No-one has posted any case ever in Europe where an abductor (or an occulter) carried a victim through the streets openly in his arms.
That's a challenge - peeps here have good research skills - how come no-one here can find a single case?
I would have that quite a few parents may have abducted their own child and carried them away in their arms.I mean any european case ever, it can be any kind of abduction by anyone, or it can be any kind of occultation, either type of case. It must involve the perp carrying the victim unconcealed in his arms through the streets. IF there has ever been such a case of either type anywhere in Europe, please someone find and post it, then we can compare it with the Smith sighting.
Do you mean a stranger abductor?
I can't think of any offhand, but then the details of how some children have disappeared depends either on eye witnesses or CCTV. Slightly older children are often led by the hand, or invited to jump in a car to help look for a non-existent missing puppy, but those seem to have been during the day.
No-one has posted any case ever in Europe where an abductor (or an occulter) carried a victim through the streets openly in his arms.
That's a challenge - peeps here have good research skills - how come no-one here can find a single case?
Possibly because no case like the above scenario has ever been reported ??Has never happened
Has never happened
Why are you unable to accept the possibility of a pick up car that didn't arrive cos of JT witnessing the abductor carrying Madeleine ... and Gerry and Jez being in the way too.
Why cant you accept the possibility?
Because your assertion is absurd, you've harked on monotonously about Oporto, Moroccan transvestites, drug smuggling routes, international crime syndicates et al regarding the so called and much publicised abduction of this child who was abandoned by her parents night after night !No not a keystone Cops Outfit, but a very well organised group.
Yet you seem quite open to accept that the initial so called abduction of this child, again, abandoned by her parents, was the work of a 'keystone cops' outfit !
I'm aware of only one case, ever, where a child was abducted from the bath of a ground-floor flat.
Or even abducted from a bath.
But it's definitely happened.
No-one has posted any case ever in Europe where an abductor (or an occulter) carried a victim through the streets openly in his arms.
That's a challenge - peeps here have good research skills - how come no-one here can find a single case?
All cases are different because individuals are involved - people and circumstances are different! Past cases may be a useful tool but every case is unique and that's the approach you must take. Why would he open carry? Too risky for a planned abduction. This would be last resort.
Wasn't there a case of a child abducted from a tent in her back garden? How often has that happened? Name one other instance of a child being abducted from a tent in her back garden and murdered. If you can't then obviously it can't have happened. Is that the rationale of this thread?
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/30-moments-shook-north-wales-6141337I note the article says he carried her away, so there you go.
Key sentence from the article:
Nothing quite like it has happened before or since.
I note the article says he carried her away, so there you go.
And let's not forget the poor little girl who was stolen from her bath whilst her family were in the next room
How often has this happened?
Utter tosh to say that because it hasn't happened before, proves that it didn't happen this time around.
In the Australian case, the perp carried along a heavily wooded dirt track, not along 400m of public streets.What's the importance of it Pegasus?
In the Willington Quay case, IMO the perp carried only to his car, not along 400m of public streets.
In the Welsh case, the route was an overgrown bridle path, not 400m of public streets, (and one witness said a sack was used).
Can anyone find a case of either type where the perp carried openly along public streets?
Reading this topic i remembered a case that happened in Athens few years ago.
A woman stole a newborn from a maternity hospital in order to present it like hers. The abduction took place late at night. The woman hid the babe under her blouse but once she managed to left the hospital unnoticed she carried the child openly in her arms found a taxi and went home. All she did was to remove the hospital identification bracelet.It was a neighbour that saw her and alerted the police after he had heard about the abduction on the news.The child was found and handed over to parents.
Reading this topic i remembered a case that happened in Athens few years ago.Thanks Valaria. If you have a link to the greek news article please post it. As you say, the woman did not openly carry at first but instead hid the baby under her blouse.
A woman stole a newborn from a maternity hospital in order to present it like hers. The abduction took place late at night. The woman hid the babe under her blouse but once she managed to left the hospital unnoticed she carried the child openly in her arms found a taxi and went home. All she did was to remove the hospital identification bracelet.It was a neighbour that saw her and alerted the police after he had heard about the abduction on the news.The child was found and handed over to parents.
