The Pedras Brancas building and Smithman's route.

[sadie]

I have always thought that Madeleine was abducted earlier, and then hidden somewhere for a short while, waiting for contact with others.

Me too, Eleanor.

There are small indicators, imo.

[stephen25000]

Me too, Eleanor.

There are small indicators, imo.

The power of the imagination sometimes knows no limits.

[sadie]

The power of the imagination sometimes knows no limits.

 

Aww ..... I love the responces of a dour Scotsman.


1.  I still wonder about Bundleman.  I believe Jane Tanner absolutely and I think she saw Madeleine being taken... and that was as Gerry was chatting with Jez.

2.  Matt thought that there might have been some light coming thru the window, so shutter lifted?  No need for the curtain to flutter at the time he went in, the winds were picking up and it may have been very still when he looked in.  The Lull before the storm.

3.  The kids bedroom door was already opened some .... so had Madeleine been already taken and removed when Matt got there?   When planned and practiced a one minute job, maximum.  I think she had gone.

Sorry SY, sorry Stephen, but I am with Eleanor on this one.  I think Madeleine was already gone, probably via the front door.



But I am open minded and prepared to consider other options.

[Eleanor]

The power of the imagination sometimes knows no limits.

You are right about that Stephen, and you have offered some interesting opinions, which is what this Forum is all about.  I tend to lean towards a more positive outcome because that is how my mind works.  Quite possibly wishful thinking, but that's just me.  In the absence of proof,  I always hope for the best.

[stephen25000]

Aww ..... I love the responces of a dour Scotsman.


1.  I still wonder about Bundleman.  I believe Jane Tanner absolutely and I think she saw Madeleine being taken... and that was immediately after Gerry left.

2.  Matt thought that there might have been some light coming thru the window, so shutter lifted?  No need for the curtain to flutter at the time he went in, the winds were picking up and it may have been very still when he looked in.  The Lull before the storm.

3.  The kids bedroom door was already opened some .... so had Madeleine been already taken and removed when Matt got there?   When planned and practiced a one minute job, maximum.  I think she had gone.

Sorry SY, sorry Stephen, but I am with Eleanor on this one.  I think Madeleine was already gone, probably via the front door.



But I am open minded and prepared to consider other options.

Your powers of deduction never cease to amaze me sadie. *&*%£

Technically, I am 0.125 Scottish, in my ancestry, so your a wee bit off the mark, as usual.


As for 'abduction', persuade me of the logic of that.

I'm all ears.

[sadie]

Aww ..... I love the responces of a dour Scotsman.


1.  I still wonder about Bundleman.  I believe Jane Tanner absolutely and I think she saw Madeleine being taken... and that was immediately after Gerry left.

2.  Matt thought that there might have been some light coming thru the window, so shutter lifted?  No need for the curtain to flutter at the time he went in, the winds were picking up and it may have been very still when he looked in.  The Lull before the storm.

3.  The kids bedroom door was already opened some .... so had Madeleine been already taken and removed when Matt got there?   When planned and practiced a one minute job, maximum.  I think she had gone.

Sorry SY, sorry Stephen, but I am with Eleanor on this one.  I think Madeleine was already gone, probably via the front door.



But I am open minded and prepared to consider other options.

Anything wrong with my observations Stephen?

Unlike you, I am open minded and willing to consider every option ... but no-one has come up with a sensible option that the Mccanns did it ... have you?

[Angelo222]

Your powers of deduction never cease to amaze me sadie. *&*%£

Technically, I am 0.125 Scottish, in my ancestry, so your a wee bit off the mark, as usual.


As for 'abduction', persuade me of the logic of that.

I'm all ears.

There has never been any proof that Madeleine was abducted.  An open shutter and window are evidence but neutral evidence which is what makes this case all the more intriguing imo. Guilty or innocent, this case is like the Scottish referendum, too close to call!

[Angelo222]

1.  I still wonder about Bundleman.  I believe Jane Tanner absolutely and I think she saw Madeleine being taken... and that was immediately after Gerry left.

2.  Matt thought that there might have been some light coming thru the window, so shutter lifted?  No need for the curtain to flutter at the time he went in, the winds were picking up and it may have been very still when he looked in.  The Lull before the storm.

3.  The kids bedroom door was already opened some .... so had Madeleine been already taken and removed when Matt got there?   When planned and practiced a one minute job, maximum.  I think she had gone.

Sorry SY, sorry Stephen, but I am with Eleanor on this one.  I think Madeleine was already gone, probably via the front door.

But I am open minded and prepared to consider other options.

I totally agree with your points Sadie but for different reasons.

[Wonderfulspam]

There has never been any proof that Madeleine was abducted.  An open shutter and window are evidence but neutral evidence which is what makes this case all the more intriguing imo. Guilty or innocent, this case is like the Scottish referendum, too close to call!

