or may not have had with witnesses and suspects.
It is possible this man did come forward earlier on in the investigation, and for whatever reason, perhaps oversight, perhaps suppression - and there have been hefty doses of both of in this case - the disclosure that he came forward is only now being made.
-
He may not have come forward. It seems more likely to me that SY traced all the parents who left their children at the creche that night and contacted them.
Makes sense
-
I don't want to agree with this cause I don't want to believe that the world works like that.
I can't come up with another sensible explanation though. Either I have to believe that the facts are being twisted by sy and the Beeb, or some guy wandered around with his child across his arms in a really uncomfortable position in the wrong direction at just the right time, then waited for 6 years before mentioning it.
That's an assumption, though.
Just because SY did not divulge any of their reasons for ruling out this suspect from their investigation on Crimewatch, doesn't mean those reasons aren't good enough.
Information is lacking to us ( information as to what this man was doing and why, and therefore why it is that SY ruled him out as a suspect). But that does not mean information is lacking to SY.
Nowhere in the programme did SY or anyone else go into investigative details in any depth. It wasn't the purpose of the programme. We cannot draw anything from the fact that those details were not divulged about the quality of the investigation behind the scenes.
-
Reply “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.
4078 “Yeah (inaudible)”.
Reply “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that. I’m sorry”.
4078 “Don’t worry. Take a moment”.
Reply “But, you know, I think it’s, I do, I’m not the sort of person that would make this up, I don’t want any limelight, you know, you’ve only got to look, ask people that know me, I’m not”.
4078 “You wish you hadn’t seen it?”
Reply “I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadn’t. As I say, I wish I’d made Russell go at that point. I really wish I hadn’t seen this. But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming and saying ‘No, you’re wrong Jane that wasn’t them, that was me carrying my child’, that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you know”.
JT has been accused of lying for six years, she has been treated disgustingly. Reading the part of her rogatory interview above she must've felt so angry/frustrated at not being believed. Did Amaral not check who used the crèche facilities that night? Does anyone know if it is mentioned in the files.
-
Reply “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.
4078 “Yeah (inaudible)”.
Reply “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that. I’m sorry”.
4078 “Don’t worry. Take a moment”.
Reply “But, you know, I think it’s, I do, I’m not the sort of person that would make this up, I don’t want any limelight, you know, you’ve only got to look, ask people that know me, I’m not”.
4078 “You wish you hadn’t seen it?”
Reply “I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadn’t. As I say, I wish I’d made Russell go at that point. I really wish I hadn’t seen this. But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming and saying ‘No, you’re wrong Jane that wasn’t them, that was me carrying my child’, that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you know”.
JT has been accused of lying for six years, she has been treated disgustingly. Reading the part of her rogatory interview above she must've felt so angry/frustrated at not being believed. Did Amaral not check who used the crèche facilities that night? Does anyone know if it is mentioned in the files.
I also find it fascinating drummer that the descriptions given by Jane Tanner of both the man she saw and the child (more specifically, the pyjamas on the child) he was carrying were, in the words of DCI Redwood 'uncannily similar' to the person interviewed and photographed by SY, and the pyjamas that were also pictured in the programme.
Jane Tanner gave these descriptions from a distance, in the dark, on vacation in an unfamiliar place, of someone who had no significance for her when she glimpsed him - as we have discussed here at length - and despite all of these factors, her description was very good.
Not only does it appear that she saw someone; her account of that person was astonishingly accurate.
Ironically, that accuracy has enabled a potential suspect - the prime suspect until now - to rule himself out of the investigation.
-
I have long had a pretty low opinion of Amaral's detecting skills, but now my contempt for him has reached a new height. When faced with a "who dunnit" crime, basic police procedure is to first eliminate those who couldn't have done it before starting to focus on who may have been involved.
Had he followed this procedure Jane Tanner's bundleman should have been eliminated within the first 24 to 48 hours, but instead it has taken another, proper police force to contact everyone who had children in the crèche that night, and thus able to discount the person Jane saw and whom she, the McCanns and others have thought for six years was the abductor.
This is a glaring, shameful error on the part of Amaral, his team and his superiors. Little wonder, now, why he wanted the libel trial heard in camera.
-
Yes SH Jane was very accurate in her description. Something else I have been pondering, obviously Ocean Club is not the only accomodation in PDL for tourists, hotels, villas, private rentals etc. How do we know that the person who is now known to be JT's sighting was returning from the crèche at MW. Are there any other crèche's in the area? I have no knowledge of the area so it's just a thought. Did Crimewatch state it was the MW crèche?
-
Yes SH Jane was very accurate in her description. Something else I have been pondering, obviously Ocean Club is not the only accomodation in PDL for tourists, hotels, villas, private rentals etc. How do we know that the person who is now known to be JT's sighting was returning from the crèche at MW. Are there any other crèche's in the area? I have no knowledge of the area so it's just a thought. Did Crimewatch state it was the MW crèche?
I think they stated that it was the Ocean Club creche, near the main entrance to the club.
-
Thanks SH I wasn't sure.
-
Reply “But, you know, it’s just the frustration of not being believed on this, it’s”.
4078 “Yeah (inaudible)”.
Reply “No, but the best thing that could happen to me, apart from Madeleine being found, is somebody coming up and saying ‘That was me’, you know, ‘That was me walking across there’, because, you know, you know, I don’t want that to be Madeleine, but, you know, there’s no, but I’m convinced that was and, you know, people have got to, so I don’t know what I can do to make them believe that. I’m sorry”.
4078 “Don’t worry. Take a moment”.
Reply “But, you know, I think it’s, I do, I’m not the sort of person that would make this up, I don’t want any limelight, you know, you’ve only got to look, ask people that know me, I’m not”.
4078 “You wish you hadn’t seen it?”
Reply “I just, yeah, I do, I wish I hadn’t. As I say, I wish I’d made Russell go at that point. I really wish I hadn’t seen this. But, you know, they have to, and, as I say, apart from Madeleine being found, the best thing that could happen to me is somebody coming and saying ‘No, you’re wrong Jane that wasn’t them, that was me carrying my child’, that is what, you know, I dream of happening, after Madeleine being found, you know”.
JT has been accused of lying for six years, she has been treated disgustingly. Reading the part of her rogatory interview above she must've felt so angry/frustrated at not being believed. Did Amaral not check who used the crèche facilities that night? Does anyone know if it is mentioned in the files.
That is heartbreaking to read. She has been accused of lying for six years, and even worse than that has been riddled with the guilt of believing she was in a position to stop the abductor. And a basic bit of police work could have ended that back in 2007.
-
That is heartbreaking to read. She has been accused of lying for six years, and even worse than that has been riddled with the guilt of believing she was in a position to stop the abductor. And a basic bit of police work could have ended that back in 2007.
Quite. My underlining.
-
I have long had a pretty low opinion of Amaral's detecting skills, but now my contempt for him has reached a new height. When faced with a "who dunnit" crime, basic police procedure is to first eliminate those who couldn't have done it before starting to focus on who may have been involved.
Had he followed this procedure Jane Tanner's bundleman should have been eliminated within the first 24 to 48 hours, but instead it has taken another, proper police force to contact everyone who had children in the crèche that night, and thus able to discount the person Jane saw and whom she, the McCanns and others have thought for six years was the abductor.
This is a glaring, shameful error on the part of Amaral, his team and his superiors. Little wonder, now, why he wanted the libel trial heard in camera.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
does anyone know if those staying in apartments across the road are able to use the facilities of the ocean club. I have seen this arrangements at other resorts.
-
I have long had a pretty low opinion of Amaral's detecting skills, but now my contempt for him has reached a new height. When faced with a "who dunnit" crime, basic police procedure is to first eliminate those who couldn't have done it before starting to focus on who may have been involved.
Had he followed this procedure Jane Tanner's bundleman should have been eliminated within the first 24 to 48 hours, but instead it has taken another, proper police force to contact everyone who had children in the crèche that night, and thus able to discount the person Jane saw and whom she, the McCanns and others have thought for six years was the abductor.
This is a glaring, shameful error on the part of Amaral, his team and his superiors. Little wonder, now, why he wanted the libel trial heard in camera.
I second this 100% 8((()*/
-
And to think people disbelieved Jane Tanner because Gerry and Jez didn't hear her flip flops?
-
I have long had a pretty low opinion of Amaral's detecting skills, but now my contempt for him has reached a new height. When faced with a "who dunnit" crime, basic police procedure is to first eliminate those who couldn't have done it before starting to focus on who may have been involved.
Had he followed this procedure Jane Tanner's bundleman should have been eliminated within the first 24 to 48 hours, but instead it has taken another, proper police force to contact everyone who had children in the crèche that night, and thus able to discount the person Jane saw and whom she, the McCanns and others have thought for six years was the abductor.
This is a glaring, shameful error on the part of Amaral, his team and his superiors. Little wonder, now, why he wanted the libel trial heard in camera.
Do you honestly believe for a minute that every parent who had a child at the crèche that night and the staff weren't questioned about their movements?
If you ask me someone was holding back information on purpose.
-
LMAO at this "bash amarals detective work" thread.
How can we be sure that SY are not telling porkies about debunking Tanners bundle man?
Seems a bit convenient that this man finally comes forward anonymously in what is the most high profile 'alleged child abduction' case.
Do people seriously still think bundle man exists?
Or are SY perhaps playing Tanner at her own game, knowing that her sighting was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real sighting which is provided by independent witnesses, and possibly implicates her friend Gerry.
-
We don't know what caused the delay, we only know that it has now been resolved, thanks to the Met. It's pretty basic police work:
1. Find out who was known to be in the area and eliminate them.
2. After eliminating them, ask whether they saw any additional people in the area.
3. Track down additional people who were seen and eliminate them.
Like I say, basic stuff. Seems the original investigation got stuck somewhere between step one and two and didn't bother much with step three.
-
LMAO at this "bash amarals detective work" thread.
How can we be sure that SY are not telling porkies about debunking Tanners bundle man?
Seems a bit convenient that this man finally comes forward anonymously in what is the most high profile 'alleged child abduction' case.
Do people seriously still think bundle man exists?
Or are SY perhaps playing Tanner at her own game, knowing that her sighting was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real sighting which is provided by independent witnesses, and possibly implicates her friend Gerry.
They haven't made the man up. For one thing, if it ever went to trial, they need to show that all lines of enquiry were followed. The defence team would want the name of this man. If the Met couldn't produce the name, the case would collapse. Some people really don't understand police and court procedure. This is real life, not a movie.
-
Do you think this will ever go to court ?
-
Do you think this will ever go to court ?
I believe it will eventually, yes. In fact I would say there will be an arrest within the next twelve months.
-
im getting so frustrated SY have ruled the man with his daughter out
Text size
Send this article to a friend
Print this article
Tweet
Madeleine McCann detectives rule out key sighting
Helen McArdle
News Reporter
Monday 14 October 2013
The parents of Madeleine McCann have urged people to "rack their brains" and come forward with information after police released two e-fits of a man who was seen carrying a child near where their daughter went missing.
APPEAL: Metropolitan Police have issued e-fits of a man they want to identify, after talking to witnesses who saw him in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine McCann went missing.
APPEAL: Metropolitan Police have issued e-fits of a man they want to identify, after talking to witnesses who saw him in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine McCann went missing.
It comes as officers from Scotland Yard now say that a man seen carrying a child by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner was an innocent British holiday maker. They are focusing on another man with dark hair who was also seen with a little girl in his arms around 45 minutes later.
-
im getting so frustrated SY have ruled the man with his daughter out
Text size
Send this article to a friend
Print this article
Tweet
Madeleine McCann detectives rule out key sighting
Helen McArdle
News Reporter
Monday 14 October 2013
The parents of Madeleine McCann have urged people to "rack their brains" and come forward with information after police released two e-fits of a man who was seen carrying a child near where their daughter went missing.
APPEAL: Metropolitan Police have issued e-fits of a man they want to identify, after talking to witnesses who saw him in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine McCann went missing.
APPEAL: Metropolitan Police have issued e-fits of a man they want to identify, after talking to witnesses who saw him in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine McCann went missing.
It comes as officers from Scotland Yard now say that a man seen carrying a child by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner was an innocent British holiday maker. They are focusing on another man with dark hair who was also seen with a little girl in his arms around 45 minutes later.
They have ruled one man out, yes. But another man still needs to be eliminated.
-
They haven't made the man up. For one thing, if it ever went to trial, they need to show that all lines of enquiry were followed. The defence team would want the name of this man. If the Met couldn't produce the name, the case would collapse. Some people really don't understand police and court procedure. This is real life, not a movie.
If it ever went to trial & two independent witnesses plus a host of crimewatch viewers identified Gerry McCann as the 'Smiths sighting",
Tanners alleged sighting would be almost totally irrelevant
-
If it ever went to trial & two independent witnesses plus a host of crimewatch viewers identified Gerry McCann as the 'Smiths sighting",
Tanners alleged sighting would be almost totally irrelevant
No, it wouldn't, not if you are claiming the Met have fabricated evidence.
-
No, it wouldn't, not if you are claiming the Met have fabricated evidence.
Fabricated evidence, no.
Misled a group of liars via a television programme, possibly.
-
Do you honestly believe for a minute that every parent who had a child at the crèche that night and the staff weren't questioned about their movements?
If you ask me someone was holding back information on purpose.
Yes, I believe it.
"But Scotland Yard detectives reviewed the evidence and realised that around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort, and would have collected their sleeping children during the evening".
-
Fabricated evidence, no.
Misled a group of liars via a television programme, possibly.