Wasn't there a case of a child abducted from a tent in her back garden? How often has that happened? Name one other instance of a child being abducted from a tent in her back garden and murdered. If you can't then obviously it can't have happened. Is that the rationale of this thread?You are remembering a horrific 1995 case. There was a similar case in 1973,child taken from a tent in the middle of the night, despite brothers/sisters sleeping in same tent.
Thankyou for the cases posted.I"ll ask again - why? What do you think it will prove? Please explain.
So far we have carrying along a wooded dirt track, carrying partly covered along an overgrown bridleway, and carrying out of a building concealed under a blouse then uncovered into a taxi outside.
Can anyone find a case of an abductor or an occulter carrying uncovered along 400m or more of public streets?
CIRCUMSTANCES: At about 3:00am on Saturday 17 August 2002 a 23 month old female infant was abducted from a residence at Stanley Street, Yarrabah where she was sleeping. The child was taken by foot approximately 300 metres along a dirt track at the rear of Stanley Street. Witnesses observed an unidentified man with the child in his hands. When challenged by the witnesses, the man placed the child on the ground and ran from the scene. Witnesses located the child suffering from serious injuries and she was transported to Cairns Base Hospital for treatment.
Any member of the public with information which could assist Police is asked to contact:
•the Child Protection Investigation Unit, Cairns, Phone (07) 4030 7089;
•any Police Station; or
•Crime Stoppers, Phone 1800 333 000.
http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/Abductions.htm
No-one has posted any case ever in Europe where an abductor (or an occulter) carried a victim through the streets openly in his arms.
That's a challenge - peeps here have good research skills - how come no-one here can find a single case?
I"ll ask again - why? What do you think it will prove? Please explain.So we have something to compare with the Smith sighting = occulter or abductor theories.
this is another link to the case translated by google.Thankyou valeria.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zougla.gr%2Fgreece%2Farticle%2Fso-to-vrefos-sinelif8i-i-gineka-pou-to-arpakse&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=e
It has always struck me as very odd to theorise that an abductor could carry a child several hundred metres through the streets of a small town between 9pm and 10pm at night as a police patrol could have intercepted him at any moment. Smithman could very well be a red herring.In title would have said "perp" instead of assuming "abductor".
So we have something to compare with the Smith sighting = occulter or abductor theories.Do you not accept the fact that every case is different and that people don't all behave in the exact same way? I completely fail to see what can be gained from this exercise.
For example in the aussy case posted, the man walking along the wooded dirt track put child on ground and run away when someone sees him, that asks questions like if smithman was occulter/abductor did he do same a few seconds after passing the family?
It has always struck me as very odd to theorise that an abductor could carry a child several hundred metres through the streets of a small town between 9pm and 10pm at night as a police patrol could have intercepted him at any moment. Smithman could very well be a red herring.Did police used to patrol PdL by car in those days?
Did police used to patrol PdL by car in those days?
You do know it is the 21 st Century. @)(++(* %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Did police used to patrol PdL by car in those days?I am recently back from Portugal, including a few hours in PdL. and over 500 miles driving, some on motorways
Thankyou valeria.i found no mention of how long she walked before getting a taxi. Also no mention of whether the taxi driver came forward.
"trying to hide something that she was holding in her arms"
Here is a different behaviour from smithman who did not try to cover what was in his arms, if he was a perp why did he not cover with his black jacket?.
How many metres along streets did the woman walk before getting in taxi?
I think some expect more Clint Eastwood on his Mule.Oh very funny. Police can patrol on foot you know. Or bicycle. Or motorbike. Or even Segways (however you spell them). The question was less about the mode of transport though than the presence of police in the sleepy little town - was it subject to regular police patrol? My bet is not really, what do you think?
No-one has posted any case ever in Europe where an abductor (or an occulter) carried a victim through the streets openly in his arms.Does abductor walking through the streets holding hands with the child count or not?
