The 'Abductor' & the Sliding Door

[AnneGuedes]

Justice may yet prevail.

It has to. Establishing the truth belongs to Justice.
The people require it, as in Greek tragedy the chorus did.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just make sure Madeleine would never be found.
We'd have to hear what Smithman has to say before speaking of crime.

What has occurred if not a crime?

[sadie]

I believe I know who was behind the abduction.


Do please tell us sadie. It could be vital information. Have you thought about sharing your knowledge with SY.

It is all shared and has been for many months.  The last time I visited SY was in about February / March, but I have been several times and talked with a Sargent the last twice. 

They do not share information and I would not expect that.   However, I know that we are considering the same person.  They may be considering others instead of, or, as well.    That I do not know.

There are many pointers which made clumps of information.  Like a jigsaw sometimes comes together when clumps of pieces fit together, these clumps of information quite suddenly linked together and formed a jigsaw.  Some pieces missing, but the main structure there.

And more recently a strange source has confirmed my thoughts and findings.

I cannot tell you more, sorry.

[AnneGuedes]

What has occurred if not a crime?

"crime" is generic. I'm not sure how it is semantically in English, but in Portuguese, they use "blood crime" vs "crime". In French, "crime" means currently murder.
Would you include in "crime" unintentional homicide ?
Would you include in "crime " concealment of cadaver ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

"crime" is generic. I'm not sure how it is semantically in English, but in Portuguese, they use "blood crime" vs "crime". In French, "crime" means currently murder.
Would you include in "crime" unintentional homicide ?
Would you include in "crime " concealment of cadaver ?

Crime is more of an umbrella term in English. Almost anything involving any infringement of the law may be termed a crime, including relatively trivial matters. Distinction between greater and smaller crimes are distinguished by terms such as 'serious crime'; 'petty (as in 'petit') crime', and so on.  Then obviously there are all the technical terms for the different categories of crimes as well.

Concealment of a cadaver, to return to your example, would certainly be termed a serious crime. Unintentional homicide (termed manslaughter in common law, usually) would also be termed a serious crime.


 

[AnneGuedes]

Crime is more of an umbrella term in English. Almost anything involving any infringement of the law may be termed a crime, including relatively trivial matters. Distinction between greater and smaller crimes are distinguished by terms such as 'serious crime'; 'petty (as in 'petit') crime', and so on.  Then obviously there are all the technical terms for the different categories of crimes as well.

Concealment of a cadaver, to return to your example, would certainly be termed a serious crime. Unintentional homicide (termed manslaughter in common law, usually) would also be termed a serious crime.

Concealment of cadaver is no "Portuguese" nor "French" crime -- same orthography in the three languages ! But different semantic fields. It is a "délit", a misdemeanour (what's the difference with offence ?). "Homicide" is a crime, even if not intentional, because it implies the death of someone.
What I was trying to say is that "crime" or "wrong doing" are assertions, they don't say much.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Concealment of cadaver is no "Portuguese" nor "French" crime -- same orthography in the three languages ! But different semantic fields. It is a "délit", a misdemeanour (what's the difference with offence ?). "Homicide" is a crime, even if not intentional, because it implies the death of someone.
What I was trying to say is that "crime" or "wrong doing" are assertions, they don't say much.

But what's the  material significance in the context of Smithman?  Obviously if he was carrying Madeleine, that was a 'wrong doing', of whatever description.

[AnneGuedes]

But what's the  material significance in the context of Smithman?  Obviously if he was carrying Madeleine, that was a 'wrong doing', of whatever description.

I don't think so. It depends on who Smithman was, what he was doing and what for.

[colombosstogey]

It's mystifying, columbostogey, isn't it?

Much more likely she was whisked away in a car. Could have been half way towards the Spanish border before anyone had even called the police.

Yes I believe strongly if she was taken, it was through the front door on foot with someone she knew and taken by car very quickly and away. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.

IF she was taken out asleep then sadly I have to assume she was heavily sedated IMHO, as knowing grandchildren that age, there is no way they would stay asleep if taken out of a warm bed. Now going INTO  a warm bed when they have just fell asleep is slightly different. BUT in my experience a child would not be taken out into the VERY VERY cold air and not wake up.

So either way its not good for someone.

I am still not against abduction but it would be by someone who knew her, and had access to front door...they would never have gone in through the sliding door it was too open and the path went right by the steps so could be seen.....

As I have said before IF the sighting by the Smiths is real it was a red herring........a Mr Kipper.

[AnneGuedes]

Red herrings are mostly an ingredient of fiction.
A accomplice would carry some sleeping child to be spotted by passer-bys, while the abductor would take Madeleine away in his car ? All this for the police to believe the abductor was walking ?

[sadie]

Yes I believe strongly if she was taken, it was through the front door on foot with someone she knew and taken by car very quickly and away. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.

IF she was taken out asleep then sadly I have to assume she was heavily sedated IMHO, as knowing grandchildren that age, there is no way they would stay asleep if taken out of a warm bed. Now going INTO  a warm bed when they have just fell asleep is slightly different. BUT in my experience a child would not be taken out into the VERY VERY cold air and not wake up.

So either way its not good for someone.

I am still not against abduction but it would be by someone who knew her, and had access to front door...they would never have gone in through the sliding door it was too open and the path went right by the steps so could be seen.....

As I have said before IF the sighting by the Smiths is real it was a red herring........a Mr Kipper.

Dont think you are right Colom.  A red Herring of that type would be too risky, imo


I believe a car was going to be used too, but I believe it was thwarted by seeing Jane Tanner witnessing the abduction and by Gerry being fairly close at only 30 metres.  I believe that the getaway car was hidden with a driver / watcher on the little car park opposite the Tapas Reception.  I believe that the driver bottled out of the pick up. leaving bundleman with Madeleine, on his tod.

[Lace]

I don't think the patio doors would have been the way the abductor got in,  too risky with people up and down checking the children.

It was via the front door with someone who had a key,  the window opened as a means of a quick exit or to hand Madeleine through it.

I still think there was two of them,   one who had the means to get into the apartment,   the other to take Madeleine to someone waiting maybe with a car or a boat.

[Wonderfulspam]

I don't think the patio doors would have been the way the abductor got in,  too risky with people up and down checking the children.

It was via the front door with someone who had a key,  the window opened as a means of a quick exit or to hand Madeleine through it.

I still think there was two of them,   one who had the means to get into the apartment,   the other to take Madeleine to someone waiting maybe with a car or a boat.

Kate seemed to think rather early on that she could possibly have been found inside a large dumpster bin.

She considered that was such a high likelyhood that she pleaded with God for her not to be.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't think so. It depends on who Smithman was, what he was doing and what for.

So there could have been an innocent reason for him carrying Madeleine?

Or do you mean he had nothing to do with the investigation?

[AnneGuedes]

So there could have been an innocent reason for him carrying Madeleine?

Or do you mean he had nothing to do with the investigation?

I'm pretty sure he was carrying Madeleine, so he has to do with the investigation.
I observe that the Smiths found nothing weird about him, he didn't seem to carry the child against her will.