I don't think you understand. During any trial, the defence would be looking to prove that other lines of enquiry were not properly followed through. The Jane Tanner sighting is another line of enquiry. If the Met could not back up their reasons for eliminating this line of enquiry the CPS would be in trouble. If the Met fabricated their reasons for eliminating a line of enquiry, the case would probably be thrown out.
-
Yes, I believe it.
"But Scotland Yard detectives reviewed the evidence and realised that around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort, and would have collected their sleeping children during the evening".
Interesting point. Were they sleeping? Were the children in the crèche usually sent there in their night clothes and then settled down to sleep by the childcare workers?
Does anyone have experiance of these night time crèches to be able to comment on what is usual practice?
-
If they are so sure that bundleman was an innocent British tourist why not set up a re-enactment for him and Tanner. After all, she nearly bumped into him in the street so she should be able to identify him.
Edited post as mixed up Tanner and Smiths sightings. Sos
-
Do you honestly believe for a minute that every parent who had a child at the crèche that night and the staff weren't questioned about their movements?
If you ask me someone was holding back information on purpose.
One of the detectives in a trailer for the programme did make reference, in general terms, to the fact that some people who withhold information at a certain time then feel free to come forward when their circumstances and loyalties change.
It is possible that this could have been a reference to the witness who identified himself as bundleman.
-
Interesting point. Were they sleeping? Were the children in the crèche usually sent there in their night clothes and then settled down to sleep by the childcare workers?
Does anyone have experiance of these night time crèches to be able to comment on what is usual practice?
Theres statements from a couple of tourists who say they took their child in their pyjamas to the night creche, and stay until they were settled/ready to sleep, Id imagine it was the procedure
In answer to the OP, if seems bizarre that this man was returning from the creche...looks like he would have done an almost 360 degree way around to his flat
I see the reconstruction showed both Gerry and Jez on the right hand side of the road opposie to both Jez and Janes statements and opposite Gerry Mccanns joint group statement
>@@(*&)
It also showed bundleman carrying the child with her feet to his left, opposite the known sketch/statement
I wonder if Tanner misremembered the direction...what if he was going from right to left, that would explain the route home from the creche and the feet on the other side....just a couple of random thoughts there
-
Do you honestly believe for a minute that every parent who had a child at the crèche that night and the staff weren't questioned about their movements?
If you ask me someone was holding back information on purpose.
Yes, I do indeed believe that. Amaral, by his own admission, fixated on the parents from the very next day so it is not difficult to believe that other lines of inquiry were ignored or undertaken half-heartedly.
-
willl those who have said for years this man took maddie apologize??
Apologise for what, exactly, Carly? An unidentified man carrying a child appears to have been eliminated.
How about people apologising to Jane Tanner (a named person) for calling her a fantasist and a liar for the past six years?
-
The convenient:
- Comes forward 6 and a half years "late" ("eh? what missing girl?")
- Happened to be just in the right place at the right time to be seen by tanner
- Happened to be wearing pyjamas allegedly similar to those Madeleine was wearing
The inconvenient (and will be ignored by the rabid)
- Was walking in the wrong direction. If - a huge IF! - he had got lost and was walking the wrong way then the coincidence on the coincidence that he just happened to be back in the right place to be seen by JT at that exact moment is unbelievable mathematically.
- Er... the pyjamas are nowhere near matching
- He was "walking near 5a" according to SY. That's called "being careful what you say" as if he'd walked exactly past where Tanner "saw someone" SY would have reported that, not "walking near".
- 6 and a half years and this person never mentions a word... really?
- For the last 6 and a half years, the McCann supporters have been adamant that JT saw "the abductor". Now what?
Seriously, if this got to court, this explanation (patsy?) would be laughed out of it.
-
Yes, I do indeed believe that. Amaral, by his own admission, fixated on the parents from the very next day so it is not difficult to believe that other lines of inquiry were ignored or undertaken half-heartedly.
so you "believe" and have no evidence but, because it's Amaral, you're quite happy to condemn him even so. Got your number. 8(0(*
-
The convenient:
- Comes forward 6 and a half years "late" ("eh? what missing girl?")
- Happened to be just in the right place at the right time to be seen by tanner
- Happened to be wearing pyjamas allegedly similar to those Madeleine was wearing
The inconvenient (and will be ignored by the rabid)
- Was walking in the wrong direction. If - a huge IF! - he had got lost and was walking the wrong way then the coincidence on the coincidence that he just happened to be back in the right place to be seen by JT at that exact moment is unbelievable mathematically.
- Er... the pyjamas are nowhere near matching
- He was "walking near 5a" according to SY. That's called "being careful what you say" as if he'd walked exactly past where Tanner "saw someone" SY would have reported that, not "walking near".
- 6 and a half years and this person never mentions a word... really?
- For the last 6 and a half years, the McCann supporters have been adamant that JT saw "the abductor". Now what?
Seriously, if this got to court, this explanation (patsy?) would be laughed out of it.
Indeed, is not the whole McCann abduction story based on the fact that Jane saw the abductor?
-
The PJ Files can't be bypassed. If Faceless Bundleman is real and if his statement is sufficient to put the events of that night in a quite different perspective, allowing to understand what happened, how it happened and who made it happen, then SY has to present this evidence to the MP in order to reopen the case.
I don't see how eliminating a possible suspect could reopen the investigation.
-
I don't see how eliminating a possible suspect could reopen the investigation.
You don't? Eliminating (allegedly) the person that the McCanns believe abducted their daughter (check the historical records for what they've said about bundleman over the years) means the only tenuous sighting is now that person the Smiths saw, whom Mr. Smith is more certain than not was Gerry McCann.
I'd be concerned if I was in their shoes right now.
-
The convenient:
- Comes forward 6 and a half years "late" ("eh? what missing girl?")
- Happened to be just in the right place at the right time to be seen by tanner
- Happened to be wearing pyjamas allegedly similar to those Madeleine was wearing
The inconvenient (and will be ignored by the rabid)
- Was walking in the wrong direction. If - a huge IF! - he had got lost and was walking the wrong way then the coincidence on the coincidence that he just happened to be back in the right place to be seen by JT at that exact moment is unbelievable mathematically.
- Er... the pyjamas are nowhere near matching
- He was "walking near 5a" according to SY. That's called "being careful what you say" as if he'd walked exactly past where Tanner "saw someone" SY would have reported that, not "walking near".
- 6 and a half years and this person never mentions a word... really?
- For the last 6 and a half years, the McCann supporters have been adamant that JT saw "the abductor". Now what?
Seriously, if this got to court, this explanation (patsy?) would be laughed out of it.
Good post CE. The major point for me is that Redwood failed to identify EXACTLY where this unnamed British tourist carrying his 2-year-old walked. Answer is he cannot because it doesn't match Tanners sighting!!
Redwood is being economical with the facts IMO.
-
Removing a sighting of abductorman certainly weakens the case for there being an abductor.
Given SY's apparent continuing interest in pursuing the abduction theory, I wonder how they will play this.
-
I don't see how eliminating a possible suspect could reopen the investigation.
Especially as the police did not give her sighting much credit but, of course, they still investigated it. It was too contrived and the Tapas tried to use to implicate Robert Murat.
-
That's an assumption, though.
Just because SY did not divulge any of their reasons for ruling out this suspect from their investigation on Crimewatch, doesn't mean those reasons aren't good enough.
Information is lacking to us ( information as to what this man was doing and why, and therefore why it is that SY ruled him out as a suspect). But that does not mean information is lacking to SY.
Nowhere in the programme did SY or anyone else go into investigative details in any depth. It wasn't the purpose of the programme. We cannot draw anything from the fact that those details were not divulged about the quality of the investigation behind the scenes.
I agree we cannot hypothetico-deduce the quality of the investigation through the CW show.
The number of e-fits and the call for more suspects could be a trick to protect Madeleine as they in fact know who is Mr Right but haven't been able to locate him.
But was it necessary to say Mr Innocent was coming from the creche ? And was it necessary to exhibit a map with flushing flags as if his route was the normal one ? Must people be cheated to react the right way ? Or the less they know the better ?
-
Especially as the police did not give her sighting much credit but, of course, they still investigated it. It was too contrived and the Tapas tried to use to implicate Robert Murat.
Wasn't it three of the tapas group who pointed the finger at Murat in the first place and since his mums villa was just a short distance along the road where Jane saw bundleman walking...?? 2+2=5½
Wasn't it also Kate McCann who insisted that Murat's place be investigated by Krügel too??
-
Especially as the police did not take her sighting seriously. It was too contrived and the Tapas tried to use to implicate Robert Murat.
For sure. The PJ were honest, they weren't convinced by the details Ms Tanner was remembering better in the course of time and tried in vain to clarify.
Now SY says pink is blue and orange is lace to spare Ms Tanner to be called a liar. But when they show JT's Bundleman crossing the street they're careful not to pretend it's an actor copying what Mr Innocent did. So who doesn't say the truth ?
-
Wasn't it three of the tapas group who pointed the finger at Murat in the first place and since his mums villa was just a short distance along the road where Jane saw bundleman walking...?? 2+2=5½
Wasn't it also Kate McCann who insisted that Murat's place be investigated by Krügel too??
Mrs McCann insisted many times that the police shouldn't desist of Murat instead of encouraging the police to re-enact the Smith sighting. Not once they did point to the Smiths who proved to be very ready to help, even though at the time Mr Smith hadn't said the carrier was Gerrylookalike.
-
Quite. My underlining.
So why didn't any of the McCanns PIs investigate who the man was ?
-
So why didn't any of the McCanns PIs investigate who the man was ?
They weren't allowed to. As keeps being said, it was a Portuguese investigation.
-
I seem to recall the pretendy-policeman Mitchell has put out e-fit images before, so presumably he could have fronted this one as well.
-
They weren't allowed to. As keeps being said, it was a Portuguese investigation.
Absolute nonsense. They contacted many witnesses among them the Smiths and Jez Wilkins. It wouldn't have been hard to find out the names of the parents using the night crèche
-
Absolute nonsense. They contacted many witnesses among them the Smiths and Jez Wilkins. It wouldn't have been hard to find out the names of the parents using the night crèche
Indeed, copying a post of mine from the other thread
Quote from: DCI on Today at 11:24:34 AM
It wasn't up to the McCann's to publish it. They were still arguido's.
Why didn't the PJ publish it, amaral made more than a meal out of the Smith's, Gerry coming down the plane steps info! According to him the PJ had this description in May 2007
My reply:
Being arguidos has nothing to do with it, if it were, they wouldnt have put out Tanners sketch in Oct 07
As for not publicising it because it didnt fit in the timeline.......thats plain nonsense..what timeline...they also managed to make a song and a dance about Cooperman and Vicky Beckham lookalike, someone who was seen a week earlier and someone in a different country in that month, people not there on the night...the smiths were! From everything I am reading it seems either Metodo 3 or Edgar approached the Smiths and then if, as is reported by SY, the efits were done, they were sat on ..its clear the Mccanns never publicised the smith sighting which was an important one, why not??..I wonder when SY got whiff of them, perhaps they sat on them for a while as well, which suggests they are not looking for an alive child, jmo
Anyone know who the fat bald guy is in the efit next to the one with the sunglasses on the crimewatch board? never seen that one before.
-
But a review of the evidence under the Metropolitan Police's Operation Grange concluded that it was an innocent British holidaymaker carrying his daughter home from a creche.
Scotland Yard detectives discovered around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort on May 3, 2007, and would have collected their sleeping children - including his two-year-old daughter, who was wearing similar pyjamas - during the evening.
One of those parents was contacted by police and said he may have been the man - and had been wrongly identified as a possible suspect. He agreed to pose for a photograph so his build could be compared to the sketch.
-
The facts.
According to Redwood it was 11 children and 8 parents who used the crèche. Furthermore it is not proven or by any means certain that it was one of those parents whom Tanner saw, it is simply a possibility so Tanner may well have seen the man carrying Madeleine.
In fact, the man cannot even say where he was on the night and Redwood chose to use the vague expression, near the McCanns apartment. Surely if Tanner saw this parent then he would have seen her too? He didn't!!
-
It's difficult to imagine how SYman managed to have his child sleeping, half naked, lying on his arms in windy 12°C for about half a mile.
-
The facts.
According to Redwood it was 11 children and 8 parents who used the crèche. Furthermore it is not proven or by any means certain that it was one of those parents whom Tanner saw, it is simply a possibility so Tanner may well have seen the man carrying Madeleine.
In fact, the man cannot even say where he was on the night and Redwood chose to use the vague expression, near the McCanns apartment. Surely if Tanner saw this parent then he would have seen her too? He didn't!!
Good point Angelo.
-
They weren't allowed to. As keeps being said, it was a Portuguese investigation.
Apparently they did, but kept that information from the PJ. Check 22:36 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/channel-4-news/4od (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/channel-4-news/4od)
-
Good post CE. The major point for me is that Redwood failed to identify EXACTLY where this unnamed British tourist carrying his 2-year-old walked. Answer is he cannot because it doesn't match Tanners sighting!!Redwood is being economical with the facts IMO.
He didn't because it wasn't necessary for the purpose of the programme.
Just as it wasn't necessary for the 2yr olds pajamas shown in Crimewatch to be a replica of what she wore 6 yrs ago because no-one is being asked to look for that little girl or the pajamas she wore that night. They are superfluous to the purpose of the programme.
Many [ censored word] seem to have missed the whole point of what this programme was about.
-
It's difficult to imagine how SYman managed to have his child sleeping, half naked, lying on his arms in windy 12°C for about half a mile.
Half naked?i Didnt see that i just saw a child in pjs
-
He didn't because it wasn't necessary for the purpose of the programme.
