Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[Rachel Granada]

Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around?  Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.

Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been).  Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.

Greetings, peter.  I am very interested to debate with others of opposing opinion to mine.  You are positing that Gerry McCann "removed" Madeleine and was seen by the Smiths, where do you propose that he took her? Is it your opinion that Madeleine's remains were transported in the Scenic?

I've absolutely no idea... how could I know?

I was just interested to hear your opinions, no offence meant.

[C.Edwards]

Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars?  Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?

Rigor mortis ?

Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5

You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not.
Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...

Did the Smiths report that the child they saw had what appeared to be rigor mortis?

Yeah, that's likely. "The child was obviously dead but we just exchanged pleasantries and moved on, you know?"



*I hate this damn message board editing system!

[peter claridge]

Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars?  Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?

Rigor mortis ?

Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5

You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not.
Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...

Did the Smiths report that the child they saw had what appeared to be rigor mortis?

No, they thought the child was sleeping.

[AnneGuedes]

You know the answer very well, Martha !
I bet it would pass nobody's mind (except for a first aider in some catastrophic situation) that a carried child (even with limp arms and legs) could be a corpse.
As you mentioned 4 in the morning, I just thought of rigor mortis. Nothing more !

[AnneGuedes]

Martha :  "In which case it's unlikely the child had rigor mortis as suggested by Anne - don't you agree?
Martha, I never suggested rigor mortis at 10 pm ! Read above please !

[peter claridge]

Also, if this was the plan, then why did Gerry decide to carry a corpse through the streets of PdL completely uncovered during dinner and whilst holiday makers would be around?  Peter, you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can throw some light on this.

Ideal time to remove Madeleine (what other choice could there have been).  Of course he wasn't expecting to come across ten members of the same family especially down those side streets.

Greetings, peter.  I am very interested to debate with others of opposing opinion to mine.  You are positing that Gerry McCann "removed" Madeleine and was seen by the Smiths, where do you propose that he took her? Is it your opinion that Madeleine's remains were transported in the Scenic?

I've absolutely no idea... how could I know?

I was just interested to hear your opinions, no offence meant.

Non taken.

[AnneGuedes]

You know the answer very well, Martha !
I bet it would pass nobody's mind (except for a first aider in some catastrophic situation) that a carried child (even with limp arms and legs) could be a corpse.
As you mentioned 4 in the morning, I just thought of rigor mortis. Nothing more !

Which brings me back to my original question - why carry an unconcealed corpse through the streets of PdL at 10pm at night when people are likely to be out and about - it seems like a strange thing to do, particularly if you are the child's father and may be id'ed as such from publicity that follows the disappearance.

This is pure speculation.
But, as an hypothesis of study, I'd suggest you don't carry a corpse (a concealed corpse would look a bit strange, don't you think ?) for the pleasure of carrying it, whether you're the child's father or not. You must have a motive and a strong one at that, because our societies have institutions that take care of the dead bodies.

[AnneGuedes]

Martha :  "In which case it's unlikely the child had rigor mortis as suggested by Anne - don't you agree?
Martha, I never suggested rigor mortis at 10 pm ! Read above please !

Frankly I don't know what you're suggesting, perhaps you need to spell it out for me - I'm not very bright.  8-)(--)

Fishing for compliments perhaps ?

[C.Edwards]

You know the answer very well, Martha !
I bet it would pass nobody's mind (except for a first aider in some catastrophic situation) that a carried child (even with limp arms and legs) could be a corpse.
As you mentioned 4 in the morning, I just thought of rigor mortis. Nothing more !

Which brings me back to my original question - why carry an unconcealed corpse through the streets of PdL at 10pm at night when people are likely to be out and about - it seems like a strange thing to do, particularly if you are the child's father and may be id'ed as such from publicity that follows the disappearance.

How many times have I seen McCann supporters go on about how it was out of tourist season and therefore unseasonably quiet...  I'll answer that: many, many times.

[sadie]

So?


PdL was very very quiet even in June/July 2010, when we visited

Have never stayed anywhere quieter ... very nice place tho

[gilet]

However, I can spot a fabricated timeline when I see one; the person seen carrying a sleeping child by the Smith family was Gerry McCann! Honest.

The simple fact that you have shown no evidence whatsoever for your suppostion (libellous claim) that the timelines were fabricated and that you have ignored the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen means that your claim to be posting honestly is probably very wide of the mark.

When you post some evidence then perhaps you will be taken seriously.

The reality is that your suppositions (libels) do nothing to take this debate further.

[peter claridge]

Why not wait until 4 in the morning when there would be less chance of bumping into people walking back from restaurants and bars?  Why not put the body into a bag or cover it up somehow?

Rigor mortis ?

Why would this be a problem? If the body was put straight into a bag on discovery it wouldn't have been an issue would it? Also "Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis#cite_note-5

You assume the supposed body was found "straight" after death, yet warm. But it might not.
Infants have no muscle, we all experienced that with our babies. But Madeleine, just 4, used to ride horses and bicycles, to swim and play tennis...

Did the Smiths report that the child they saw had what appeared to be rigor mortis?

No, they thought the child was sleeping.

In which case it's unlikely the child had rigor mortis as suggested by Anne - don't you agree?

To be honest (who does that remind you of) my complete lack of knowledge on the subject of rigor mortis means that I could not possibly comment.  However, I can spot a fabricated timeline when I see one; the person seen carrying a sleeping child by the Smith family was Gerry McCann! Honest.

So Madeleine was alive when Gerry was carrying her through the streets of PdL in your view then?

No, she was dead.

[AnneGuedes]

... you have ignored the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen

Gilet, do you really think this is an evidence and a clear one at that ? I wish it were.

[peter claridge]

However, I can spot a fabricated timeline when I see one; the person seen carrying a sleeping child by the Smith family was Gerry McCann! Honest.

The simple fact that you have shown no evidence whatsoever for your suppostion (libellous claim) that the timelines were fabricated and that you have ignored the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen means that your claim to be posting honestly is probably very wide of the mark.

When you post some evidence then perhaps you will be taken seriously.




The reality is that your suppositions (libels) do nothing to take this debate further.

Would you care to post the clear evidence that Gerry McCann was not the person seen by the Smith family... you do understand the concept of evidence don't you?

[ferryman]

Martin Smith (to his credit) canvassed the views of the whole party with him that night before giving his second statement.

All Mr Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry, including his daughter Aofe, an astute and assured witness of what the Smiths all saw that night.