That's a challenge - peeps here have good research skills - how come no-one here can find a single case?
Oh very funny. Police can patrol on foot you know. Or bicycle. Or motorbike. Or even Segways (however you spell them). The question was less about the mode of transport though than the presence of police in the sleepy little town - was it subject to regular police patrol? My bet is not really, what do you think?
Does abductor walking through the streets holding hands with the child count or not?IMO no because in smith sighting the child had eyelids closed.
And this CCTV footage of an abductor carrying a child through the streets won't count because...?Yes agreed that is a case of a perp carrying a child openly along a significant length of public streets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8383424.stm
Some one was seen carrying a baby through the streets in The Lisa Irwin Case, but no one thought anything of it at the time.
And then later it was largely suggested that it was her mother, despite being a man who was seen. So great lengths were gone to in an effort to prove how the baby's father could have gotten out of a work shift that he was undoubtedly at.
Yes agreed that is a case of a perp carrying a child openly along a significant length of public streets.Also, In the Oval case the children were also abducted in broad daylight in a public place packed with sports fans.
And agreed the Oval case counts also because that riverside path was equivalent to a public street (known big risk of being seen).
The James Bulger murder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
But in any case what relevance does this have to Madeleine being taken?
Every case is different as the case of the little girl being taken from her bath with family in the next room illustrates.
Every case is different
By the same argument you can't use any abduction cases to compare to this one...Wrong. Stating that because there is not another abduction with an identical set of circumstances means it can't have happened is not a valid argument. Making comparisons with other child abductions with similar if not identical circumstances can be valid and useful.
Wrong. Stating that because there is not another abduction with an identical set of circumstances means it can't have happened is not a valid argument. Making comparisons with other child abductions with similar if not identical circumstances can be valid and useful.
So is making comparisons with cases of child murder or death involving parents valid and useful?Yes they can be, if there are clear similarities, either in circumstance, personality, family history etc.
Also, In the Oval case the children were also abducted in broad daylight in a public place packed with sports fans.One can see similarities in psychological tactics of perps in some abduction cases.
How else would he move her if he didn't have a vehicle? He had no choice but to carry and didn't want her to be found close to the crime scene. He moved her when it was dark and used a quick back street route away from the OC. He just happened to meet a group of nine but he wasn't stupid and knew he would be seen. Short sleeves would stand out at that time &%+((£ PDL is a ghost town unless you're at bars/restaurants. This was a Thursday night not a weekend.To easily rule out the smithman=occulter theory simply look at the hundreds of solved occultation cases available to you. Even where the outdoor pedestrian transport distance is just a few metres to a vehicle just outside the residence, always the perp always uses a bag or case or some equivalent such as a curtain or a bike cover or whatever is available, and the same applies to cases with longer pedestrian distances and no vehicle.
"Asked, he relates that he does not recall to have described exactly the type of pyjamas (colour, designs, etc.) that MADELEINE had worn at the time she disappeared."
To easily rule out the smithman=occulter theory simply look at the hundreds of solved occultation cases available to you. Even where the outdoor pedestrian transport distance is just a few metres to a vehicle just outside the residence, always the perp always uses a bag or case or some equivalent such as a curtain or a bike cover or whatever is available, and the same applies to cases with longer pedestrian distances and no vehicle.
To easily rule out the smithman=occulter theory simply look at the hundreds of solved occultation cases available to you. Even where the outdoor pedestrian transport distance is just a few metres to a vehicle just outside the residence, always the perp always uses a bag or case or some equivalent such as a curtain or a bike cover or whatever is available, and the same applies to cases with longer pedestrian distances and no vehicle.Pegasus
I too don't believe Madeleine was taken by the person seen by Mrs Smith.
I believe Madeleine was taken exactly from the spot where GNR dogs lost her scent and she was put in a parked car.
Who parked their car there that night it was never revealed.
Here is a recent case of an abductor carrying a child.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-man-saves-kidnapped-daughter-article-1.2003192
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-missing-brits-among-4603875
This is the second time recently I have seen a photo showing Block 6 in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine, rather than 5a. A subtle way of trying to tell us something?