Just as it wasn't necessary for the 2yr olds pajamas shown in Crimewatch to be a replica of what she wore 6 yrs ago because no-one is being asked to look for that little girl or the pajamas she wore that night. They are superfluous to the purpose of the programme.
Many [ censored word] seem to have missed the whole point of what this programme was about.
Perhaps you could share your opinion of what the programme was about ?
-
Half naked?i Didnt see that i just saw a child in pjs
Well you wouldn't. As Benice has just said it didn't need to be an accurate representation of the event.
I.m hoping she will tell us why.
-
Well you wouldn't. As Benice has just said it didn't need to be an accurate representation of the event.
I.m hoping she will tell us why.
A child in a top and bottom is not half naked , disgusting thoughts on here
And it did need to be as it was on the night to jog memories its not rocket science
-
A child in a top and bottom is not half naked , disgusting thoughts on here
And it did need to be as it was on the night to jog memories its not rocket science
I thought this was Tannerman, who has already been identified and eliminated from the inquiry. Why should that event need to jog minds ?
-
I thought this was Tannerman, who has already been identified and eliminated from the inquiry. Why should that event need to jog minds ?
100% sorry thought it was smith sighting which was being spoken about as we got a close up of the recon , but the child still wasnt half naked .
-
It's difficult to imagine how SYman managed to have his child sleeping, half naked, lying on his arms in windy 12°C for about half a mile.
Why dont you get it right, Anne?
You say 12*................... The official reports at 10pm say 16*, but gusty ....... presumably it was a little warmer still at 9.20 pm..
You say half naked................... But clothed apart from feet
You say about half a mile........... But if we are talking about SY man, the maximum was about 600 metres not over 800 metres
You do realise that this sort of disinformation is what myths are started with. Dont you?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1986.msg63528#msg63528
Part 2
Tides:
3rd May:
High 3.35am West ........Low 9.33am West
High 3.49pm West ........Low 9.53pm West
Temperature at 10pm = 60*F (16*C) on 3rd May [but gusty]
4th May
High 4.07am West ........Low 10.02am West
All the above conditions were for nearby Lagos ( about 3.5 miles away)
Sadies thoughts:
Seems, to me that ?bundleman had just missed the best time for sailing i.e. with the tide gently going out and in full darkness apart from some indirect moonlight
Was this because JT's witnessing the abduction frightened the wits out of the getaway car driver, so he did not connect with bundleman? The timing would have been perfect at 9.15 – 9.30 pm ... full darkness and tide about to turn , but still gently going out
All the above conditions were for Lagos (3.5 miles away approx)
Three errors in three facts. Jeez ! Pls make the effort to get it right next time, rather than twist facts.
-
Apparently they did, but kept that information from the PJ. Check 22:36 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/channel-4-news/4od (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/channel-4-news/4od)
These images were put together by the McCanns private detectives ?
( I assumed Scotland Yard had done them recently )
Why didn't the McCanns show them to the public ?
-
Why dont you get it right, Anne?
You say 12*................... The official reports at 10pm say 16*, but gusty ....... presumably it was a little warmer still at 9.20 pm..
You say half naked................... But clothed apart from feet
You say about half a mile........... But if we are talking about SY man, the maximum was about 600 metres not over 800 metres
You do realise that this sort of disinformation is what myths are started with. Dont you?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1986.msg63528#msg63528
Three errors in three facts. Jeez ! Pls make the effort to get it right next time, rather than twist facts.
Have you revised your theory in light of the fact that Jane Tanner saw an innocent man ?
-
These images were put together by the McCanns private detectives ?
( I assumed Scotland Yard had done them recently )
Why didn't the McCanns show them to the public ?
I think you already know the answer to that....
-
You may well ask.
The only conclusion I can come to is that they found them hurtful and unhelpful.
-
Half naked?i Didnt see that i just saw a child in pjs
Some people have minds like sewers, don't they? 8(8-))
-
A child in a top and bottom is not half naked , disgusting thoughts on here
And it did need to be as it was on the night to jog memories its not rocket science
My niece claims she doesn't feel the cold at all and often where's clothes that I consider inappropriate for the weather. I often say "what are you doing wandering around half naked".
Claiming that that statement is a 'disgusting thought' is ridiculous!
These images were put together by the McCanns private detectives ?
( I assumed Scotland Yard had done them recently )
Why didn't the McCanns show them to the public ?
I wonder how recently JT's sighting was discredited? If Smithman is now the abductor, how long has this info been sat on?
My own little musing is this:
I'm probably reading way too much in to this, but in the last couple of interviews with DCI Redwood he's said things like 'Madeleine is at the centre of this investigation' and 'we need a result for Madeleine'.
Obviously that's as it should be, but aren't these kind of statement usually for up with ...'and her family'?
-
Some people have minds like sewers, don't they? 8(8-))
I think some people like to make anything done for madeleine search sound worse .
-
My niece claims she doesn't feel the cold at all and often where's clothes that I consider inappropriate for the weather. I often say "what are you doing wandering around half naked".
Claiming that that statement is a 'disgusting thought' is ridiculous!
I wonder how recently JT's sighting was discredited? If Smithman is now the abductor, how long has this info been sat on?
My own little musing is this:
I'm probably reading way too much in to this, but in the last couple of interviews with DCI Redwood he's said things like 'Madeleine is at the centre of this investigation' and 'we need a result for Madeleine'.
Obviously that's as it should be, but aren't these kind of statement usually for up with ...'and her family'?
A bit OTT, but hey, any stick will do
-
These images were put together by the McCanns private detectives ?
( I assumed Scotland Yard had done them recently )
Why didn't the McCanns show them to the public ?
Alot of people assumed that...also that one had been age progressed! ..Jon Snow on C4 news yesterday said SY came across them in the PI files where they had been laying for five years..and had not been passed to the PJ.....programme may be on c4 on demand
Jumping back to the SYman I find it amazing that Redwood said the pyjamas which the two year old was wearing at the time bore an uncanny similarity to the ones Madeleine was wearing...this whilst showing a wooly long sleeved orange top and bright blue bottoms with pink flowers and a thick orange stripe....plus what looks like a white blanket by them??what was that about....
Its on the CW video around 22 mins , Ive stuck it in the video library
-
There seems to be a lot of news,is there anywhere I could watch last nights crime watch program, i missed it.
-
There seems to be a lot of news,is there anywhere I could watch last nights crime watch program, i missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJwns_MTok
With thanks to Sadie on another thread.
Welcome by the way ?{)(**
-
The pros really must learn to listen. Redwood didn't say that Tannerman or bundleman was eliminated from the investigation. He didn't have to fill in all the gaps for us to be able to read between the lines.
The British tourist only thought it might have been him, he was in no way certain. If Redwood was 100% sure of this if would have come across in the show. All we are left with now is even more questions and uncertainties.
I personally feel that SY are walking a very fine line by promoting a theory on the basis of a maybe or a possibly.
-
Whats a pro? Professional?
He wanted us to think it was him he was wearing the brown shoes beige trousers and blue jacket
-
The pros really must learn to listen. Redwood didn't say that Tannerman or bundleman was eliminated from the investigation. He didn't have to fill in all the gaps for us to be able to read between the lines.
The British tourist only thought it might have been him, he was in no way certain. If Redwood was 100% sure of this if would have come across in the show. All we are left with his us even more questions.
If Redwood wasn't sure of the man's identity as Tannerman why mention him at all?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJwns_MTok
With thanks to Sadie on another thread.
Welcome by the way ?{)(**
Thank you much appreciated*
-
I went to the trouble to transcribe exactly what Redwood said....
From Redwood talking about the crèche....
"Eight families had left 11 children in there and one particular family we spoke to gave us information which was really interesting and exciting, in fact I would say it was a revelation moment when having discussed with them what they were doing on the night they themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting."
A could be was ... A REVELATION MOMENT!
Isn't that what the show was billed on?
Why didn't he get Tanner to identify him or has she failed to do so?
-
I went to the trouble to transcribe exactly what Redwood said....
From Redwood talking about the crèche....
"Eight families had left 11 children in there and one particular family we spoke to gave us information which was really interesting and exciting, in fact I would say it was a revelation moment when having discussed with them what they were doing on the night they themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting."
A could be was ... A REVELATION MOMENT!
Isn't that what the show was billed on?
Why didn't he get Tanner to identify him or has she failed to do so?
He's said a lot more than that today. He's said it's compelling and they believe confidently the man can be eliminated.
-
There seems to be a lot of news,is there anywhere I could watch last nights crime watch program, i missed it.
Welcome pinkblossoms.
-
LMAO at this "bash amarals detective work" thread.
How can we be sure that SY are not telling porkies about debunking Tanners bundle man?
Seems a bit convenient that this man finally comes forward anonymously in what is the most high profile 'alleged child abduction' case.
Do people seriously still think bundle man exists?
Or are SY perhaps playing Tanner at her own game, knowing that her sighting was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real sighting which is provided by independent witnesses, and possibly implicates her friend Gerry.
i think that you have summed it up perfectly.
How can we be sure of anything? Probably best to stop all the wild speculation and false presumptions.
-
I agree we cannot hypothetico-deduce the quality of the investigation through the CW show.
The number of e-fits and the call for more suspects could be a trick to protect Madeleine as they in fact know who is Mr Right but haven't been able to locate him.
But was it necessary to say Mr Innocent was coming from the creche ? And was it necessary to exhibit a map with flushing flags as if his route was the normal one ? Must people be cheated to react the right way ? Or the less they know the better ?
It is a bit of a mystery, I would certainly agree.
TBH one of the most striking features of the programme was the speed with which the information was presented. Most of it concerned itself with a kind of mini emotional odyssey of he McCanns. The 'factual' part, to which members of the public are being asked to repond, went very very quickly. Many suspects / POIs and their whereabouts were listed in quick succession in a very short space of time.
I find it hard to imagine that someone unfiliar with the minutiae of the case would even register that the man formerly known as bundleman (!), appearing in the filmed part of the piece, was walking in the opposite direction from the crèche, depicted on the map with a flashing light. It all went too fast.
That 'anomaly' interests us, but maybe SY are hoping that the average viewer will gloss over it.
-
Speed, yes, seemed to be part of the operation.
2 or 3 images of the man's face (not like the e-fit), devastated, with the little head against his neck, that's all I recall.
The answer is there : a tsunami of calls and e-mails flowing at the speed of a galloping horse!
They'll examine them carefully one by one, waiting for the HO to say "now stop it, money box's empty".
-
Have you revised your theory in light of the fact that Jane Tanner saw an innocent man ?
You have not been reading my posts properly Icabod. Suggest you do that before making facetious comments.
-
What I found odd about the man who supposedly came forward is; are we really supposed to believe that he managed to remember the detail of his now 8/9 year old daughter's pyjamas and then miraculously pulled them out of an old drawer 6.5 years later for the PJ to photograph? Also, if this father has such detailed memory of his and his daughter’s clothing on that particular night – then surely he should 100% have recognised himself and his daughter from the media at the time, so why didn’t he come forward? That aside, surely every male tourist would have packed at least one pair of cream/beige trousers and a darker jumper/jacket for such a holiday- it not as though his outfit was astonishing in how closely it matched - they are pretty standard items…... I felt it was more like `'hey it could have been me and I am sure I could have worn a similar outfit one of the evenings`'. Additionally, although the man's face was obscured his hair just looked plain peculiar - like he was either in a wig or had a load of gel in it. Everything just felt contrived and too easy - I just dont buy it.
-
What I found odd about the man who supposedly came forward is; are we really supposed to believe that he managed to remember the detail of his now 8/9 year old daughter's pyjamas and then miraculously pulled them out of an old drawer 6.5 years later for the PJ to photograph? Also, if this father has such detailed memory of his and his daughter’s clothing on that particular night – then surely he should 100% have recognised himself and his daughter from the media at the time, so why didn’t he come forward? That aside, surely every male tourist would have packed at least one pair of cream/beige trousers and a darker jumper/jacket for such a holiday- it not as though his outfit was astonishing in how closely it matched - they are pretty standard items…... I felt it was more like `'hey it could have been me and I am sure I could have worn a similar outfit one of the evenings`'. Additionally, although the man's face was obscured his hair just looked plain peculiar - like he was either in a wig or had a load of gel in it. Everything just felt contrived and too easy - I just dont buy it.
Maybe the fact that he remembered these details, and managed to produce the pyjamas intact, points to him having been interviewed years ago..?
-
The pros really must learn to listen. Redwood didn't say that Tannerman or bundleman was eliminated from the investigation. He didn't have to fill in all the gaps for us to be able to read between the lines.
The British tourist only thought it might have been him, he was in no way certain. If Redwood was 100% sure of this if would have come across in the show. All we are left with now is even more questions and uncertainties.
I personally feel that SY are walking a very fine line by promoting a theory on the basis of a maybe or a possibly.
Well initially i couldn't understand the vagueness in Redwood's "might have been him" coupled with the certainty with which he had eliminated him from the inquiry despite the fact that his route should have taken him the other way from where Jane said she saw bundleman.
Also added to that the nagging doubts about Tanner's sighting, what with Gerry & Jez not seeing her nor this man and the incorrect positioning on the street etc.
Having thought about it the only conclusion i can draw which makes sense of all these variables is that Tanner did in fact see this man at some point during the night but not at her 9:10 check and not going across the top of the road then in that direction.
She was going backwards and forwards during the night to the apartment so I'm now reasonably certain she did see this man, but i don't believe at that time, nor walking in that direction.
Perhaps SY have also spoken with Jane and she "mis-remembered" in her previous statements and was given an opportunity to correct her previous statements.
