Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?

[Martina]

Why heavily drugged?  She could have been asleep.

Maddie was, according to her own parents, a light sleeper. I don't think it would be possible to take her away from the flat without waking her up in the process.

[Alfred R Jones]

Maddie was, according to her own parents, a light sleeper. I don't think it would be possible to take her away from the flat without waking her up in the process.

Maybe, maybe not.  She could have wakened on being removed from the apartment and told that she was being taken to her mum and dad, and then fell back to sleep again.  Children who have been asleep for an hour or so after going to bed in the evening are usually in their most deeply asleep phase, in my experience, especially if they have had a busy day.

[Martina]

Maybe, maybe not.  She could have wakened on being removed from the apartment and told that she was being taken to her mum and dad, and then fell back to sleep again.  Children who have been asleep for an hour or so after going to bed in the evening are usually in their most deeply asleep phase, in my experience, especially if they have had a busy day.

What kind of problem do you have with a possibility that Maddie might have been drugged? A possibility, I repeat. It's hard to believe that she did not wake up, while being carried through the strets of Praia, especially that you insist the perp did not have a car (your another pet peeve it seems). So she was either unconscious, drugged or dead. Explaining "I'm taking you to daddy" may not work with a sleepy child, so I don;t consider it a serious possibility, and it would be quite risky. So again, what is wrong with the possibility that Maddie was drugged?

[Alfred R Jones]

What kind of problem do you have with a possibility that Maddie might have been drugged? A possibility, I repeat. It's hard to believe that she did not wake up, while being carried through the strets of Praia, especially that you insist the perp did not have a car (your another pet peeve it seems). So she was either unconscious, drugged or dead. Explaining "I'm taking you to daddy" may not work with a sleepy child, so I don;t consider it a serious possibility, and it would be quite risky. So again, what is wrong with the possibility that Maddie was drugged?

I suggest you re-read my post at #546 when I both acknowledge she may have been drugged and that having a car would be a realistic option for a potential abductor.  What I object to is your insistence that if she was abducted she *must* have been drugged and that an abductor *must* have had a car, neither is a given.

[Martina]

I suggest you re-read my post at #546 when I both acknowledge she may have been drugged and that having a car would be a realistic option for a potential abductor.  What I object to is your insistence that if she was abducted she *must* have been drugged and that an abductor *must* have had a car, neither is a given.

I never wrote that she must have been drugged and that abductor must have had a car. I suggest you re-read my posts, now with understanding of what you actually read.

[Alfred R Jones]

I never wrote that she must have been drugged and that abductor must have had a car. I suggest you re-read my posts, now with understanding of what you actually read.

did you not write this then?

" If she was alive she had to be heavily drugged, to lie calm in the arms of the perp"?

[Martina]

did you not write this then?

" If she was alive she had to be heavily drugged, to lie calm in the arms of the perp"?

I also considered other options later, i.e. Maddie being unconscious. Haven't you read it?

[Alfred R Jones]

I also considered other options later, i.e. Maddie being unconscious. Haven't you read it?

Yawn. You did not acknowledge that you were mistaken in your belief that I "insisted" the abductor didn't have a car and that I had a "problem" with the idea that she Madeleine had been drugged, however I will be magnanimous and acknowledge that you did consider other options (albeit you do seem rather convinced that any abductor worth his salt would both 'drug and drive'). 

[pegasus]

...who is this third arguido?

IIRC the chronological order was 1st R 14/05/2007 , 2nd K 07/09/2007 AM , 3rd G 07/09/2007 PM.

[misty]

IIRC the chronological order was 1st R 14/05/2007 , 2nd K 07/09/2007 AM , 3rd G 07/09/2007 PM.

I referred to RM as the 3rd arguido, as K&G seem to be prime arguidos 1 & 2. No-one ever seems to want to discuss his possible involvement in this whole affair.

[Mr Moderator]

We know the person seen by JT was an innocent passer-by carrying his child so that's why the child was not crying and resisting.

That is not the case, we are told SY are almost certain which is not the same thing.  Tannerman is very much still alive and kicking as far as the evidence is concerned.  There are too many anomalies in the SY claim for it to be taken as gospel.

[Mr Moderator]

Maddie was, according to her own parents, a light sleeper. I don't think it would be possible to take her away from the flat without waking her up in the process.

That is a good point Martina.  Highly unlikely a nearly 4-year-old with a record for poor sleeping would tolerate being taken by strangers. If the person the Smiths saw was carrying Madeleine she was either dead, unconscious or heavily sedated.

[Silkywhiskers]

Since when did Martin Smith "change his mind about Gerry"?

[Benice]

Since when did Martin Smith "change his mind about Gerry"?

It was contained in the same Times article about the Efits.

Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote

[pathfinder73]

It was contained in the same Times article about the Efits.

Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote

Yes he doesn't want to believe it is.