I too don't believe Madeleine was taken by the person seen by Mrs Smith.
I believe Madeleine was taken exactly from the spot where GNR dogs lost her scent and she was put in a parked car.
Who parked their car there that night it was never revealed.
Here is a recent case of an abductor carrying a child.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-man-saves-kidnapped-daughter-article-1.2003192
How strange! They also call Madeleine a 'school girl' ???
http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
And, I think there is a gate behind, where that white vehicle is parked, The white vehicle is exactly in the spot that the getaway vehicle would have been parked in sadies theory.
Guess it is just a co-incidence ?
@Sadie
There are 3 very different theories about Smithman.
1. Smithman = an abductor
In hundreds of abduction cases it is extremely rare (probably less than 0.1%) for the abductor to carry the victim along 400 metres or more of public populated streets.
2. Smithman = an occulter
In hundreds of occultation cases it is unheard of (happens in 0% of cases) for the perp to carry the body along 400m or more of public populated streets.
3. Smithman = innocent father carrying own sleeping daughter.
In a south european holiday resort at about 10.15pm there is nothing unlikely about a man innocently carrying his own child home, it statistically happens in every resort every night many times.
The statistics shout out loud that number 3 is almost certainly correct.
http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
And, I think there is a gate behind, where that white vehicle is parked, The white vehicle is exactly in the spot that the getaway vehicle would have been parked in sadies theory.
Guess it is just a co-incidence ?
@Pathfinder The study of other cases certainly would be distracting to your theory, because if you did look at a hundred or more occultation cases you would find open uncovered carrying along populated streets happens exactly never.
I don't care about other cases. Smithman has never came forward. Worked out why yet? Maybe an innocent father walking his child home in PDL has never heard of Madeleine McCann 8)--))
Block 6 car park is opposite the secondary reception so not the most intelligent place for a getaway car @)(++(* Madeleine walked that way to go to the creche. And the kids came from the creche to have tea at the tapas bar. Madeleine's scent would be found by the dogs.
If there was a planned abduction maybe it was always part of the plan to go to a nearby apartment and that would have been as far as it was ever intended to carry a child openly in the street.
The people involved would have been well aware how quiet PDL was at that time; over the next couple of days many innocent holidaymakers would have been loading large bags into transport to go to the airport to get their flights home … so who would have looked twice at tourists leaving or asked any to open their bags for checking?
If it was an unplanned abduction, the closest cover was through block six to the car park, or into an empty apartment to give time to take stock of the situation.
I think Jane Tanner’s sighting is likely to have been Madeleine. The possibility of a nearby flat being used may have been overlooked because when seen he appeared to be heading in the direction of the Murat villa.
Did you get my email, Sadie?
Another reason - he may now feel he would be vilified or even prosecuted for coming forward so late, indeed might have done so at any point after the first few weeks or months. It may be an irrational fear, but perhaps his guilt at not coming forward sooner is what is putting him off identifying himself?Possible reasons why this man (seen by the Smith family did not come forward:-
...Many, Dad's were carrying their children that night, so he thought that it must have been someone else,
...By the time the news of this man was released, the man seen couldn't remember what day he walked along that road.
...He didn't want to get involved knowing what has happened to others in this case.
...Had reason not to want to get involved....past convictions. visa problems etc
...Died
...He has no resemblance to the photofits ,so is sure it cant have been him
...Was on holiday with a lady, other than his wife
...Afraid of PJ interrogation
Or it could be a combination of some of the above.
Nobody came forward with any evidence and the Laundry man, who did, was too nervous of the PJ, to inform them that he saw a Stranger in the stairwell, so waited to tell Scotland yard........Does that not tell you something?
A lady who was interviewed in her home said that nobody wanted to talk to the PJ and someone she knew, who did talk to PJ, never got another pool cleaning job.
Of course JT wouldn't mention seeing a man with a child, as it would be a regular occurrence in a holiday complex and she didn't know at that time that Maddie was missing.