It's the only conclusion i can draw from these disparate and random elements.
-
Theres statements from a couple of tourists who say they took their child in their pyjamas to the night creche, and stay until they were settled/ready to sleep, Id imagine it was the procedure
In answer to the OP, if seems bizarre that this man was returning from the creche...looks like he would have done an almost 360 degree way around to his flat
I see the reconstruction showed both Gerry and Jez on the right hand side of the road opposie to both Jez and Janes statements and opposite Gerry Mccanns joint group statement
>@@(*&)
It also showed bundleman carrying the child with her feet to his left, opposite the known sketch/statement
I wonder if Tanner misremembered the direction...what if he was going from right to left, that would explain the route home from the creche and the feet on the other side....just a couple of random thoughts there
Jane Tanner's description of the man and child (at least, the pyjamas of the child) seems to be uncannily similar to the picture released by SY of the man they have eliminated, though, doesn't it?
It seems to me that her description of 'bundleman' was very accurate, despite the fact that she saw him fleetingly in the dark, and would not have been cognisant of his significance for the case at the time she noted him.
It would seem strange for her to have remembered him in the detail she did, yet forget or get confused about the direction he was going in.
Also regarding the direction of walking, she states clearly several times that his hair was 'long to the neck'. Given that she was walking up the left hand side of the road as she walked towards the apartments, and 'bundleman' was supposed to have been crossing the road from the left hand corner, she would indeed have had a view of the back of his head as he walked over the road. This is what she reported.
If he had been walking in the other direction, coming towards apartment 5A, it would have been his face that she would have seen more of as he walked across to the left hand pavement, towards her viewpoint.
These two things - the fact that she was reasonably accurate in the rest of her description of him, and the fact that she describes the back of him rather than his face and front - suggest to me that he was indeed walking in the direction she suggests.
-
It would seem strange for her to have remembered him in the detail she did
in the detail ?
Isn't it clear that the lack of face wasn't due to an alleged lack of software ?
-
Jane Tanner's description of the man and child (at least, the pyjamas of the child) seems to be uncannily similar to the picture released by SY of the man they have eliminated, though, doesn't it?
It seems to me that her description of 'bundleman' was very accurate, despite the fact that she saw him fleetingly in the dark, and would not have been cognisant of his significance for the case at the time she noted him.
It would seem strange for her to have remembered him in the detail she did, yet forget or get confused about the direction he was going in.
Also regarding the direction of walking, she states clearly several times that his hair was 'long to the neck'. Given that she was walking up the left hand side of the road as she walked towards the apartments, and 'bundleman' was supposed to have been crossing the road from the left hand corner, she would indeed have had a view of the back of his head as he walked over the road. This is what she reported.
If he had been walking in the other direction, coming towards apartment 5A, it would have been his face that she would have seen more of as he walked across to the left hand pavement, towards her viewpoint.
These two things - the fact that she was reasonably accurate in the rest of her description of him, and the fact that she describes the back of him rather than his face and front - suggest to me that he was indeed walking in the direction she suggests.
I have to admit that I'm very impressed with Bundleman's memory! I can't remember which Pj's my son's wore on the 3rd of May 2007, or on their birthdays or Christmases if you'd rather a date that should mean something to me.
Since SY were able to provide a picture of them, I guess they're still being made too.
-
I have to admit that I'm very impressed with Bundleman's memory! I can't remember which Pj's my son's wore on the 3rd of May 2007, or on their birthdays or Christmases if you'd rather a date that should mean something to me.
Since SY were able to provide a picture of them, I guess they're still being made too.
Maybe there were photographs or a video of that holiday showing the little girl in her jimjams. A holiday is a time when lots of piccies are taken.
-
Maybe there were photographs or a video of that holiday showing the little girl in her jimjams. A holiday is a time when lots of piccies are taken.
In most families, certainly.
-
I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3359/ju52.jpg)
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg)
What has still not been satisfactorily answered for me is why ex-bundleman was seen going towards rather than away from the creche. Even Matthew Amroliwala was filmed in PdL walking in the same easterly direction and also distinctly stated that the father had collected his 2 yr. old daughter from the creche (in the SE).
-
I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3359/ju52.jpg)
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg)
What has still not been satisfactorily answered for me is why ex-bundleman was seen going towards rather than away from the creche. Even Matthew Amroliwala was filmed in PdL walking in the same easterly direction and also distinctly stated that the father had collected his 2 yr. old daughter from the creche (in the SE).
Maybe he took a wrong turn and needed to turn around, maybe he fancied a longer walk, maybe Jane got the direction wrong. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that the investigation team have eliminated that lead.
-
I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top[/b] were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).
snip....
Well that makes sense. It's jolly lucky that Innocentman kept those ripped and soiled PJ's for 6 years!
-
Well that makes sense. It's jolly lucky that Innocentman kept those ripped and soiled PJ's for 6 years!
Yes, how convenient, if SY didn't photograph these manky 6 year old PJ's recently, then one can only assume the father likes to keep a photographic account of his childrens clothes, a very strange hobby indeed.
-
Maybe he took a wrong turn and needed to turn around, maybe he fancied a longer walk, maybe Jane got the direction wrong. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that the investigation team have eliminated that lead.
I'm not so sure about Jane Tanner getting his direction wrong, she saw Gerry chatting on the right (and didn't have to cha-cha round them as Pat Brown blogged) and saw the father's right side not left at the top of the road.
Longer walk... with a heavy 2yr. old ?
If Redwood had said exactly where the father was going, say for example to an apartment to the east of 5a, instead of giving a wishy-washy answer then it might have satisfied us inquisitive types, but as it was for consumption by the general public who don't follow the case, I guess it doesn't matter.
-
Well that makes sense. It's jolly lucky that Innocentman kept those ripped and soiled PJ's for 6 years!
The jimjams have been photographed on some laminatae floor, with a white blanket next to them....if he kept them all these years, you never know, some families keep clothes to hand down to younger kids, and made a photo of them for SY why is the blanket included? Jane Tanner said he didnt have one....or is it an old photo, aka like ones you take for ebay to sell your stuff on, odd
sherlock, post 137 thanks.....
-
The jimjams have been photographed on some laminatae floor, with a white blanket next to them....if he kept them all these years, you never know, some families keep clothes to hand down to younger kids, and made a photo of them for SY why is the blanket included? Jane Tanner said he didnt have one....or is it an old photo, aka like ones you take for ebay to sell your stuff on, odd
sherlock, post 137 thanks.....
for sale! one pair of ruined girls pajamas size 2/3 years! could possibly be passed of as Bundlemans daughter in a poor light!* Ruffles not included*
-
Must have gone unsold and relisted thousands of times over six years ! 8(8-))
-
Oh cariad/myster dont dare joke.....
its proof you are laughing at a missing girl and nothing else! You will get castigated!
@)(++(*
The pyjama thing is wierd IMO on a couple levels....
Anyway the position of Innocentman after collecting his two yr old from the creche ......could it be explained rationally in some way?
The PJ files contain details of all MW guests and the age of their children, there are only a few people this could be and their apartment blocks documented...there may be a reason he was seen carrying his child that direction that no one has thought of....
-
for sale! one pair of ruined girls pajamas size 2/3 years! could possibly be passed of as Bundlemans daughter in a poor light!* Ruffles not included*
PMSL 8@??)(
-
I think the photos of the girl's original pyjama pants and top were either provided by the father, or taken by SY.
The orange top looks soiled around the sides and torn along the bottom, (or that could be a belt).
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3359/ju52.jpg)
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8428/7bs2.jpg)
What has still not been satisfactorily answered for me is why ex-bundleman was seen going towards rather than away from the creche. Even Matthew Amroliwala was filmed in PdL walking in the same easterly direction and also distinctly stated that the father had collected his 2 yr. old daughter from the creche (in the SE).
I can't imagine that SY will have overlooked that major point Myster - I can only assume the father was able to give a reason why he was walking in that direction - which SY obviously found credible - otherwise I do not see how they could claim that it was 'highly compelling' that this was the man JT saw, and who they know was not the abductor.
-
I don't know about everyone else but there are issues here which I find troubling. Jane might not have picked up on every detail relating to bundleman but the ones she did are quite specific.
What happened to the frills on the bottom of the pyjamas?
Why was he moving from west to east when the crèche was to the south?
Why after all the anguish that Jane has put herself through these last 6 years did he not speak to the Met long before now?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00648/news-graphics-2007-_648894a.jpg)
The man was described as moving with a 'sense of urgency'
This is the first detailed artist's impression of the man seen by a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann carrying a young child on the night Madeleine disappeared.
The drawing by a British artist commissioned by the McCanns was released by a Spanish television channel 176 days after the four-year-old went missing from Praia da Luz.
It shows the side-view of a faceless man in a dark jacket, beige trousers and collar-length hair carrying a small child. A pair of legs in pink and white pyjamas can clearly be seen and what appears to be a pink child’s blanket covering the upper part of the body.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567254/Madeleine-McCann-First-drawing-of-abductor.html
-
Apart from the JT sighting the SY appeal didn't really have anything which was 'new'.... As we all know, SY are also very well known for spending hours strategising the best way to put various information true/false into the public domain for operational purposes and on that basis - the way the they ruling out the JT sighting 'fell' into place a little too neatly for me.... It just feels like the elephant in the room but I keep wondering why - could it be that they have someone in the frame who fits the sighting and they want to throw them off or are they planning to arrest someone who does not match the JT sighting and they don't want to have it haunting them? I obviously don't know the answers - but I look forward to understanding what the investigative logic is behind all of this is, because there must be more to it than meets the eye.
-
Ms Tanner saw no blanket, but thought the top of the pyjama was pinkish.
-
I don't know about everyone else but there are issues here which I find troubling. Jane might not have picked up on every detail relating to bundleman but the ones she did are quite specific.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00648/news-graphics-2007-_648894a.jpg)
The man was described as moving with a 'sense of urgency'
It shows the side-view of a faceless man in a dark jacket, beige trousers and collar-length hair carrying a small child. A pair of legs in pink and white pyjamas can clearly be seen and what appears to be a pink child’s blanket covering the upper part of the body.[/b]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567254/Madeleine-McCann-First-drawing-of-abductor.html
I don't think that is supposed to be a pink blanket John, I think it's a 'blanked out' spot - to indicate that JT could not describe that part of the child's body - in a similar way to how the man's face is blanked out.
-
There's an interesting analysis of the sketch compared to the pyjamas exhibited by the McCanns as equal in mccannfiles.
-
The reference to the blanket was from the Belfast Telegraph article dated October 2007.
That said, am I right in thinking that it actually was the orange cardigan she saw depicted in Mysters photo? I assume the colour discrepancy can be put down to the sodium yellow street lamps?
-
The reference to the blanket was from the Belfast Telegraph article dated October 2007.
That said, am I right in thinking that it actually was the orange cardigan she saw depicted in Mysters photo? I assume the colour discrepancy can be put down to the sodium yellow street lamps?
This lamp would have made the pink pyjamas look orange.
What is the most obvious in those pants ? Isn't it the orange band at the bottom ?
-
I don't know about everyone else but there are issues here which I find troubling. Jane might not have picked up on every detail relating to bundleman but the ones she did are quite specific.
What happened to the frills on the bottom of the pyjamas?
Why was he moving from west to east when the crèche was to the south?
Why after all the anguish that Jane has put herself through these last 6 years did he not speak to the Met long before now?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00648/news-graphics-2007-_648894a.jpg)
The man was described as moving with a 'sense of urgency'
This is the first detailed artist's impression of the man seen by a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann carrying a young child on the night Madeleine disappeared.
The drawing by a British artist commissioned by the McCanns was released by a Spanish television channel 176 days after the four-year-old went missing from Praia da Luz.
It shows the side-view of a faceless man in a dark jacket, beige trousers and collar-length hair carrying a small child. A pair of legs in pink and white pyjamas can clearly be seen and what appears to be a pink child’s blanket covering the upper part of the body.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567254/Madeleine-McCann-First-drawing-of-abductor.html
Do we know John when it was that this man came forward or was contacted? Did the PJ investigate the parents whose children were at the creche? Is there any record of this?
Perhaps he came forward early on in the investigation and his significance was missed, though this is admittedly hard to imagine. Given that the PJ wanted to rule out abduction as a theory, a positive identification of innocent bundleman would have helped in this.
-
3407 to 3409 Officer's report re:2007.11.05 visit to Wilkins and O'Donnell:
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.
Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
-
3407 to 3409 Officer's report re:2007.11.05 visit to Wilkins and O'Donnell:
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one. He also stated that he did not see or hear anyone to his right. He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.
Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
I've never read that before, thanks for finding it pathfinder
It's not the only time witnesses have been approached by people empoyed by the McCanns, but this is the only time, as far as I am aware, that a witness was pestered by Gerry himself
-
I think JT did see the abductor.
It was probably over in minutes.
I just find it strange that with the Night time Creche being East of 5A the Met would say the person JT saw was coming from that Creche.
-
Given that the PJ wanted to rule out abduction as a theory, a positive identification of innocent bundleman would have helped in this.
No, SH, the PJ didn't want to rule out abduction, on the contrary they were desperately searching for evidence of it, simply because it was the only politically correct thesis.
-
It would be good to see if anyone recognises or can find the make of the pj bottoms - it looks like the top is not necessarily part of the same set - and I wonder if the top has been "de-stressed' to give the impression that they are older than they really are. It would be interesting if one found they were from a range done in the last year or so.....
-
It would be good to see if anyone recognises or can find the make of the pj bottoms - it looks like the top is not necessarily part of the same set - and I wonder if the top has been "de-stressed' to give the impression that they are older than they really are. It would be interesting if one found they were from a range done in the last year or so.....
