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

[Anna]

I don't care how windy it is, the fact is that perps conceal what they transport.
The basic idea for the perp is to prevent peeps seeing exactly what he is transporting.
Therefore the Smith sighting is irrelevant IMO

Agreed, but I think a perp would carry her openly if only to a vehicle (Car or van) close by, but not parked where the possibility of it  being recognised outside of 5A or Number Plate taken down. There is the possibility of a nearby Apt too.

[sadie]

I don't care how windy it is, the fact is that perps conceal what they transport.
The basic idea for the perp is to prevent peeps seeing exactly what he is transporting.
Therefore the Smith sighting is irrelevant IMO

I dont think that you can be sure of that.

Basically I agree with what you are saying, but if a vehicle was supposed to come for getaway, you already had the "stolen goods" in your hands, they were worth a small fortune to you, they had been commisioned and you were selling them on

And the getaway vehicle didn't arrive, then you were witnessed carrying ... what would you do?

[pegasus]

I dont think that you can be sure of that.

Basically I agree with what you are saying, but if a vehicle was supposed to come for getaway, you already had the "stolen goods" in your hands, they were worth a small fortune to you, they had been commisioned and you were selling them on

And the getaway vehicle didn't arrive, then you were witnessed carrying ... what would you do?

Re your absent getaway car theory - the most likely reason for a getaway car being absent is ironically that someone steals it.
Back to carrying on foot openly and uncovered along populous streets and past staff accommodation and near restaurants and bars and at a time people are going out socialising. That is the most silly decision for a perp. It is ridiculous to base the investigation on such an improbable scenario.

[Alfred R Jones]

Re your absent getaway car theory - the most likely reason for a getaway car being absent is ironically that someone steals it.
Back to carrying on foot openly and uncovered along populous streets and past staff accommodation and near restaurants and bars and at a time people are going out socialising. That is the most silly decision for a perp. It is ridiculous to base the investigation on such an improbable scenario.

  I agree with this.  So, as a McCann "sceptic" how do you envisage the body was dealt with??

[Brietta]

Re your absent getaway car theory - the most likely reason for a getaway car being absent is ironically that someone steals it.
Back to carrying on foot openly and uncovered along populous streets and past staff accommodation and near restaurants and bars and at a time people are going out socialising. That is the most silly decision for a perp. It is ridiculous to base the investigation on such an improbable scenario.

Presumably, that is in reference to the Smith sighting of the child being carried ??

What of Jane Tanner's sighting yards from the apartment with the carrier walking briskly towards cover?

However, in both scenarios it appears to have been a gamble worth taking ... since these are the only two witness reports of a man carrying a child in PDL that evening.

[pegasus]

Presumably, that is in reference to the Smith sighting of the child being carried ??

What of Jane Tanner's sighting yards from the apartment with the carrier walking briskly towards cover?

However, in both scenarios it appears to have been a gamble worth taking ... since these are the only two witness reports of a man carrying a child in PDL that evening.

Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.

[jassi]

Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.

There doesn't seem to have been anything else to go on and the McCanns certainly considered Tannerman to be the man.

[ferryman]

There doesn't seem to have been anything else to go on and the McCanns certainly considered Tannerman to be the man.

Kate was of the opinion that Jane Tanner and the Smiths had seen the same man, and devotes a fair bit of space to the Smith sighting in her book.

The Smith e-fit could not, at that point, be produced because there was no live and on-going police enquiry.

[pathfinder73]

Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.

It's not nearly as ridiculous as Smithman not coming forward to clear himself. Not unusual to see kids being carried so possibly a safer option than carrying a large suspicious bag through the streets. If the child died inside 5A then concealed in bag to bin would be first thought without a car but it seems Smithman had other plans. So why didn't he get rid at first opportunity? Wasteland, bin etc. He wanted to keep her safe and thought it was worth the risk. Populated streets? hardly the route he took. He met one large group. What other witnesses have come forward?

[Brietta]

Ridiculous that the whole investigation seems to be based on a mad and illogical obsession with open carrying through populated streets. First the JT sighting, then the smith sighting, then when that also is shown to be an innocent dad, peeps will only hunt for another open carrying sighting to take its place.

That may be your opinion.

I think it is too simplistic to suggest it was any one circumstance rather than a combination of many which led to the reopening Madeleine’s case. 
The basis of the premise that SY presented to the Home Secretary after reviewing the evidence which enabled her decision to do so is not in the public domain.

However on the balance of probability a sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of an apartment from which a child is missing and reported on the night would probably outweigh the sighting of a similar man carrying a child reported a fortnight after the event. 
Particularly when the witnesses to that sighting had to be prompted to recall the event. 

[ferryman]

That may be your opinion.

I think it is too simplistic to suggest it was any one circumstance rather than a combination of many which led to the reopening Madeleine’s case. 
The basis of the premise that SY presented to the Home Secretary after reviewing the evidence which enabled her decision to do so is not in the public domain.

However on the balance of probability a sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of an apartment from which a child is missing and reported on the night would probably outweigh the sighting of a similar man carrying a child reported a fortnight after the event. 
Particularly when the witnesses to that sighting had to be prompted to recall the event.

My sanity is restored.

Brietta is about the first person (at least that I've read) to bring out that vital point.

[pegasus]

... However on the balance of probability a sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of an apartment from which a child is missing and reported on the night would probably outweigh the sighting of a similar man carrying a child reported a fortnight after the event. ...

Only if the delayed reporting of the Smith sighting left the date and time uncertain.
But the date and approximate time are 100% confirmed by a payment card transaction and by airline tickets.
So the Smith sighting definitely happened on May 3rd, indisputably, and that fact is not outweighed by anything.

[Brietta]

Only if the delayed reporting of the Smith sighting left the date and time uncertain.
But the date and approximate time are 100% confirmed by a payment card transaction and by airline tickets.
So the Smith sighting definitely happened on May 3rd, indisputably, and that fact is not outweighed by anything.

The delay ensured that the staff in Kelly's could not confirm the family of nine had visited on the third ... neither did the till receipt recovered by the PJ from the bar.
The card receipt was for the meal at the restaurant ... not for the drinks in the bar.

[pegasus]

The delay ensured that the staff in Kelly's could not confirm the family of nine had visited on the third ... neither did the till receipt recovered by the PJ from the bar.
The card receipt was for the meal at the restaurant ... not for the drinks in the bar.

Agreed - but the Dolphin restuarant transaction at 2127 on the 3rd fixes the date absolutely - there is no doubt whatsoever that the Smith sighting was on the evening of the 3rd.
Card transaction companies do not misremember dates.
Also the aeroplane flight from Faro the next morning of some of the witnesses confirms this - it fixes the date of the Smith sighting indisputably - it was the 3rd.

[misty]

Agreed - but the Dolphin restuarant transaction at 2127 on the 3rd fixes the date absolutely - there is no doubt whatsoever that the Smith sighting was on the evening of the 3rd.
Card transaction companies do not misremember dates.
Also the aeroplane flight from Faro the next morning of some of the witnesses confirms this - it fixes the date of the Smith sighting indisputably - it was the 3rd.

The only indisputable facts are the Smiths paid for a meal at 2127hrs on the 3rd & some of them got on a plane back to Eire on the 4th. Anything else is as open to questioning as all the other witness statements regarding that night,