Are there other cases of an abductor carrying a child through streets?

[Anna]

I too don't believe Madeleine was taken by the person seen by Mrs Smith.
I believe Madeleine was taken exactly from the spot where GNR dogs lost her scent and she was put in a parked car.
Who parked their car there that night it was never revealed.

Here is a recent case of an abductor carrying a child.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-man-saves-kidnapped-daughter-article-1.2003192

I don't think smithman was carrying Madeleine either.
I do think the real culprit was surprised by one of the Children checkers and had to make an escape as best he could.
There has been incidents in china too, of a child being carried, but I doubt if it was through the normal streets where they might be seen abducting the child. A lot of babies stolen and sold for adoption in china. Terrible what people will do for money.

[sadie]

How strange! They also call Madeleine a  'school girl' ???

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg


And, I think there is a gate behind, where that white vehicle is parked,  The white vehicle is exactly in the spot that the getaway vehicle would have been parked in sadies theory.

Guess it is just a co-incidence ?

[misty]

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg


And, I think there is a gate behind, where that white vehicle is parked,  The white vehicle is exactly in the spot that the getaway vehicle would have been parked in sadies theory.

Guess it is just a co-incidence ?

I don't think any of us have considered the possibility that she could have been taken into Block 6 by Tannerman.

[Wonderfulspam]

@Sadie
There are 3 very different theories about Smithman.

1. Smithman = an abductor
In hundreds of abduction cases it is extremely rare (probably less than 0.1%) for the abductor to carry the victim along 400 metres or more of public populated streets.

2. Smithman = an occulter
In hundreds of occultation cases it is unheard of (happens in 0% of cases) for the perp to carry the body along 400m or more of public populated streets.

3. Smithman = innocent father carrying own sleeping daughter.
In a south european holiday resort at about 10.15pm there is nothing unlikely about a man innocently carrying his own child home, it statistically happens in every resort every night many times.

The statistics shout out loud that number 3 is almost certainly correct.

1. Smithman = an abductor,...... who changed Maddies pyjama top.

2. Smithman = an occulter....

3. Smithman = an innocent father who has never heard of (probably) the worlds most high profile missing persons case....

4. The Smiths were all mistaken.


I'm sticking with 2.

The McCanns are sticking with Bundleman, & they always will.

[Brietta]

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4507104.ece/alternates/s615/Madeleine-McCann.jpg


And, I think there is a gate behind, where that white vehicle is parked,  The white vehicle is exactly in the spot that the getaway vehicle would have been parked in sadies theory.

Guess it is just a co-incidence ?

If there was a planned abduction maybe it was always part of the plan to go to a nearby apartment and that would have been as far as it was ever intended to carry a child openly in the street.

The people involved would have been well aware how quiet PDL was at that time; over the next couple of days many innocent holidaymakers would have been loading large bags into transport to go to the airport to get their flights home … so who would have looked twice at tourists leaving or asked any to open their bags for checking?

If it was an unplanned abduction, the closest cover was through block six to the car park, or into an empty apartment to give time to take stock of the situation.

I think Jane Tanner’s sighting is likely to have been Madeleine.  The possibility of a nearby flat being used may have been overlooked because when seen he appeared to be heading in the direction of the Murat villa.


Did you get my email, Sadie?   

[pathfinder73]

@Pathfinder The study of other cases certainly would be distracting to your theory, because if you did look at a hundred or more occultation cases you would find open uncovered carrying along populated streets happens exactly never.

I don't care about other cases. Smithman has never came forward. Worked out why yet? Maybe an innocent father walking his child home in PDL has never heard of Madeleine McCann

Block 6 car park is opposite the secondary reception so not the most intelligent place for a getaway car  Madeleine walked that way to go to the creche. And the kids came from the creche to have tea at the tapas bar. Madeleine's scent would be found by the dogs.

[Mr Gray]

I don't care about other cases. Smithman has never came forward. Worked out why yet? Maybe an innocent father walking his child home in PDL has never heard of Madeleine McCann

Block 6 car park is opposite the secondary reception so not the most intelligent place for a getaway car  Madeleine walked that way to go to the creche. And the kids came from the creche to have tea at the tapas bar. Madeleine's scent would be found by the dogs.

depends which country he is from...he will have heard of maddie but may be completely unaware about smithman....do you think everyone in the uk is aware of smithman...definitely not

[sadie]

If there was a planned abduction maybe it was always part of the plan to go to a nearby apartment and that would have been as far as it was ever intended to carry a child openly in the street.

The people involved would have been well aware how quiet PDL was at that time; over the next couple of days many innocent holidaymakers would have been loading large bags into transport to go to the airport to get their flights home … so who would have looked twice at tourists leaving or asked any to open their bags for checking?

If it was an unplanned abduction, the closest cover was through block six to the car park, or into an empty apartment to give time to take stock of the situation.

I think Jane Tanner’s sighting is likely to have been Madeleine.  The possibility of a nearby flat being used may have been overlooked because when seen he appeared to be heading in the direction of the Murat villa.


Did you get my email, Sadie?

I dont think that Jane Tanners man went into block 6, but maybe?