Interesting point, kmc, will get the Baker Street Irregulars to go out for a scout
-
Interesting point, kmc, will get the Baker Street Irregulars to go out for a scout
What about sending the Irregulars on the trail of Innocentman ? He's one of the guests, his daughter was in the JellyFish group and there's a detail about him that could help.
-
It would be good to see if anyone recognises or can find the make of the pj bottoms - it looks like the top is not necessarily part of the same set - and I wonder if the top has been "de-stressed' to give the impression that they are older than they really are. It would be interesting if one found they were from a range done in the last year or so.....
Yeah, I thought that too! A brief Google search didn't produce anything, but then again, I'm no Sherlock! ?{)(**
-
To add another layer to this cornucopia of coincidences, it seems Martiin Smith's sighting was wearing almost identical clothing to Innocentman. This is from his statement to the gardai :
'I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10” in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. '
Curiouser and curiouser.
-
I think JT did see the abductor.
It was probably over in minutes.
I just find it strange that with the Night time Creche being East of 5A the Met would say the person JT saw was coming from that Creche.
Something even stranger. Why would a child who had been in the creche, for even a short time, not have been wearing anything on her feet? Surely she would have been playing, and not put straight in a bed!
-
just what i said erlier on another thread.....
Now OK within the click of a finger the 9 15 sighting doesn't fit ....ye right if a child was lifted from a bed in a hurry accectable to be dressed in only pyjamas ....
but comeeee onnnnn not when picked up from a creche in the cold of night carried in that position[not snuggled up to his body] wearing no coat ..................or shoes/slippers
-
Something even stranger. Why would a child who had been in the creche, for even a short time, not have been wearing anything on her feet? Surely she would have been playing, and not put straight in a bed!
Yes. May be Innocentman was in a hurry and put the slippers in his pocket. I'm sure I read somewhere that the creche provided blankets.
-
Yes. May be Innocentman was in a hurry and put the slippers in his pocket. I'm sure I read somewhere that the creche provided blankets.
Given how windy Kate has since told us it was that night, maybe one of these freak gusts of wind happened to blow innocent bundlemans childs slippers off.
-
Given how windy Kate has since told us it was that night, maybe one of these freak gusts of wind happened to blow innocent bundlemans childs slippers off.
Nice to see you think its so funny.
-
Given how windy Kate has since told us it was that night, maybe one of these freak gusts of wind happened to blow innocent bundlemans childs slippers off.
Does DCI Redwood say explicitly that Innocentman's daughter was barefoot ? There are images of carried legs, but do they represent what Ms Tanner saw or what Innocentman carried ?
-
Does DCI Redwood say explicitly that Innocentman's daughter was barefoot ? There are images of carried legs, but do they represent what Ms Tanner saw or what Innocentman carried ?
Well if innocent man's child was wearing shoes, then he wasn't bundleman ... Jane Tanner was very specific that the child she saw was barefoot
I agree with posters who are doubtful about the apparent suggestion that a child was taken to the creche barefoot
-
Maybe the child fell asleep at the creche and the shoes were taken off.
-
To add another layer to this cornucopia of coincidences, it seems Martiin Smith's sighting was wearing almost identical clothing to Innocentman. This is from his statement to the gardai :
'I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10” in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. '
Curiouser and curiouser.
Very curious, Faithlilly.
Is it possible that they somehow could actually have been the same person ?
-
Very curious, Faithlilly.
Is it possible that they somehow could actually have been the same person ?
Only if he had stopped off at some late night barber for a trim - one is described as having long hair, the other short hair.
-
Only if he had stopped off at some late night barber for a trim - one is described as having long hair, the other short hair.
Well, Jane saw him mainly from the back, and the Smiths from the front, so there could have been a discrepancy as regards the account of the hair on the back of the head.
Most of the other details - and there are quite a few - are uncannily similar, so much so that many people believed these two sightings to have been of the same person, despite the highly problematic time frame.
-
many people believed these two sightings to have been of the same person, despite the highly problematic time frame.
Most people ignore the existence of the second sighting, SH, see the rare articles on that topic, two or three in Portugal and in Ireland at the time. And the PJ never believed it could be the same person.
-
Maybe the child fell asleep at the creche and the shoes were taken off.
If that was the case, wouldn't the father be carrying them.
Martin Smith says
He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
Bit of a contradiction here.
"He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed".
How would he see her eyelids were closed, if she was carried in the way he says?
-
Well, Jane saw him mainly from the back, and the Smiths from the front, so there could have been a discrepancy as regards the account of the hair on the back of the head.
Most of the other details - and there are quite a few - are uncannily similar, so much so that many people believed these two sightings to have been of the same person, despite the highly problematic time frame.
Surly Innocentman would've mentioned to Sy that he was also Smithman though? unless you're saying that Innocentman is Smithman but not Budleman as Sy believe?
-
Well, Jane saw him mainly from the back, and the Smiths from the front, so there could have been a discrepancy as regards the account of the hair on the back of the head.
Most of the other details - and there are quite a few - are uncannily similar, so much so that many people believed these two sightings to have been of the same person, despite the highly problematic time frame.
Neither of the two recent - I hesitate to say new - e-fits show men with short hair, which is a definite conflict with Tannerman. She made very definite efforts to emphasise that his hair was long at the back.
-
She made very definite efforts to emphasise that his hair was long at the back.
Yes, this and the naked feet were Ms Tanner's first observations.
Innocentman, in CW video, has short in the neck, curly and dark hair.
-
Surly Innocentman would've mentioned to Sy that he was also Smithman though? unless you're saying that Innocentman is Smithman but not Budleman as Sy believe?
Or that the account of his movements Innocentman gave to SY is not correct...
-
Or that the account of his movements Innocentman gave to SY is not correct...
Are you suggesting that innocent man, who has been identified and spoken to by Scotland Yard, is 'in the frame' as a possible abductor ?
-
If that was the case, wouldn't the father be carrying them.
Martin Smith says
He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
Bit of a contradiction here.
"He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed".
How would he see her eyelids were closed, if she was carried in the way he says?
Perhaps he is inferring from the way her body is falling against the man's that she is asleep.
Thinking again about the shoes, it would be unusual to be wearing shoes with pyjamas, so quite unlikely that they were taken off at the creche. Unless the child went to the creche fully clothed, got tired, and was changed into pyjamas before being put in a bed there.
-
("He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed".
How would he see her eyelids were closed, if she was carried in the way he says?)
I thought he said that her head was resting on Smithman's left shoulder so why couldn't he see her eyes as they passed each other in a narrow street? He may have glanced straight back as they passed and saw her eyes closed.
-
Are you suggesting that innocent man, who has been identified and spoken to by Scotland Yard, is 'in the frame' as a possible abductor ?
No, in fact I think that, as far as a working hypothesis goes, we have to accept that SY have good reason for having ruled bundleman out as an abductor - frustrating as it is for us that we haven't been given the reason.
I am trying to make sense of the fact that the respective descriptions of Smithman and former bundleman are uncannily similar.
If bundleman is innocent, and Smithman is also innocent, that means that there were two innocent men walking around PdL whose descriptions were very similar and whose children were very similar. In addition to all those similarities, there is a similarity in the relationship between these men and police: one of them appears to have been exceptionally tardy in coming forward to police, and another has not come forward at all. SO many similarities. Perhaps Smithman and innocentman are in fact the same person, and for some reason innocentman wants to leave the Rua Escola part of his wanderings that night out of his account. Just because his story, as he gave it to SY, is considered substantial enough for him to be ruled out as Madeleine's abductor, doesn't mean that every part of it is true.
-
("He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed".
How would he see her eyelids were closed, if she was carried in the way he says?)
I thought he said that her head was resting on Smithman's left shoulder so why couldn't he see her eyes as they passed each other in a narrow street? He may have glanced straight back as they passed and saw her eyes closed.
I've always assumed that she had the side of her head resting against his shoulder, in which case he could have seen that one eye was closed.
Did Mr Smith pass to the right or the left of the man ? If she was lying with her left cheek against the shoulder and he passed by the left hand side of the man, then he could have had a good view of her face
-
Supposing a second that Innocentman could be Smithman is having time and energy in excess.
It should be enough to reckon that Innocentman has a dark curly hair, Smithman hasn't.
-
Supposing a second that Innocentman could be Smithman is having time and energy in excess.
It should be enough to reckon that Innocentman has a dark curly hair, Smithman hasn't.
As I said before, the hair was seen from different angles by Jane and the Smiths, so it's not surprising that the descriptions would be different.
The overall picture of man with child was very similar in both accounts.
-
As I said before, the hair was seen from different angles by Jane and the Smiths, so it's not surprising that the descriptions would be different.
The overall picture of man with child was very similar in both accounts.
But Scotland Yard have virtually eliminated bundleman, whilst simultaneously stressing the importance of identifying Smithman
Do you believe Redwood and his investigation are so inept they failed to establish that bundleman and Smithman were one and the same ?
-
But Scotland Yard have virtually eliminated bundleman, whilst simultaneously stressing the importance of identifying Smithman
Yes, I think this elimination is more a study hypothesis than a definitive elimination. Logically they should now interview the Smith family. I wonder why they exhibited those inexpressive e-fits instead of trying to get new properly made e-fits. Of course it would be difficult for Mr Smith to discriminate between a probably indistinct memory and Mr McCann's face.
-
But Scotland Yard have virtually eliminated bundleman, whilst simultaneously stressing the importance of identifying Smithman
Do you believe Redwood and his investigation are so inept they failed to establish that bundleman and Smithman were one and the same ?
Until Smithman decides to identify himself it is hard to say. Perhaps bundleman was up to something that night that he didn't want to share with the police and only gave them half a story.
The other possibilities, as we have been over, are that Smithman is another innocent father or carer - who just so happens to look very like bundleman and shares his recalcitrance about talking to police, despite the fact that six years in an tragic and high-profile case have gone by, and SY have now angled the lens of the world's media towards him. Strange behaviour to say the least.
And Smithman could of course be the abductor - who just happens to bear an uncanny resemblance to an innocent man walking around PdL that evening.
-
Yes, I think this elimination is more a study hypothesis than a definitive elimination. Logically they should now interview the Smith family. I wonder why they exhibited those inexpressive e-fits instead of trying to get new properly made e-fits. Of course it would be difficult for Mr Smith to discriminate between a probably indistinct memory and Mr McCann's face.
Considering that Gerry McCann looks like Mr Nobody.
-
Until Smithman decides to identify himself it is hard to say. Perhaps bundleman was up to something that night that he didn't want to share with the police and only gave them half a story.
The other possibilities, as we have been over, are that Smithman is another innocent father or carer - who just so happens to look very like bundleman and shares his recalcitrance about talking to police, despite the fact that six years in an tragic and high-profile case have gone by, and SY have now angled the lens of the world's media towards him. Strange behaviour to say the least.
And Smithman could of course be the abductor - who just happens to bear an uncanny resemblance to an innocent man walking around PdL that evening.
I feel that allowing for the possibility that innocent man was 'up to something' that night is stretching credibility
It is an unecessary and entirely unsupported complication
Scotland Yard have eliminated innocent man, and not eliminated Smithman
I think we must accept, therefore, that they were two different men ... as have Scotlant Yard, following a two and a half year investigation
If we do not, then this becomes a debate about Andy Redwood's and Scotland Yard's competence
-
I feel that allowing for the possibility that innocent man was 'up to something' that night is stretching credibility
It is an unecessary and entirely unsupported complication
Scotland Yard have eliminated innocent man, and not eliminated Smithman
I think we must accept, therefore, that they were two different men ... as have Scotlant Yard, following a two and a half year investigation
If we do not, then this becomes a debate about Andy Redwood's and Scotland Yard's competence
then this becomes a debate about Andy Redwood's and Scotland Yard's competence, & we wouldn't want to open that can of worms.
-
I feel that allowing for the possibility that innocent man was 'up to something' that night is stretching credibility
It is an unecessary and entirely unsupported complication
Scotland Yard have eliminated innocent man, and not eliminated Smithman
I think we must accept, therefore, that they were two different men ... as have Scotlant Yard, following a two and a half year investigation
If we do not, then this becomes a debate about Andy Redwood's and Scotland Yard's competence
I agree with you in principle, icabod. I'm just being pedantic about the possibilities that do exist.
I believe on the whole that whether we like it or not, we have to assume that SY had good reason to have ruled bundleman out of their investigation, and work with that, whether we are a hundred per cent comfortable with it or not.
It is indeed possible that if there was one man walking around with a child who was completely unconnected to the disappearance, there could be another.
Can we nonetheless look at the more practical question then of why Smithman still appears to be reluctant to come forward after all this time, and in the light of SY's current focus on him?
-
I agree with you in principle, icabod. I'm just being pedantic about the possibilities that do exist.
I believe on the whole that whether we like it or not, we have to assume that SY had good reason to have ruled bundleman out of their investigation, and work with that, whether we are a hundred per cent comfortable with it or not.
It is indeed possible that if there was one man walking around with a child who was completely unconnected to the disappearance, there could be another.
Can we nonetheless look at the more practical question then of why Smithman still appears to be reluctant to come forward after all this time, and in the light of SY's current focus on him?
A good reason, but which one ? Some kind of resolution after two years and a half of vain attempt to make one in two ?
There's a considerable difference between Tannerman and Smithman. If the first can eventually become Innocentman, Smithman wasn't alone. There was a discernible little girl with him. How could he become Innocentman 2 ?
-
With bundleman no longer a factor the biggest question this now raises is whether SY are satisfied that Gerry can be ruled out as Smithman.
