Statistically...what are the chances that Maddie was abducted..

[Benice]

Yes Smithman had to keep his alibi i.e. being present at the tapas bar. He couldn't lose that so he couldn't be at the beach and the tapas bar at the same time. So to keep his alibi the first move was enough to get her a safe distance from the apartment. The 2nd move to further away was done when he had more time to do it in the chaos and confusion of the first searches but he was moving quick with the child as witnesses noticed. So he didn't want to be missing for too long or caught in the act.

So you think that Gerry decided to move her twice at a time when the pubs and shops were still open, although he could have no idea   (because he couldn't see into the future)   how many tourists/locals were coming and going  from restaurants/bars - or how many could be sitting on their balconies or simply out for a stroll  - because IHO that was a much safer bet to avoid being  ''caught in the act'' than waiting until the middle of the night when everything was closed and most people would be fast asleep... presumably including the Smith family.

Strange logic indeed IMO. 

And how did he know beforehand about the unfindable place he eventually took her to?   And how did he know the police would not arrive until 11 o'clock?  How could he be sure that someone outside the group  had not taken it upon themselves to ring the police as soon as the alarm was raised and that the police could be there in minutes - long before he got back?        And when did he change back into the clothing he wore at the Tapas Bar?  - Was it in a phone box, because IMO he would have to be Superman with a crystal ball to know and do all that? 

Sorry - but where is the common sense?

[pathfinder73]

So you think that Gerry decided to move her twice at a time when the pubs and shops were still open, although he could have no idea   (because he couldn't see into the future)   how many tourists/locals were coming and going  from restaurants/bars - or how many could be sitting on their balconies or simply out for a stroll  - because IHO that was a much safer bet to avoid being  ''caught in the act'' than waiting until the middle of the night when everything was closed and most people would be fast asleep... presumably including the Smith family.

Strange logic indeed IMO. 

And how did he know beforehand about the unfindable place he eventually took her to?   And how did he know the police would not arrive until 11 o'clock?  How could he be sure that someone outside the group  had not taken it upon themselves to ring the police as soon as the alarm was raised and that the police could be there in minutes - long before he got back?        And when did he change back into the clothing he wore at the Tapas Bar?  - Was it in a phone box, because IMO he would have to be Superman with a crystal ball to know and do all that? 

Sorry - but where is the common sense?

It's very straight forward and could easily be reconstructed. There's no proof of what they were wearing at the tapas bar. It only takes 20 seconds to change trousers. Desperate times call for desperate measures. He had no idea when the police would arrive so it was done within 10 minutes - very quickly before they appeared or others catching him in the act. He knew of somewhere safe because he knew where he was going. Being present at the tapas bar with the others was Smithman's alibi - he had no alibi doing it in the middle of the night with no evidence of an abductor. Parents would be first suspects.

[Mr Gray]

It's very straight forward and could easily be reconstructed. There's no proof of what they were wearing at the tapas bar. It only takes 20 seconds to change trousers. Desperate times call for desperate measures. He had no idea when the police would arrive so it was done within 10 minutes - very quickly before they appeared or others catching him in the act. He knew of somewhere safe because he knew where he was going. Being present at the tapas bar with the others was Smithman's alibi - he had no alibi doing it in the middle of the night with no evidence of an abductor. Parents would be first suspects.

 if this is true Im convinced the mystery tapas member was dynamo the magician

[pathfinder73]

It only takes 5 minutes to move a body to a bin and come back. Any who did a check could do it in that time but when was the best time to do it? That's easy when everyone is accounted for at the tapas bar.

[Mr Gray]

It only takes 5 minutes to move a body to a bin and come back. Any who did a check could do it in that time but when was the best time to do it? That's easy when everyone is accounted for at the tapas bar.

lunacy rules ok

[pathfinder73]

As nobody has been caught for the crime and Smithman is still missing then it's a good possibility and explains cadaver alerts, moving doors and open window. Everything connects with it being an inside job.

[jassi]

lunacy rules ok

Maybe in your world.

[j.rob]

Yes Smithman had to keep his alibi i.e. being present at the tapas bar. He couldn't lose that so he couldn't be at the beach and the tapas bar at the same time. So to keep his alibi the first move was enough to get her a safe distance from the apartment. The 2nd move to further away was done when he had more time to do it in the chaos and confusion of the first searches but he was moving quick with the child as witnesses noticed. So he didn't want to be missing for too long or caught in the act.

If Smithman was Gerry carrying Madeleine, then I have always thought it was an incredibly risky move. But I suppose that a parent carrying a sleeping child in or near the resort at around 10pm would be quite a normal sight going back from the creche, for instance or going back to an apartment.

But it is hard to see what excuse he could have if, say, he had bumped into someone who knew him and who stopped and talked to him. How would he explain carrying a sleeping child AWAY from the resort at that time of night? What would have been the excuse?

Still, as others have noted, desperate measures, perhaps. Also, it would be incredibly risky to involve others in the initial carrying away of Madeleine as people will talk - eventually. And an accomplice to a crime who fesses up is going to get off a lot more lightly than the key players in the whole thing. Theoretically speaking, of course.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe in your world.

it certainly rules on here..I wonder what some posters are really like...their appear to be quite  a few fruitcakes

[pathfinder73]

That is what happened as they will find out once all other leads come to nothing. Smithman hasn't be found for a very good reason. Gerry said to Fenn a little girl had gone missing. Kate was shouting they've taken her. Can't they say it was their daughter Madeleine - using distancing language. Routine change, cadaver alerts - no coincidences in this case only that everyone have been easily duped.

[Cariad]

it certainly rules on here..I wonder what some posters are really like...their appear to be quite  a few fruitcakes

Agreed. Absolutely barking.

IMO.

[Estuarine]

it certainly rules on here..I wonder what some posters are really like...their appear to be quite  a few fruitcakes

??

[Mr Gray]

??

einstein

[Carana]

That is what happened as they will find out once all other leads come to nothing. Smithman hasn't be found for a very good reason. Gerry said to Fenn a little girl had gone missing. Kate was shouting they've taken her. Can't they say it was their daughter Madeleine - using distancing language. Routine change, cadaver alerts - no coincidences in this case only that everyone have been easily duped.

Naming her wouldn't have meant anything to an elderly lady questioning what the noise was about. A child was missing, whatever her name.

There is no way of knowing what she was actually asked during her interview (3 months after the event, which I find quite extraordinary) nor what her replies actually were as the interview was not recorded verbatim.

[pathfinder73]

No his own daughter was missing not a little girl. My daughter/Madeleine has gone missing!