I think the getaway car [which would have been parked where the white car is in the picture] was supposed to pull out and go up to the drive in of 5A to pick Tannerman up with Madeleine.  The driver couldn't cos he saw Gerry and Jez chatting in his way.  He took real  fright when he saw JT witnessing his friend, Tannerman,  carrying Madeleine.  I think Tannerman was supposed to have stayed in the dark parking lot to block 5 but came out looking for the getaway car, which of course had been delayed.

Tannerman then realised that he had been seen by JT and decided to walk straight on, probably thinking he could circle back via the alleyways to rendezvous with the getaway car... but it had gone cos the driver took fright.


Only my thoughts, nothing more, but it fits.

[Anna]

Possible reasons why this man (seen by the Smith family did not come forward:-

...Many, Dad's were carrying their children that night, so he thought that it must have been someone else,

...By the time the news of this man was released, the man seen couldn't remember what day he walked along that road.

...He didn't want to get involved knowing what has happened to others in this case.

...Had reason not to want to get involved....past convictions. visa problems etc

...Died

...He has no resemblance to the photofits ,so is sure it cant have been him

...Was on holiday with a lady, other than his wife

...Afraid of PJ interrogation

Or it could be  a combination of some of the above.

Nobody came forward with any evidence and the Laundry man, who did, was too nervous of the PJ, to inform them that he saw a Stranger in the stairwell, so waited to tell Scotland yard........Does that not tell you something?

A lady who was interviewed in her home said that nobody wanted to talk to the PJ and someone she knew, who did talk to PJ, never got another pool cleaning job.

[pathfinder73]

Jane Tanner said Jez was facing her when she left the tapas bar but he didn't see her when she passed or rather didn't see anybody on the street never mind a foot away.

Jane Tanner's exclusive interview with The Sun, 20 November 2007

By ONLINE REPORTERS
Published: 20 Nov 2007

MADDIE kidnap witness Jane Tanner yesterday told how she watched the tot being snatched – and insisted she has NO doubt about what she saw.

In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying.

Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine.

"She WAS abducted."

Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like.
"I think about it over and over again. It’s horrible.

"Madeleine was adorable. Every day I hope this is the day we find her."

Amazing! She didn't even tell anybody about the sighting at the table. If she had any inkling that it could be Madeleine she would have said. It never crossed her mind. Just like Gerry not telling anybody about the strange moving door when he returned. Not even asking Matt if he went in and moved the door  &%+((£

[Anna]

Of course JT wouldn't mention seeing a man with a child, as it would be a regular occurrence in a holiday complex and she didn't know at that time that Maddie was missing.

It would have sounded a bit daft if she told people that she saw a man with a child, crossing the road IMO.

[Alfred R Jones]

Possible reasons why this man (seen by the Smith family did not come forward:-

...Many, Dad's were carrying their children that night, so he thought that it must have been someone else,

...By the time the news of this man was released, the man seen couldn't remember what day he walked along that road.

...He didn't want to get involved knowing what has happened to others in this case.

...Had reason not to want to get involved....past convictions. visa problems etc

...Died

...He has no resemblance to the photofits ,so is sure it cant have been him

...Was on holiday with a lady, other than his wife

...Afraid of PJ interrogation

Or it could be  a combination of some of the above.

Nobody came forward with any evidence and the Laundry man, who did, was too nervous of the PJ, to inform them that he saw a Stranger in the stairwell, so waited to tell Scotland yard........Does that not tell you something?

A lady who was interviewed in her home said that nobody wanted to talk to the PJ and someone she knew, who did talk to PJ, never got another pool cleaning job.

Another reason - he may now feel he would be vilified or even prosecuted for coming forward so late, indeed might have done so at any point after the first few weeks or months.  It may be an irrational fear, but perhaps his guilt at not coming forward sooner is what is putting him off identifying himself?

[pathfinder73]

Of course JT wouldn't mention seeing a man with a child, as it would be a regular occurrence in a holiday complex and she didn't know at that time that Maddie was missing.

It would have sounded a bit daft if she told people that she saw a man with a child, crossing the road IMO.

She didn't mention it because she didn't think it was Madeleine and months later she is shouting from the rooftops that it was Madeleine. If you saw a child being carried and you thought it could be her you would check or you would mention it. It would be on your mind. This didn't happen Jane never mentioned it at the table. She can't be saying it's 100% Madeleine months later. Her first statement said older than a baby so not Madeleine at nearly 4.

[Anna]

Another reason - he may now feel he would be vilified or even prosecuted for coming forward so late, indeed might have done so at any point after the first few weeks or months.  It may be an irrational fear, but perhaps his guilt at not coming forward sooner is what is putting him off identifying himself?

Definitely another good reason ,Alfred.

[sadie]

She didn't mention it because she didn't think it was Madeleine and months later she is shouting from the rooftops that it was Madeleine. If you saw a child being carried and you thought it could be her you would check or you would mention it. It would be on your mind. This didn't happen Jane never mentioned it at the table. She can't be saying it's 100% Madeleine months later. Her first statement said older than a baby so not Madeleine at nearly 4.

Some very good point above Anna 

Of course as you say, she wouldn't have thought it important enough to mention.  It was just a child being carried by his dad, she thought at the time.

But on realizing that it was almost certain to have been Madeleine she saw being carried, the memories all came flooding back along with dread.

I am surprised that you cant see that PFinder.   Unless you dont want to?