-
With bundleman no longer a factor the biggest question this now raises is whether SY are satisfied that Gerry can be ruled out as Smithman.
Can they do that with absolute certainty in the absence of conclusively identifying Smithman ?
-
Not wanting to be pessimistic, "uma pulga atrás da orelha" ( a little flea behind my hear) tells me that in a few weeks time either another innocent parent ( a dead predator would imply the Smith's perjuring themselves) appears to fit the Smith's sighting or it will remain forever the "monster" that took a little girl and nobody can find.
-
If Gerry's alibi is solid then I can't believe the Smith family saw Maddie. What kind of planned abduction involves carrying a child across a town in full view of the world? The only way I see it being Maddie is if she wandered out of the apartment and was grabbed by chance.
-
With bundleman no longer a factor the biggest question this now raises is whether SY are satisfied that Gerry can be ruled out as Smithman.
Gerry has already been ruled out by SY
quote
''Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
DCI REDWOOD
End quote.
That statement by the Head of the investigation couldn't possibly be any more crystal clear and unambiguous if it tried IMO.
So what part of it is so difficult to understand? I don't get it.
-
Gerry has already been ruled out by SY
quote
''Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
DCI REDWOOD
End quote.
That statement by the Head of the investigation couldn't possibly be any more crystal clear and unambiguous if it tried IMO.
So what part of it is so difficult to understand? I don't get it.
things change - and I wouldn't expect the police to tell us if they had
-
I certainly intend to reserve judgement until someone is charged and convicted over Madeleine's disappearance.
-
things change - and I wouldn't expect the police to tell us if they had
SY certainly would not make a public statement like that if it was not their official stance.
They would have made no comment at all, or made a general statement intimating that 'Nothing/no-one had been ruled out'.
It's obvious the McCanns and their friends would have been thoroughly investigated by SY - before such a statement could be made. And it's just as obvious by that statement what conclusions they arrived at.
AIMHO
-
If Gerry's alibi is solid then I can't believe the Smith family saw Maddie. What kind of planned abduction involves carrying a child across a town in full view of the world? The only way I see it being Maddie is if she wandered out of the apartment and was grabbed by chance.
No planned abduction would imply carrying a child through the streets of a touristic village where the chances to meet someone were high. IF, and I stress IF, the child being carried by that man was Madeleine, it could only be explained by an act of desperation.
I understand that the first responders (GNR police) thought the child had walked out of the apartment, but if that had been the case, despite the family had taken almost an hour to call the authorities, the little child would have been found much earlier and the alarm would have been given. After all Praia da Luz was not the Sahara desert, there were people there, plenty of people.
-
No planned abduction would imply carrying a child through the streets of a touristic village where the chances to meet someone were high. IF, and I stress IF, the child being carried by that man was Madeleine, it could only be explained by an act of desperation.
I understand that the first responders (GNR police) thought the child had walked out of the apartment, but if that had been the case, despite the family had taken almost an hour to call the authorities, the little child would have been found much earlier and the alarm would have been given. After all Praia da Luz was not the Sahara desert, there were people there, plenty of people.
This just got me to thinking that there must have been more people than the McCann walking up that street during the crucial time period, as the others who dined at the Tapas would be likely to have gone that way on returning to their apartments. Yet they never saw anyone either, not even any of the McCann group.
-
I feel that allowing for the possibility that innocent man was 'up to something' that night is stretching credibility
It is an unecessary and entirely unsupported complication
Scotland Yard have eliminated innocent man, and not eliminated Smithman
I think we must accept, therefore, that they were two different men ... as have Scotlant Yard, following a two and a half year investigation
If we do not, then this becomes a debate about Andy Redwood's and Scotland Yard's competence
For me Smithman and Innocentman's clothing are too similar for one to be ruled out on that alone. There is something else that has ruled Innocentman out and IMO it could only have come from Tanner.
-
No planned abduction would imply carrying a child through the streets of a touristic village where the chances to meet someone were high. IF, and I stress IF, the child being carried by that man was Madeleine, it could only be explained by an act of desperation.
I understand that the first responders (GNR police) thought the child had walked out of the apartment, but if that had been the case, despite the family had taken almost an hour to call the authorities, the little child would have been found much earlier and the alarm would have been given. After all Praia da Luz was not the Sahara desert, there were people there, plenty of people.
Now that bundeman has virtually been ruled out there could have been a car involved initially - for part of the way. Especially if Madeleine was abducted nearer to 10.00p.m. than previously thought.
Luz, As far as the McCanns knew the police been called soon after Madeleine disappeared - to keep implying that they didn't bother to contact them for almost an hour is untrue and unfair. One reason why Gerry was so frantic about the non arrival of the police - was because he thought they had been phoned much earlier than it later transpired they actually were. There are a couple of receptionist staff witness statements which also intimate that the police were called much earlier than the telephone records later showed.
IMO
-
Gerry has already been ruled out by SY
quote
''Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
DCI REDWOOD
End quote.
That statement by the Head of the investigation couldn't possibly be any more crystal clear and unambiguous if it tried IMO.
So what part of it is so difficult to understand? I don't get it.
No. DCI Redwood can very well say that the TP9 are no persons of interest (for their review), but he can't rule out the AG Report which doesn't rule out the accidental homicide and concealment of body.
-
As far as the McCanns knew the police been called soon after Madeleine disappeared - to keep implying that they didn't bother to contact them for almost an hour is untrue and unfair. One reason why Gerry was so frantic about the non arrival of the police - was because he thought they had been phoned much earlier than it later transpired they actually were. There are a couple of receptionist staff witness statements which also intimate that the police were called much earlier than the telephone records later showed.
IMO
No, Benice, you can't sweep the facts under the carpet.
-
Now that bundeman has virtually been ruled out there could have been a car involved initially - for part of the way. Especially if Madeleine was abducted nearer to 10.00p.m. than previously thought.
A car implies the elimination of Smithman. Wait a year or so and a car could pop up from DCI Redwood's hat.
-
IF, and I stress IF, the child being carried by that man was Madeleine, it could only be explained by an act of desperation.
Yes, not despair, desperation.
-
Without Smithman, there would be nothing tangible left to support the abduction theory.
-
Not wanting to be pessimistic, "uma pulga atrás da orelha" ( a little flea behind my hear) tells me that in a few weeks time either another innocent parent ( a dead predator would imply the Smith's perjuring themselves) appears to fit the Smith's sighting or it will remain forever the "monster" that took a little girl and nobody can find.
Difficultly, Luz, the 9 Smiths saw a father, not a monster.
-
Now that bundeman has virtually been ruled out there could have been a car involved initially - for part of the way. Especially if Madeleine was abducted nearer to 10.00p.m. than previously thought.
Smithman snatches Maddie gets into a car and is dropped off a few hundred yards away then spotted. Of all the theories I've heard this is one of the most unlikely.
-
With bundleman no longer a factor the biggest question this now raises is whether SY are satisfied that Gerry can be ruled out as Smithman.
Yes and that brings back the time-line issue.
-
Difficultly, Luz, the 9 Smiths saw a father, not a monster.
Careful...someone is going to come along and tell you that you are quoting opinion as fact...they're really hot on it
-
Smithman snatches Maddie gets into a car and is dropped off a few hundred yards away then spotted. Of all the theories I've heard this is one of the most unlikely.
Quite. An abductor would only need to walk a few yards and he's in a carpark. No evidence that it happened that way, of course.
-
Difficultly, Luz, the 9 Smiths saw a father, not a monster.
I agree with you Anne.
-
Careful...someone is going to come along and tell you that you are quoting opinion as fact...they're really hot on it
I agree seeing a father is an opinion, let's say they saw a man without any obvious particularity...
-
a planned abduction...lets see
last check 9 15 ....[because surley he was observing]....yet waited till just before 10 pm
the mccs apt was on a main road...[so obviously some kind of trasport ]..no on foot
planned would be ....[to get away asap]....instead walked around a tourist area at one of the busyest times for diners comming or going ..
a planned abduction ....why maddie ...not one of the twins ....
planned by someone ....who seems to be really stupid ....yet how clever ...he did not leave one single bit of evidence not one bit of proof ....all we are being told he left ...is an empty bed....
-
Smithman snatches Maddie gets into a car and is dropped off a few hundred yards away then spotted. Of all the theories I've heard this is one of the most unlikely.
Why is that? Smithman was heading towards the beach according to the Smiths and Amaral. Perhaps, if Madeleine was to be taken out of the country by boat, he had been driven to a pre-arranged hiding place where he had stayed waiting for instructions - - and then having received them - set off to the shore and was spotted by the Smiths. How long would it take him to get to the beach from where the Smiths saw him. Has this ever been calculated?
It's just a theory, but I can't see why it should be ruled out.
Now that the abduction timeline has been extended - and Bundleman discounted there are more possiblities to be explored than before.
-
Why is that? Smithman was heading towards the beach according to the Smiths and Amaral. Perhaps, if Madeleine was to be taken out of the country by boat, he had been driven to a pre-arranged hiding place where he had stayed waiting for instructions - - and then having received them - set off to the shore and was spotted by the Smiths. How long would it take him to get to the beach from where the Smiths saw him. Has this ever been calculated?
It's just a theory, but I can't see why it should be ruled out.
Now that the abduction timeline has been extended - and Bundleman discounted there are more possiblities to be explored than before.
IMO if that was the case ....that he was meeting a boat [say travelled so far by car ]........if it were planned ...surly he would have gone futher down the coast were it would have been more private ...
-
sorry ...benice it went in your post
IMO if that was the case ....that he was meeting a boat [say travelled so far by car ]........if it were planned ...surly he would have gone futher down the coast were it would have been more private ...
-
Smithman wasn't heading especially to the beach, he could have been heading to the church turning left at the junction with 25 de Abril, for example, having avoided busy Primeiro de Maio. The shortest way to the coast, from 25 de Abril, implies turning right then left. But there is no sand beach there, steep rocks overhanging the sea.
-
Has it been said when bundleman came forward to eliminate himself? He's still on the Find M website - Spottyman too.
-
Has it been said when bundleman came forward to eliminate himself? He's still on the Find M website - Spottyman too.
What about Teethyman ?
-
sorry ...benice it went in your post
IMO if that was the case ....that he was meeting a boat [say travelled so far by car ]........if it were planned ...surly he would have gone futher down the coast were it would have been more private ...
Indeed - getting out halfway and doing the rest on foot makes no sense whatsoever. Unless they ran out of petrol.
-
Apostate said
Indeed - getting out halfway and doing the rest on foot makes no sense whatsoever. Unless they ran out of petrol.
lol....probably right
-
Indeed - getting out halfway and doing the rest on foot makes no sense whatsoever. Unless they ran out of petrol.
He could have just emerged from a pre arranged hiding place where he'd been dropped off when the Smiths saw him - and if he was only a couple of minutes away from the beach when he passed them, then he was a lot closer to his destination than half way.
-
What about Teethyman ?
They originally had an image on there of Tannerman and Teethyman on the same page suggesting it was the same person, someone complained or something and they removed Teethyman...thnk he has disappeared totally off the site now for a while
-
He could have just emerged from a pre arranged hiding place where he'd been dropped off when the Smiths saw him - and if he was only a couple of minutes away from the beach when he passed them, then he was a lot closer to his destination than half way.
Interesting, Benice. Never thought of that.
But even though he was near the beach, he had to walk close to a more social area first - from which the Smiths emerged - on his way. Wouldn't it have been better to use a car as much as possible at this stage rather than have Smithman walking through a far more exposed area with the child? And why not cover her up with something to at least make positive identification as a girl difficult?
-
In my opinion we have to be very careful about placing too much weight on one witness testimony, particularly when it comes to identifying the person seen. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in certain situations, partly because of a process a witness can go through called, "reconstructive memory".
Witnesses can sometimes create "schemas", whereby their mind subconsciously distorts their memories in order to fit in with what they now know. This process was likely evident , I think, when Mr Smith later saw Gerald McCann coming off a plane and bowing his head, causing him to make a statement to police which said he was 60 to 80% sure that the man seen carrying a child at 10:00 pm was McCann.
-
On the other hand, without Mr Smith's description and the e-fit (wherever it came from), SY would be grasping at straws.
-
In my opinion we have to be very careful about placing too much weight on one witness testimony, particularly when it comes to identifying the person seen. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in certain situations, partly because of a process a witness can go through called, "reconstructive memory".
Witnesses can sometimes create "schemas", whereby their mind subconsciously distorts their memories in order to fit in with what they now know. This process was likely evident , I think, when Mr Smith later saw Gerald McCann coming off a plane and bowing his head, causing him to make a statement to police which said he was 60 to 80% sure that the man seen carrying a child at 10:00 pm was McCann.
In my opinion we have to be very careful about placing too much weight on one witness testimony, particularly when it comes to identifying the person seen. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in certain situations, partly because of a process a witness can go through called, "reconstructive memory".
Witnesses can sometimes create "schemas", whereby their mind subconsciously distorts their memories in order to fit in with what they now know. This process was likely evident , I think, when Mr Smith later saw Gerald McCann coming off a plane and bowing his head, causing him to make a statement to police which said he was 60 to 80% sure that the man seen carrying a child at 10:00 pm was McCann.
And Mrs Smith ?
-
Interesting, Benice. Never thought of that.
But even though he was near the beach, he had to walk close to a more social area first - from which the Smiths emerged - on his way. Wouldn't it have been better to use a car as much as possible at this stage rather than have Smithman walking through a far more exposed area with the child? And why not cover her up with something to at least make positive identification as a girl difficult?