It would have sounded a bit daft if she told people that she saw a man with a child, crossing the road IMO.
Another reason - he may now feel he would be vilified or even prosecuted for coming forward so late, indeed might have done so at any point after the first few weeks or months. It may be an irrational fear, but perhaps his guilt at not coming forward sooner is what is putting him off identifying himself?
She didn't mention it because she didn't think it was Madeleine and months later she is shouting from the rooftops that it was Madeleine. If you saw a child being carried and you thought it could be her you would check or you would mention it. It would be on your mind. This didn't happen Jane never mentioned it at the table. She can't be saying it's 100% Madeleine months later. Her first statement said older than a baby so not Madeleine at nearly 4.
Some very good point above Anna 8@??)(
Of course as you say, she wouldn't have thought it important enough to mention. It was just a child being carried by his dad, she thought at the time.
But on realizing that it was almost certain to have been Madeleine she saw being carried, the memories all came flooding back along with dread.
I am surprised that you cant see that PFinder. Unless you dont want to?
On TopicQuestion 1.
This man would have carried the child down the street, if not stopped by Dad
http://www.kidspot.com.au/every-parents-worst-nightmare-dad-saves-5-year-old-from-kidnapper/
I've been through this a thousand times. SY have investigated this sighting. You don't carry a 4 year old in that way. Crecheman was carrying a younger lighter child in that way. Smithman had a different carrying style for an older child. Simples! The window was closed when he was seen. So who opened the window Sadie?Madfeleine was a light child. Not very tall for a three, yes almost four year old, and pretty fine boned.
I've been through this a thousand times. SY have investigated this sighting. You don't carry a 4 year old in that way. Crecheman was carrying a younger lighter child in that way. Smithman had a different carrying style for an older child. Simples! The window was closed when he was seen. So who opened the window Sadie?Which window was closed ? When ? Please can you clarify?
... I think mine fits better and I cant see any flaws in it. Can you ?Maybe you can you post a few examples of other cases where an escape car fails to turn up?
Question 1.
The girl in that Utah case was shouting "no no no".
Why was the girl carried by smithman silent?
Question 2.
In that Utah case (and probably in 99% of abduction cases) the number of perps is one.
Why do PDL abduction theorists ignore that statistic and instead insist on the unrealistic idea of a gang of two or more perps?
1 We don't know that, but could be asleep with her father carrying her, if the Smith family sighting.
Drugged or knew the person carrying her is another possibility for her being quiet.
The other possibility we know about, but if that was the case, it would be impossible to carry the child in the way that Smithman did.2. Depends on whether it was a planned abduction or not
Why would it be impossible?
I really do not want to go into details, WS, but Madeleine was bigger than the twins for a start.
The laws of gravity would have been a problem for a fast walking man with only a hand on her back and another on her legs whether in RM or before. Sleep is different as muscles still support your neck etc.
Too floppy or too stiff is what I am trying to say.
That's because it's not actually impossible, you'd just prefer it if it were.
Yes I would prefer that Maddie was still alive, wouldn't you?
As to carrying a child that size in the way Smithman was carrying her, if she was not alive......Nah!
It is against the laws of gravity.
Yes, that would be lovely, but it's bleedin obvious she ain't.
'Against the laws of gravity', my arse.
Her head was on his shoulder & her arms by her side.
How exactly does that defy gravity?
I didn't expect you to understand and I do not have the time to explain it further.
The following is a copy/paste of an article called "The 26 Stages of Death", the original of which is located at http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com
*snip*
Moment of Death:
1} The heart stops
2} The skin gets tight and grey in color
3} All the muscles relax
4} The bladder and bowels empty
5} The body's temperature will typically drop 1.5 degrees F. per hour unless outside environment is a factor. The liver is the organ that stays warmest the longest, and this temperature is used to establish time of death if the body is found within that time frame.
After 30 minutes:
6} The skin gets purple and waxy
7} The lips, finger- and toe nails fade to a pale color or turn white as the blood leaves.
