The test of reasonableness

[drummer]

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

It was Amaral who stated the CCTV at  Estrela da Luz would've captured the abductor, but it had been wiped. I find that strange anyway as I have a CCTV system (which cost less than a grand) that was accidentally wiped but the data was still stored on the hard drive and was restored by a company using software tools.

[Mr Gray]

It was Amaral who stated the CCTV at  Estrela da Luz would've captured the abductor, but it had been wiped. I find that strange anyway as I have a CCTV system (which cost less than a grand) that was accidentally wiped but the data was still stored on the hard drive and was restored by a company using software tools.

correct...

[patb]

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

obviosly its a debateble point, but on the assuption that the abduction (if thats what it was) was planned and knowing what we know about the timing and location, if you gave someone the choice of escaping by car or on foot, to me its a no brainer. Once the kid is in the car (we should assume boot, tied and gagged) the car looks like any other car and its fair to assume false plates. If the car comes across a road black ahead or similar high risk scenario, you just park up and walk away (maybe to meet another car that was a plan B), if you are on foot and you are in that situation, what are you going to do? calmly put the girl on the pavement and walk away?  When you add the risk of the child screaming their head off, one option is reasonable (to me at least) and the other option is just bizarre.
For any parents on the forum, seriously consider how your own child would react if a stranger entered your kid's bedroom at 10pm , picked them up and carried them down the street. Is it reasonble to assume that they would stay calm and is it reasonable that the abductor would come to the same assumption in advance (ie the child would freak (for want of a better word) and come to a better solution than carrying down the street on foot

[Mr Gray]

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

I never claimed anything

[pathfinder73]

Smithman seemed to be carrying this kid and moving very quickly. Is that normal behaviour? It is if you're trying to get away from the crime scene.

[Benice]

If as a result of the Crimewatch programme the person who the Smiths saw DOES come forward and is eliminated - then the use of a car by the abductor to make his escape -  immediately becomes extremely credible - as both sightings will have been ruled out of the equation.

However, if that doesn't happen then we still have to wonder WHY that person has not come forward.

[Mr Gray]

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

obviosly its a debateble point, but on the assuption that the abduction (if thats what it was) was planned and knowing what we know about the timing and location, if you gave someone the choice of escaping by car or on foot, to me its a no brainer. Once the kid is in the car (we should assume boot) the car looks like any other car and its fair to assume false plates. If the car comes across a road black ahead or similar high risk scenario, you just park up and walk away (maybe to meet another car that was a plan B), if you are on foot and you are in that situation, what are you going to do? calmly put the girl on the pavement and walk away? j When you add the risk of the child screaming their head off, one option is reasonable (to me at least) and the other option is just bizarre.
For any parents on the forum, seriously consider how your own child would react if a stranger entered your kid's bedroom at 10pm , picked them up and carried them down the street.

When I see posters on here trying to rationalise what happened, it reminds me of a child trying to do a jigsaw...a jigsaw with pieces missing...where pieces perhaps from another jigsaw are present and are tried to be forced into place....That's why so much does not make sense

[Mr Gray]

If as a result of the Crimewatch programme the person who the Smiths saw DOES come forward and is eliminated - then the use of a car by the abductor to make his escape -  immediately becomes extremely credible - as both sightings will have been ruled out of the equation.

However, if that doesn't happen then we still have to wonder WHY that person has not come forward.

I was just about to make a similar post. pat b is wrong, but then again she is not  a detective, to  try and exclude the smith sighting. the correct thing to do is to trace the suspect and eliminate them

[patb]

yes, it is hard, but even though obviously child adduction is a horrible crime, its a potential mistake to then make the assumption that those who commit it are stupid or carry out the act in an irrational way. Look at 911. Obviously a horrible horrible crime. But they went about commiting that crime in a logical and reasoned manor and it was that which contributed to them achiving thier goal. We surely have to credit any adductor with the ability to make sensible choices on how best to acheive their goal. ie to think like they did. So its not just trying to rationalise the situation but to think about how rational people would plan this to minimise the risk of being caught and its on that basis that I come to the conclusion that they would choose a car. I cant see how abducting a child on foot mininises the risks. But I respent your point.

[patb]

I have not excluded the smith sighting, I am trying to be very careful with my words and misquoting is always an issue with forums. I said that IF it was an abductor, the use of a car is far more likely (not fact) and therfore the sighting is unlikley to be her. But saying something is unlikley is not excluding.
PS Ironioc that you have excluded the possibility of me being male with zero evidence to base that on,

[pathfinder73]

Desparate circumstances can result in desparate measures being taken.

[drummer]

yes, it is hard, but even though obviously child adduction is a horrible crime, its a potential mistake to then make the assumption that those who commit it are stupid or carry out the act in an irrational way. Look at 911. Obviously a horrible horrible crime. But they went about commiting that crime in a logical and reasoned manor and it was that which contributed to them achiving thier goal. We surely have to credit any adductor with the ability to make sensible choices on how best to acheive their goal. ie to think like they did. So its not just trying to rationalise the situation but to think about how rational people would plan this to minimise the risk of being caught and its on that basis that I come to the conclusion that they would choose a car. I cant see how abducting a child on foot mininises the risks. But I respent your point.

Unless the first destination of the route was closer than we think?

[Mr Gray]

yes, it is hard, but even though obviously child adduction is a horrible crime, its a potential mistake to then make the assumption that those who commit it are stupid or carry out the act in an irrational way. Look at 911. Obviously a horrible horrible crime. But they went about commiting that crime in a logical and reasoned manor and it was that which contributed to them achiving thier goal. We surely have to credit any adductor with the ability to make sensible choices on how best to acheive their goal. ie to think like they did. So its not just trying to rationalise the situation but to think about how rational people would plan this to minimise the risk of being caught and its on that basis that I come to the conclusion that they would choose a car. I cant see how abducting a child on foot mininises the risks. But I respent your point.

911 was  meticulously planned by a group of very clever people...this may just have been an opportunist crime.. aburglary that went wrong. what if the apt was burgled and maddie cried out .The burglar panics and puts his hands over her mouth and eventually she suffocates. He carries away a dead child to remove any forensic evidence

[patb]

absolutely agree, all of my contributions to this thread are discussing the idea of a planed abduction escaping on foot. Situations that develope in real time such as your example require a different chain of thought

[Mr Gray]

I have not excluded the smith sighting, I am trying to be very careful with my words and misquoting is always an issue with forums. I said that IF it was an abductor, the use of a car is far more likely (not fact) and therfore the sighting is unlikley to be her. But saying something is unlikley is not excluding.
PS Ironioc that you have excluded the possibility of me being male with zero evidence to base that on,

sorry pat..I have to pick you up on that...there is some evidence to support this claim...in the uk the majority of pats are female..the evidence may be weak..but it exists