I'm thinking that if a boat was involved, then it's not easy to give a precise time for when it will be in the right place at sea, in the same way you would be able to with a car. (Not that I know anything about boats). So it could be that they needed a hiding place near the beach to go to (by car) to wait to hear that the boat was in place
If their original plans had to be changed - because of Gerry unexpectedly doing his 9.05 check, then that would possibly make it even harder as the boat would have to accommodate those time changes. It's not like a car, where you simply sit there parked up for a bit longer than you first planned.
As I say I don't know anything about boats, but if Madeleine was going to be taken out in a dinghy to a boat waiting off shore - then having to contend with tides, winds, etc. would not make it a guaranteed precise operation, in terms of timing.
Also it could be that the hiding place was not ideal, but was the only one available - even if it meant a 2 minute exposed walk to the shoreline.
As I say it's just a theory - which first came into my mind when I was reading about Madeleine being taken out in a dinghy to another boat - as one of the Kiddies Club activities.
-
And Mrs Smith ?
I think the same principle applies. Indeed two people discussing things from memory can serve to reinforce the distortion
-
On the other hand, without Mr Smith's description and the e-fit (wherever it came from), SY would be grasping at straws.
Yes, clearly they have to go with it. It's just about the only lead they have. And, assuming authentic veracity (as there is no reason not to) it is still a lead. Mr & Mrs Smith probably did see someone at that time and that place; where we have to be careful is relying too much on them identifying exactly who that was.
-
Yes, clearly they have to go with it. It's just about the only lead they have. And, assuming authentic veracity (as there is no reason not to) it is still a lead. Mr & Mrs Smith probably did see someone at that time and that place; where we have to be careful is relying too much on them identifying exactly who that was.
Well surly the same will have to be applied to every other identification of Smithman to then?
-
Well surly the same will have to be applied to every other identification of Smithman to then?
Absolutely. Witness testimony is unreliable in these circumstances. We have to always bear this in mind. That's not the same thing as saying it shouldn't be evaluated. Just don't base your whole case on it.
In some cases it can be more reliable. For example if someone sees someone they recognise. But where there is a likelihood of reconstructive memory kicking in I think it is wise to be benignly sceptical.
-
Yes, clearly they have to go with it. It's just about the only lead they have. And, assuming authentic veracity (as there is no reason not to) it is still a lead. Mr & Mrs Smith probably did see someone at that time and that place; where we have to be careful is relying too much on them identifying exactly who that was.
the McCann bashers think it was Gerry.. even though he was in the tapas at the time of the sighting 8-)(--)
-
the McCann bashers think it was Gerry.. even though he was in the tapas at the time of the sighting 8-)(--)
Yes Benita and to be fair their point of view, there is corroborating evidence for it, because the witness Mr Smith did say some time later, after seeing (on TV) Gerald McCann alighting from from a plane, that the way he bowed his head was similar to the head bow of the person he saw on the night, and that he was 60% to 80% certain that it was McCann that he saw.
The point I was making though is that this identification was probably a product of the "reconstructive memory" process and therefore most likely highly unreliable.
-
Yes Benita and to be fair their point of view, there is corroborating evidence for it, because the witness Mr Smith did say some time later, after seeing (on TV) Gerald McCann alighting from from a plane, that the way he bowed his head was similar to the head bow of the person he saw on the night, and that he was 60% to 80% certain that it was McCann that he saw.
The point I was making though is that this identification was probably a product of the "reconstructive memory" process and therefore most likely highly unreliable.
I get you ...but Gerry couldn't be in 2 places at one time..
-
I get you ...but Gerry couldn't be in 2 places at one time..
No definitely not, I agree with your observation. (Although McCann accusers have tried to argue that the whereabouts of McCann weren't definitely pinpointed between about 9:40 and 10:15. That's not an argument I'm happy to advance though!)
-
No definitely not, I agree with your observation. (Although McCann accusers have tried to argue that the whereabouts of McCann weren't definitely pinpointed between about 9:40 and 10:15. That's not an argument I'm happy to advance though!)
well some on here are not allowed to speak their mind on here or you are slapped with a warning or a ban..unless your a anti McCann then that's ok they get away with it >@@(*&)
-
No definitely not, I agree with your observation. (Although McCann accusers have tried to argue that the whereabouts of McCann weren't definitely pinpointed between about 9:40 and 10:15. That's not an argument I'm happy to advance though!)
Me neither as it can only be advanced if you accept that the friends were all liars even though no-one can come up with a credible reason why they would so easily agree to become accomplices to the heinous crime of the disposal of a dead child. Especially as the only close friends the McCanns had in that group were Fiona and David Payne. The others either didn't know them that well or hadn't seen them for years.
-
Me neither as it can only be advanced if you accept that the friends were all liars even though no-one can come up with a credible reason why they would so easily agree to become accomplices to the heinous crime of the disposal of a dead child. Especially as the only close friends the McCanns had in that group were Fiona and David Payne. The others either didn't know them that well or hadn't seen them for years.
Yes I agree that is really stretching it. Unless perhaps you believe in illuminati type conspiracies or things of that ilk.
-
No definitely not, I agree with your observation. (Although McCann accusers have tried to argue that the whereabouts of McCann weren't definitely pinpointed between about 9:40 and 10:15. That's not an argument I'm happy to advance though!)
Can I ask why you feel uncomfortable with that argument ? Perhaps you have found evidence from an independent witness that categorically places Gerry in the tapas bar between those times ?
-
First searches at 10pm when the chaos and confusion was going on is the time to concentrate on, not the tapas bar. The perfect time for someone to slip away unnoticed.
-
First searches at 10pm when the chaos and confusion was going on is the time to concentrate on, not the tapas bar. The perfect time for someone to slip away unnoticed.
slip away unnoticed to do what exactly ?
-
Work it out.
-
Work it out.
no you tell me..
-
It's obvious.
-
It's obvious.
to your mind yeah obviously ..just spit it out what you afraid of pathfinder ?
-
Madeleine was outside and she was moved.
-
Madeleine was outside and she was moved.
@)(++(* yeah right load of twoddle 8-)(--)
-
Will you be doing the same thing to SY?
-
Will you be doing the same thing to SY?
your mind games don't wash with me ..do carry on posting libel though ?>)()<
-
The unexplained moving door gave the whole game away.
-
I'm thinking that if a boat was involved, then it's not easy to give a precise time for when it will be in the right place at sea, in the same way you would be able to with a car. (Not that I know anything about boats). So it could be that they needed a hiding place near the beach to go to (by car) to wait to hear that the boat was in place
If their original plans had to be changed - because of Gerry unexpectedly doing his 9.05 check, then that would possibly make it even harder as the boat would have to accommodate those time changes. It's not like a car, where you simply sit there parked up for a bit longer than you first planned.
As I say I don't know anything about boats, but if Madeleine was going to be taken out in a dinghy to a boat waiting off shore - then having to contend with tides, winds, etc. would not make it a guaranteed precise operation, in terms of timing.
Also it could be that the hiding place was not ideal, but was the only one available - even if it meant a 2 minute exposed walk to the shoreline.
As I say it's just a theory - which first came into my mind when I was reading about Madeleine being taken out in a dinghy to another boat - as one of the Kiddies Club activities.
Interesting, Benice, but if Madeleine was going to be taken by sea, would it not have been more low key and quick to place her in a car near the apartment, then zip to Lagos marina a handful of kilometres away, where a boat could already have been moored and waiting?
With regard to the timings, any planner would have known that the timing on the night would be very hard to predict in advance. Surely this would have been factored into any plan, therefore finding a more secluded waiting / transit place, or at least covering the child if she had to be exposed to the world at some point, would have seemed wise.
-
This just got me to thinking that there must have been more people than the McCann walking up that street during the crucial time period, as the others who dined at the Tapas would be likely to have gone that way on returning to their apartments. Yet they never saw anyone either, not even any of the McCann group.
It is interesting that Scotland Yard now seem to be reporting that the response to the Crimewatch appeal for information has brought forward many people who were in or near PdL that night, but who had not previously come forward to police.
We have had so many discussions here, in various threads, on why a person might be reluctant to come forward to police. We have also discussed various of our respective points and theories with reference to certain things being able to be ruled in or out (or not) on the basis that there were apparently no witnesses, or no innocent people confirming themselves as such.
It appears from what SY are now saying that not coming forward to police, hard as it is for us to understand this here given the gravity of the case, is actually reasonably common.
Let's hope we do get some meaningful responses from people who were in PdL in 2006.
-
Interesting, Benice, but if Madeleine was going to be taken by sea, would it not have been more low key and quick to place her in a car near the apartment, then zip to Lagos marina a handful of kilometres away, where a boat could already have been moored and waiting?
With regard to the timings, any planner would have known that the timing on the night would be very hard to predict in advance. Surely this would have been factored into any plan, therefore finding a more secluded waiting / transit place, or at least covering the child if she had to be exposed to the world at some point, would have seemed wise.
Yes I do take your point Sherlock, but if escape by sea was the plan I think any idea of driving along main roads is a risk, particularly as they could not be sure when the alarm would be raised. If it was much quicker to get to the sea in Pdl itself, by car and then by foot, then surely that would be the preferred option - and ruled out the risk of being stopped or followed whilst travelling along the road to Lagos.
I don't know what to think about the fact that the child was not covered. It does seem odd.
Must go to bed now - I'll give that 'problem' some thought whilst I'm hopefully drifting off.
Nigh night.
-
Yes I do take your point Sherlock, but if escape by sea was the plan I think any idea of driving along main roads is a risk, particularly as they could not be sure when the alarm would be raised. If it was much quicker to get to the sea in Pdl itself, by car and then by foot, then surely that would be the preferred option - and ruled out the risk of being stopped or followed whilst travelling along the road to Lagos.
I don't know what to think about the fact that the child was not covered. It does seem odd.
Must go to bed now - I'll give that 'problem' some thought whilst I'm hopefully drifting off.
Nigh night.
Night night Benice! Will think about it too!
-
Me neither as it can only be advanced if you accept that the friends were all liars even though no-one can come up with a credible reason why they would so easily agree to become accomplices to the heinous crime of the disposal of a dead child. Especially as the only close friends the McCanns had in that group were Fiona and David Payne. The others either didn't know them that well or hadn't seen them for years.
I can't come up with a credible reason why acquaintances would lie to cover a serious crime, but neither can I come up with a credible reason for their being no evidence of an abduction. In fact the only evidence seems to point to staging. Misinformation about jemmied shutters and broken doors. Kate's fingerprints on the window, everybodies willingness to point the finger at Murat..
And the door!
That mysteriously moving door!
On a different thread Red came up with a credible reason for Smithman. Someone taking a child to a medical emergency wouldn't stop to chat, would hurry, wouldn't worry about shoes or coats, especially if their child had a temperature.
But even if Smithman is debunked, where does that leave everything else?
-
No one goes to a private medical clinic in Portugal for a medical emergency at night, you go to the Urgências at the closest hospital which would have been either Lagos Hospital or Portimão Hospital. Anyway, if, by a long shot, this is what happened, the doctor at the clinic would have reported it.
-
I can't come up with a credible reason why acquaintances would lie to cover a serious crime, but neither can I come up with a credible reason for their being no evidence of an abduction. In fact the only evidence seems to point to staging. Misinformation about jemmied shutters and broken doors. Kate's fingerprints on the window, everybodies willingness to point the finger at Murat..
And the door!
That mysteriously moving door!
On a different thread Red came up with a credible reason for Smithman. Someone taking a child to a medical emergency wouldn't stop to chat, would hurry, wouldn't worry about shoes or coats, especially if their child had a temperature.
But even if Smithman is debunked, where does that leave everything else?
what evidence would an abductor leave ? they walk in take child out of bed walk out.. takes seconds...
-
what evidence would an abductor leave ? they walk in take child out of bed walk out.. takes seconds...
Finger prints?
Apparently it didn't take seconds though. The door started mysteriously moving by 9:05 yet Smithman wasn't spotted till 10:00 only 10 minutes away.
-
Finger prints?
Apparently it didn't take seconds though. The door started mysteriously moving by 9:05 yet Smithman wasn't spotted till 10:00 only 10 minutes away.
never heard of gloves ..yes apparently ..so not fact.
-
I can't come up with a credible reason why acquaintances would lie to cover a serious crime, but neither can I come up with a credible reason for their being no evidence of an abduction. In fact the only evidence seems to point to staging. Misinformation about jemmied shutters and broken doors. Kate's fingerprints on the window, everybodies willingness to point the finger at Murat..
And the door!
That mysteriously moving door!
On a different thread Red came up with a credible reason for Smithman. Someone taking a child to a medical emergency wouldn't stop to chat, would hurry, wouldn't worry about shoes or coats, especially if their child had a temperature.
But even if Smithman is debunked, where does that leave everything else?
IMO while there is no credible reason why the friends would agree to lie - there is a credible reason to explain why apart from the open shutter/window and missing child, no definite evidence was found - and that is because it was either destroyed by the traffic through the apartment, or it was simply missed by the forensic people. But that doesn't mean it didn't ever exist. Amaral himself admitted there were shortcomings in that area.
As for 'staging' I always come back to the fact that 2 intelligent people would never have embarked on such a complicated plan - where so many things could go wrong, and depended hugely on the lifelong collusion and co-operation of 7 other people - when all they had to do was:-
Say nothing to anyone,
Wait until the middle of the night and dispose of the body at their leisure,
Ring the police the next morning and say she must have been abducted during the night while they were asleep.
They would even have time to force the front door open from the outside - to provide evidence of how the abductor got in. Or they could simply say someone must have had a key.
With the best will in the world I cannot get past that very large elephant in the room.