8} Blood pools at the lowest parts of the body leaving a dark purple-black stain called lividity
9} The hands and feet turn blue {because of lack of oxygenation to the tissues}
10} The eyes start to sink into the skull
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The child the Smiths allegedly saw had bare feet, which, due to the way she was being carried must have been the most visible & lower-most parts of her body. None of the Smiths recalled a strange-coloured skin-tone which may have indicated the child was dead.
Ask the dogs Anna! RM takes 3 hours to start.
He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position. Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, also the opinion shared by his family. (MS)
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. (AS)
About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep, having closed eyelids. Questioned, states that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was sleeping deeply. (MS)
I would have asked the dogs PFF if I had known they were experts in the carrying of a dead body and the signs associated with a dead body as posted by Misty.Agreed. I would think the man would have been supporting her head with his hand if she were dead so it wasn't flopping all over the place.
RM does not take 3 hours in a child in a hot climate. It depends on body fat and muscle.
Her eyes were closed stated MS, which means he saw her face which he said was typically white as of a british child (or words to that effect) not grey or blue! The man the Smith family saw, was not carrying a dead child IMO
Agreed. I would think the man would have been supporting her head with his hand if she were dead so it wasn't flopping all over the place.
That was the point I was trying to make Alfred. If it was a dead child it would have been easier and less obvious, if he carried her as Tannerman did, or concealing the body with a wrap around blanket. Neither of those was adopted, so that child was alive.IMOYup, I think so too.
Physical changes
At the time of death, a condition called "primary flaccidity" occurs. Following this, the muscles stiffen in rigor mortis. All muscles in the body are affected. Starting between two to six hours following death, rigor mortis begins with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. The sequence may be due to different lactic acid levels among different muscles, which is directly related to the difference in glycogen levels and different types of muscle fibers. Rigor mortis then spreads to the other muscles within the next four to six hours, including the internal organs. The onset of rigor mortis is affected by the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build. Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass.
I thought the day was reportedly cold?
Anyone know what happened to the Climatic conditions that i posted (twice) ? They seem to have been whooshed. Cant think that anyone would wipe facts tho. If you find them pls could you post them for me too?
Mine include moon phases and barometric pressure and
Were for both nearby Lagos and Faro
May I suggest that we have a repository for facts like these?
I cant find the posts either Sadie, are these any goodThank you Anna
http://www.eurometeo.com/english/ephem
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Faro_Aeroporto/05-2007/85540.htm#
http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/portugal/faro?month=5&year=2007
Temp and wind . Not cold, but chilly wind in a downward direction as Pegasus said.......If coming down the chimney it might cause the door to slam. Notice how the wind direction changed at 22hrs approx.The air coming in the window and up the chimney slammed the door.
The air coming in the window and up the chimney slammed the door.
Back to the study of other cases, pathfinder's theory starts with a statistically likely method which fits with hundreds of past cases of the same type as that theory, then suddenly for no logical reason switches to a method which goes against all the instincts of a perp and has never happened in those hundreds of past cases.
The air coming in the window and up the chimney slammed the door.
Back to the study of other cases, pathfinder's theory starts with a method which hypothetically fits with hundreds of past cases of the same type as pathfinder's theory, then suddenly for no logical reason switches to a method which goes against all the instincts of a perp and has never happened in those hundreds of past cases.
Simples, pegasusLet's compare your theory with another case where a getaway driver didn't arrive?
The getaway car didn't arrive. He was forced to walk. Loads of alleyways tho.
Simples, really it is .... IMO
@Pathfinder if you were to get distracted for five minutes to read just two recent UK cases, one involving an outdoor walk of just a few metres, the other an outdoor walk of over a kilometre, you might find that unconcealed carrying as seen by the Irish group is completely ruled out in your type of solution.
Let's compare your theory with another case where a getaway driver didn't arrive?No need to Pegasus. Cases gan be unique. This one is.
Which case do you suggest?
No need to Pegasus. Cases gan be unique. This one is.Reading other cases shows that perp behaviour is very predictable.