If Maddie really was abducted, Kate had no reason to lie about the details of the 2 sightings, but she did lie, it's there for all to see on the pyjamas thread.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5018.75


Or here:

Kate 'did not tell the truth' about the child's arm's/sleeves.


McCann Oprah 4th May 2009

Gerry : "Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo.. she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.."

Kate: "The child was barefoot and bare armed..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xNI5up44Nho#t=820

Jane Tanner didn't see the child's arms.



Kate say's Smithman's child had nothing on her arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fRQQWmpiO3s#t=293


Smithman's child was witnessed to have had long sleeves on, as shown in the Crimewatch reconstruction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y#t=1431


There was no innocent reason for her to do that.

[John]

Hope this helps Sadie?

[sadie]

Your powers of deduction never cease to amaze me sadie. *&*%£

Technically, I am 0.125 Scottish, in my ancestry, so your a wee bit off the mark, as usual.


As for 'abduction', persuade me of the logic of that.

I'm all ears.

Well I think that I am even less Scottish, but I am quite pleased with the bit that is.

Seems I am a real mongrel, bits of this and bits of that. 


I have alraedy put up as much of my theories as I am able, the greater part possibly being sub judicy, so I cant post that.  You can read back for the stuff that I believe .... but I hone it as new information and thoughts appear, based on that info.

[sadie]

Hope this helps Sadie?

Thank you John

So much better, the right way up.

But it varies from my route in two places. 

1.  The third turning right rather than the second off the long alleyway. 
The way I have it, he kept to quiet, ill lit, little walked alleyways, but as you show it with the second turn right, that goes straight through a better lit and more likely to be overlooked cul-de-sac.  A busier place.

Again after turning second right he comes out on a wide pathway to the north side of the green lawned area.. 

I think that having come down the third alleyway, he was more likely to have crossed onto the actual lawned triangular area and to have sneaked along the north side of Baptistas, close to the wall.  Further from the houses, and the walk way and also dimly lit.   He would still have come out at the top RH corner of the first car park


2.   I also think that as he left that car park by its SW corner he would have preferred NOT to have to walk down the main road of Pdl, Rua Primeria de Maio.  I think he would have crossed the main road and immediately put some parked cars on the second car park, between himself and anyone on Rua P. de Maio.

I think he would then have taken the opportunity to slip thru a gap (It shows on contemporary GE, if you zoom right in and look carefully).in the fencing on to the southern end of the wasteland.   You can tell cos there is no shadow at the point where there is no fencing.

Feeling relatively safe on the wasteland he would have crossed it in a westerly direction, coming out right opposite the ?toilet block and the gap thru into Rua de Escola.



The reason for my route, is that it goes exclusively thru ill lit usually deserted alleyways, across car parks and virtually passes no homes nor travels any roads after the initial bit.  So it would be the safest route imo.

Amarals route is also fairly safe cos Rua d'Escola is a quiet road, But has those confounded high fences on either side, trapping him if someone spotted him...  and fairly well lit.   Amarals route is the route that I also thought of originally, but now I wonder?




Thanks for all the work you have done, John

I know that it is a lot of work and I dont like to ask you to change this again, John, but it would be good if the plan matched my description.  They dont match atm

[John]

The thing is though Sadie, the Google images showing the missing fence panels are dated August 2009 so we have no way of knowing what the fencing was like in May 2007. Also there is no way of knowing what cars were parked after dark in the area you refer to.

I have altered the map as per your post above.

[pathfinder73]

He would take the quickest safest route with a missing child from 5A so I believe Amaral's route is correct but it had to be two moves in this case. It doesn't make any sense for Tannerman to take her at 9:10 and then be seen only 250 metres away at around 10.  It only makes sense if he didn't have time to take her that far on his first move from 5A. The fact is Smithman couldn't do it in one move because he would lose his alibi.

[Brietta]

We have always assumed that Dr Amaral's suggested route was the correct one - Sadie has however come up with a reasonable alternative. 
Even more so if the starting point from 5a is altered to the location of the night crèche.   

The direction in which he was walking and the location of the man Jane Tanner saw was a rather strange one for a father who had picked up his child from the night crèche; we have already discussed this in some detail on the forum with the help of maps John posted showing the location of the crèche in relation to the junction where Jane saw him.

I think the man encountered by the Smith family may well have been on a direct path from the crèche to his accommodation; the photographs we have seen of the pyjamas his daughter was wearing on the night in question have long sleeves which would tie in with Aoife’s description.

The Met will of course know the holiday address of the father seen by witnesses and therefore know which person is more likely to be the actual suspect.
The DCI did not make a definitive statement eliminating Jane Tanner’s sighting which is strange given that he is very precise on every other well thought out statement he has made on the case.

I hazard a guess that the route taken by Smithman is a more logical one when bearing in mind the location of the crèche from where the child was picked up.