-
I also now have a very good theory on how Madeleine got out of the apartment without being seen by anyone and what was brought back and placed on the shelf in the wardrobe where the dogs alerted and responded to. People can be easily manipulated. The dogs I believe didn't lie in this case (Do dogs lie!). Everything connects and that's why SY are saying the TIMELINE IS CRITICAL! It's no surprise to me why Smithman has never came forward in 6 years to clear his name.
-
IMO while there is no credible reason why the friends would agree to lie - there is a credible reason to explain why apart from the open shutter/window and missing child, no definite evidence was found - and that is because it was either destroyed by the traffic through the apartment, or it was simply missed by the forensic people. But that doesn't mean it didn't ever exist. Amaral himself admitted there were shortcomings in that area.
As for 'staging' I always come back to the fact that 2 intelligent people would never have embarked on such a complicated plan - where so many things could go wrong, and depended hugely on the lifelong collusion and co-operation of 7 other people - when all they had to do was:-
Say nothing to anyone,
Wait until the middle of the night and dispose of the body at their leisure,
Ring the police the next morning and say she must have been abducted during the night while they were asleep.
They would even have time to force the front door open from the outside - to provide evidence of how the abductor got in. Or they could simply say someone must have had a key.
With the best will in the world I cannot get past that very large elephant in the room.
I have to say that the biggest stumbling block for me in the 'accidendental death' in the apartment theory is the need for collusion of some sort between the entire party
Like you Benice, I just don't see that a group of people would all be prepared to involve themselves in such a dark event, even if it just meant 'lying by omission'
-
It could be the group felt vulnerable to the charge of child neglect, something that might ruin all their lives and careers, and so had to go along with anything that would dispel that idea, even if reluctantly.
-
It could be the group felt vulnerable to the charge of child neglect, something that might ruin all their lives and careers, and so had to go along with anything that would dispel that idea, even if reluctantly.
I just don't see it jassi
Someone in the group would have to have come up the gruesome suggestion of 'disposing' of the body of a child
I just can't believe that there wouldn't be at least one adult in that party who would have have said ... "Are you MAD ? !
-
I have to say that the biggest stumbling block for me in the 'accidendental death' in the apartment theory is the need for collusion of some sort between the entire party
Like you Benice, I just don't see that a group of people would all be prepared to involve themselves in such a dark event, even if it just meant 'lying by omission'
They didn't lie by omission, they didn't say the truth to protect themselves from neglect accusations and to support the abduction theory that they believed (at that stage at least). There was no pact, no conspiracy, no smart person would dare to suggest this kind of thing to acquaintances.
-
I just can't believe that there wouldn't be at least one adult in that party who would have have said ... "Are you MAD ? !
Absolutely.
-
Wait until the middle of the night and dispose of the body at their leisure,
That makes me shiver !
I'm sorry, Benice, but rigor mortis is not just a word.
-
They didn't lie by omission, they didn't say the truth to protect themselves from neglect accusations and to support the abduction theory that they believed (at that stage at least). There was no pact, no conspiracy, no smart person would dare to suggest this kind of thing to acquaintances.
Your suggestion makes more sense Anne
You think that the rest of the group ( or most of them at least ) believed that Madeleine had been abducted, and that if they told any lies it was because they were fearful of their own position ( re neglect ) ? ... and NOT in order to cover up for the McCanns ?
-
I just don't see it jassi
Someone in the group would have to have come up the gruesome suggestion of 'disposing' of the body of a child
I just can't believe that there wouldn't be at least one adult in that party who would have have said ... "Are you MAD ? !
Some of them probably weren't privy to the whole truth anyway, just that she was missing under strange circumstances.
Peer groups can be persuasive - "come on, its not really lying, just be a little vague and unsure about things, we'll handle the rest" - that sort of thing.
-
I just don't see it jassi
Someone in the group would have to have come up the gruesome suggestion of 'disposing' of the body of a child
I just can't believe that there wouldn't be at least one adult in that party who would have have said ... "Are you MAD ? !
Especially Diane Webster who had no responsiblity for any child - and only knew the McCanns as her daughter's friends. Would she entertain taking the risk of ending up a Portuguese prison at her age - with her husband thousands of miles away in the UK - when there was absolutely no need for her to be involved in any way?
IMO There's no chance any of them would take such a risk - but particularly so in DW's case.
-
That makes me shiver !
I'm sorry, Benice, but rigor mortis is not just a word.
Which as doctors - they would know all about - and be able to take that into account.
-
Especially Diane Webster who had no responsiblity for any child - and only knew the McCanns as her daughter's friends. Would she entertain taking the risk of ending up a Portuguese prison at her age - with her husband thousands of miles away in the UK - when there was absolutely no need for her to be involved in any way?
IMO There's no chance any of them would take such a risk - but particularly so in DW's case.
I would agree that she would not have been 'in the loop', but never the less, she proved to a a rather vague and uncertain witness of events.
-
I would agree that she would not have been 'in the loop', but never the less, she proved to a a rather vague and uncertain witness of events.
But as she explained more then once - she had no need to concentrate on what other people were doing - and so she wasn't taking that much notice a lot of the time - why should she? - and at her age her memory may not have been as sharp as it used to be anyway.
-
But as she explained more then once - she had no need to concentrate on what other people were doing - and so she wasn't taking that much notice a lot of the time - why should she? - and at her age her memory may not have been as sharp as it used to be anyway.
Come on - she's not that old. Next you'll be saying she lived in an alcoholic haze and couldn't distinguish one day from the next.
-
Your suggestion makes more sense Anne
You think that the rest of the group ( or most of them at least ) believed that Madeleine had been abducted, and that if they told any lies it was because they were fearful of their own position ( re neglect ) ? ... and NOT in order to cover up for the McCanns ?
That's what I think, yes. Mr Payne is the only one who could have been told but I'm pretty sure Mrs Payne knew nothing. And I'm pretty sure too that Ms Tanner adjusted her sighting for the good cause.
-
Which as doctors - they would know all about - and be able to take that into account.
No need to be a doctor to know the dead of night would be too late.
-
what evidence would an abductor leave ? they walk in take child out of bed walk out.. takes seconds...
Footprints, fingerprints and shed fibres to name three. The scene of crimes officer can also determine whether an intruder was wearing gloves.
-
Footprints, fingerprints and shed fibres to name three. The scene of crimes officer can also determine whether an intruder was wearing gloves.
are you forgetting something here ?
-
Footprints, fingerprints and shed fibres to name three. The scene of crimes officer can also determine whether an intruder was wearing gloves.
Yes, Locard's exchange principle determines that any intruder would have left some trace of himself behind
-
No need to be a doctor to know the dead of night would be too late.
Why would it be too late - they would know what was going to happen 'in the dead of night' and would take measures to deal with it. We are not talking about an adult cadaver here.
-
Yes, Locard's exchange principle determines that any intruder would have left some trace of himself behind
he most probably did ..how do they find it ..after all the folk and GNR trampling footprints an fingers prints all over the place ?
-
he most probably did ..how do they find it ..after all the folk and GNR trampling footprints an fingers prints all over the place ?
There are two possibilities for no forensic evidence of an intruder being found
1 ) The early investigation of the crime scene was inept and, subsequently, any trace of an intruder was destroyed
2 ) There was no intruder
-
There are two possibilities for no forensic evidence of an intruder being found
1 ) The early investigation of the crime scene was inept and, subsequently, any trace of an intruder was destroyed
2 ) There was no intruder
The crime scene wasn't a crime scene to begin with - it was merely a report of a missing child - and was effectively trashed by all the comings and goings long before the police first arrived.
-
The crime scene wasn't a crime scene to begin with - it was merely a report of a missing child - and was effectively trashed by all the comings and goings long before the police first arrived.
Even so jassi, it is questionable whether ALL traces of an intruder would have been lost
-
Even so jassi, it is questionable whether ALL traces of an intruder would have been lost
but impossible to determin what footprints etc belonged to a intruder..so yes ..lost no question about it..
-
Even so jassi, it is questionable whether ALL traces of an intruder would have been lost
But much, much more difficult to detect anything useful, which, of course, might have been the intent in allowing so many people access.
-
I can't come up with a credible reason why acquaintances would lie to cover a serious crime, but neither can I come up with a credible reason for their being no evidence of an abduction. In fact the only evidence seems to point to staging. Misinformation about jemmied shutters and broken doors. Kate's fingerprints on the window, everybodies willingness to point the finger at Murat..
And the door!
That mysteriously moving door!
On a different thread Red came up with a credible reason for Smithman. Someone taking a child to a medical emergency wouldn't stop to chat, would hurry, wouldn't worry about shoes or coats, especially if their child had a temperature.
But even if Smithman is debunked, where does that leave everything else?
..and would probably use a car.
-
Or a taxi. Someone in a medical emergency might not even know where the nearest emergency facility would be, so a taxi would seem a sensible option. I assume one would be available at 10 pm in PDL.
-
..and would probably use a car.
Depends, if he only lived a few yards away just as quick to walk it than spend time getting babyseat out, strapping child in, etc
-
Depends, if he only lived a few yards away just as quick to walk it than spend time getting babyseat out, strapping child in, etc
From the direction that Smithman was heading, do you know where the nearest emergency medical facility would be ?
-
From the direction that Smithman was heading, do you know where the nearest emergency medical facility would be ?
This map shows with the red circle where the sighting was, corner of Rua 25 Abril and Rua Escola
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/smith5.jpg
The medical centre is just a way to the left from it on Rua 25 Abril
You can see it here in the google map marked by the code A, click on hybrid for a better look, and play around with enlarging and moving
http://www.luz-info.com/services.htm
Im not arguing this was where Smithman was going, just a possibility, Ok, it wasnt a few yards, but not too long a distance, and maybe the person didnt have a car or couldnt hang around for a cab
EDIT to add, this idea has now been debunked by Anne on the other Smithman thread....Apparently there was no night service in 2007.
-
According to this clinic, if, after the closing time, your child complains something hurts in a foot, you call the clinic and are redirected to a doctor who, thinking it could be a small surgery, will go to the clinic, open it and meet you there. But if your child is vomiting, the doctor will go to your place.
-
According to this clinic, if, after the closing time, your child complains something hurts in a foot, you call the clinic and are redirected to a doctor who, thinking it could be a small surgery, will go to the clinic, open it and meet you there. But if your child is vomiting, the doctor will go to your place.
Thanks Anne.....
-
I would like to know how long this information about bundleman been sat on. It's not recent I would bet - no way would this guy take 6 years to be found or come forward.
-
Do SY say that he spoke to them ? If not, it must have been super sleuth Edgar. Unless Mysteryman speaks out, I don't suppose we will get to know.
-
Bundleman and Spottyman are still on http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Is the fund not paying well the webmaster ?
-
Bundleman and Spottyman are still on http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Is the fund not paying well the webmaster ?
mrs Mccann told Sandra Felgueiras she runs the website, and is responsible for everything written on it,very sloppy indeed...mind you with so many efits and suspects on there I dont think it will make much difference, peoples eyes must be rolling..adding another 6 efits....as well now...... I also dont thnk many people visit there much, it is a neglected site, for a good while now,apart from the donate page being updated with new star spangled options, they now have free facebook ..saves 37000 pounds I guess in website fees, *chortle*
Night Anne....
8((()*/
-
Can I ask why you feel uncomfortable with that argument ? Perhaps you have found evidence from an independent witness that categorically places Gerry in the tapas bar between those times ?
Hi Faithlillly. ?{)(** I wouldn't care to advance that argument. I also wouldn't entirely rule it out. But it seems to me very unlikely. If it were the case that Gerald went missing for such a long period of time then I'm pretty sure one of the witnesses, e.g. one of the tapas 7 or one of the staff, would have reflected on this. But sure it's possible. The Loch Ness Monster theory may well right for all I know. I'm just not happy to advance it (unless I'm playing Devil's Advocate).
Of course on a forum like this we may all speculate to our hearts content and nothing will come of it. The harsh reality the police would have to face though is that it isn't for the McCann's to produce an independent witness that categorically places Gerry in the tapas bar between those times; it's for the authorities to produce a witness that categorically shows he wasn't in the tapas bar.
-
Bundleman and Spottyman are still on http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Is the fund not paying well the webmaster ?
Perhaps the McCanns are not as 'delighted' with Scotland Yard's work as they say they are
... they certainly don't seem to accept that Andy Redwood and his team have found bundleman
-
If it were the case that Gerald went missing for such a long period of time then I'm pretty sure one of the witnesses, e.g. one of the tapas 7 or one of the staff, would have reflected on this.
Whoever thinks (as I do) the group said untruths in order to protect themselves from neglect suspicions, I don't think they would lie pretending Mr McCann was sitting at the table when the alarm was launched. They wouldn't have mentioned his going to the loo or remembering he left his sunglasses near the pool, but meeting the Smiths etc. would take at least 10 minutes, so I do think he was there.
But what I think too is that the alarm was raised before the Smiths met Smithman..
-
Bundleman and Spottyman are still on http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html (http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html)
Is the fund not paying well the webmaster ?
Perhaps the McCanns are not as 'delighted' with Scotland Yard's work as they say they are
... they certainly don't seem to accept that Andy Redwood and his team have found bundleman
Well they might as well keep all their options open as Redwood did say, quote -"We're almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor".
Perhaps because those 2 new Smithman e-fits have never been seen before, SY decided to concentrate on them and divert all previous attention paid to bundleman to see if they brought any new public response.
Ditto with the spottyman caricature, which was never mentioned or seen at all on Crimewatch. He appears to me like the first e-fit with the same angular eyebrows, narrow jaw, long nose, and downward slope of the thin mouth to the right, but without the acne and teddy-boy quiff.