The one with the little girl being taken from her bath is unique. Sharon Matthews was unique. Her mother was after money and laid on a sham abduction / murder
I highly value the sleuthing you do, but you seems to get ideas stuck in your head ... and this is one of them. that all cases have to follow the same route.
They dont always.
@pathfinder why did your smithman choose to use a route which risked crossing paths with employees who would recognise her?
Are you kidding? Work shifts don't finish at that time. Where do you think they are at 10pm on a Thursday? Either inside watching tele or at a bar. Not hanging around the dark depressing wasteland. Unfortunately Smithman hadn't mastered the art of invisibility like somebody else and chose the safest quickest route available.At around 10pm some are going out - look at the route from there to mirage it is along your smithman route in reverse direction.
I don't care how windy it is, the fact is that perps conceal what they transport.
The basic idea for the perp is to prevent peeps seeing exactly what he is transporting.
Therefore the Smith sighting is irrelevant IMO
I don't care how windy it is, the fact is that perps conceal what they transport.I dont think that you can be sure of that.
The basic idea for the perp is to prevent peeps seeing exactly what he is transporting.
Therefore the Smith sighting is irrelevant IMO
I dont think that you can be sure of that.Re your absent getaway car theory - the most likely reason for a getaway car being absent is ironically that someone steals it.
Basically I agree with what you are saying, but if a vehicle was supposed to come for getaway, you already had the "stolen goods" in your hands, they were worth a small fortune to you, they had been commisioned and you were selling them on
And the getaway vehicle didn't arrive, then you were witnessed carrying ... what would you do?
Re your absent getaway car theory - the most likely reason for a getaway car being absent is ironically that someone steals it.I agree with this. So, as a McCann "sceptic" how do you envisage the body was dealt with??
Back to carrying on foot openly and uncovered along populous streets and past staff accommodation and near restaurants and bars and at a time people are going out socialising. That is the most silly decision for a perp. It is ridiculous to base the investigation on such an improbable scenario.
Re your absent getaway car theory - the most likely reason for a getaway car being absent is ironically that someone steals it.
Back to carrying on foot openly and uncovered along populous streets and past staff accommodation and near restaurants and bars and at a time people are going out socialising. That is the most silly decision for a perp. It is ridiculous to base the investigation on such an improbable scenario.
Presumably, that is in reference to the Smith sighting of the child being carried ??Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.
What of Jane Tanner's sighting yards from the apartment with the carrier walking briskly towards cover?
However, in both scenarios it appears to have been a gamble worth taking ... since these are the only two witness reports of a man carrying a child in PDL that evening.
Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.
There doesn't seem to have been anything else to go on and the McCanns certainly considered Tannerman to be the man.
Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.
Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.
That may be your opinion.
I think it is too simplistic to suggest it was any one circumstance rather than a combination of many which led to the reopening Madeleine’s case.
The basis of the premise that SY presented to the Home Secretary after reviewing the evidence which enabled her decision to do so is not in the public domain.
However on the balance of probability a sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of an apartment from which a child is missing and reported on the night would probably outweigh the sighting of a similar man carrying a child reported a fortnight after the event.
Particularly when the witnesses to that sighting had to be prompted to recall the event.
... However on the balance of probability a sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of an apartment from which a child is missing and reported on the night would probably outweigh the sighting of a similar man carrying a child reported a fortnight after the event. ...Only if the delayed reporting of the Smith sighting left the date and time uncertain.
Only if the delayed reporting of the Smith sighting left the date and time uncertain.
But the date and approximate time are 100% confirmed by a payment card transaction and by airline tickets.
So the Smith sighting definitely happened on May 3rd, indisputably, and that fact is not outweighed by anything.
The delay ensured that the staff in Kelly's could not confirm the family of nine had visited on the third ... neither did the till receipt recovered by the PJ from the bar.Agreed - but the Dolphin restuarant transaction at 2127 on the 3rd fixes the date absolutely - there is no doubt whatsoever that the Smith sighting was on the evening of the 3rd.
The card receipt was for the meal at the restaurant ... not for the drinks in the bar.
Agreed - but the Dolphin restuarant transaction at 2127 on the 3rd fixes the date absolutely - there is no doubt whatsoever that the Smith sighting was on the evening of the 3rd.
Card transaction companies do not misremember dates.
Also the aeroplane flight from Faro the next morning of some of the witnesses confirms this - it fixes the date of the Smith sighting indisputably - it was the 3rd.
The only indisputable facts are the Smiths paid for a meal at 2127hrs on the 3rd & some of them got on a plane back to Eire on the 4th. Anything else is as open to questioning as all the other witness statements regarding that night,It is obvious the Smith sighting did happen.
It is obvious the Smith sighting did happen.
Two of the reasons I think it was an innocent dad with his daughter are:
(1) I looked at other cases of abduction (and of hiding bods), and not surprisingly found that open carrying in arm along populated town centre streets never happens.
(2) Even the stupidest perp would not openly carry in arms because the idea is to conceal what you are transporting.
Why is it obvious it happened? Why did it specfically have to not be Robert Murat?If you are saying it happened but on a different evening, see Dolphin card transaction on Thursday night (the link I have if you want). Or if you are saying the witnesses never saw nothing, then all I can say is why would 4 people invent such a thing. You can read the statements of MS AS PS (and indirectly of TS). Why did young witness TS say he saw a man wearing a black jacket carrying a girl with bare feet? Are you saying he invented it? Or are you saying he saw it but on a different night?
Why is it obvious it happened? Why did it specfically have to not be Robert Murat?
If you are saying it happened but on a different evening, see Dolphin card transaction on Thursday night (the link I have if you want). Or if you are saying the witnesses never saw nothing, then all I can say is why would 4 people invent such a thing. You can read the statements of MS AS PS (and indirectly of TS). Why did young witness TS say he saw a man wearing a black jacket carrying a girl with bare feet? Are you saying he invented it? Or are you saying he saw it but on a different night?
If you are saying it happened but on a different evening, see Dolphin card transaction on Thursday night (the link I have if you want). Or if you are saying the witnesses never saw nothing, then all I can say is why would 4 people invent such a thing. You can read the statements of MS AS PS (and indirectly of TS). Why did young witness TS say he saw a man wearing a black jacket carrying a girl with bare feet? Are you saying he invented it? Or are you saying he saw it but on a different night?
The TS statement is hearsay ... and there is no independent witness to the drinking in Kelly's bar ... there is no independent witness to their journey home ... and thanks to the scrubbed CCTV there is no record of when they arrived nor an independent witness to their arrival.
Why are they not considered independent witnesses?
Let me get this right.
Everything uttered by Madeline's parents and their friends is questionable.
Everything stated by anyone else is accepted without question or corroboration.
Sounds par for the course.
The TS statement is hearsay ... and there is no independent witness to the drinking in Kelly's bar ... there is no independent witness to their journey home ... and thanks to the scrubbed CCTV there is no record of when they arrived nor an independent witness to their arrival.Call it hearsay but witness T is the the only source we have of the child in Rua Escola having bare feet.
That's an interesting leap of logic? I asked why the Smiths were not seen as independent witnesses and you came up with that. Do you understand what independent means?
Call it hearsay but witness T is the the only source we have of the child in Rua Escola having bare feet.
One wonders why such a perceptive witness wasn't taken back to Portugal to make a witness statement ... he might even have had a clear recollection of visual features to share with the investigators.Yes ideally better if all 9 had been flown to Portimao in late May 2006 rather than just 3 of them.
Yes ideally better if all 9 had been flown to Portimao in late May 2006 rather than just 3 of them.
T is the only source for bare feet and I am surprised the appeal doesn't also mention the man's black jacket which T saw.
T and A were IMO more observant than the adults.
Maybe it was T who did one of the pair of "smith sighting" photofits for the PI's ?
Certainly it is unlikely to have been the three interviewed, whose recall months after the event is unlikely to have improved on their inability to do so a fortnight after the event.Agreed, more likely to not those 3 but one of the others who did a photofit for the PI's.