Was Madeleine McCann run over by accident and then carried off?

[ferryman]

....



Your thoughts ?

Crap, and a disgrace that this board allows such malicious tittle-tattle.

[Eleanor]

Crap, and a disgrace that this board allows such malicious tittle-tattle.

Oh do come on.  Most of it is malicious title tattle.  Even from Mccann Supporters on occasions.

[lordpookles]

Oh do come on.  Most of it is malicious title tattle.  Even from Mccann Supporters on occasions.

Yep people on both sides claiming white is black and black is white...

[ferryman]

Thank you Carana. Then we can only assume Mr Smith has decided not to react.

He [Martin Smith] has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

Why did Martin Smith change his mind and, after all, give a photofit?

[lordpookles]

Why do you suppose the police and the victims of a crime need to explain in minute detail anything at all to do with the ongoing investigation into a missing child case?

I doubt it is legitimate or reasonable to give out detailed information which I am sure the perpetrator would be delighted to have ... just to avoid armchair detectives having to speculate, which they would do anyway whatever they were told.

I don't think the point you make is relevant here because I can't see what info he would be giving away to a perpetrator. Maybe there is perhaps, yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released. On another note it could simply be that the dodgy detectives(unknown to them at the time but I'm pretty sure one was a fraudster) they hired did not pass it on or maybe they did not want to distract from the tanner sighting...

[lordpookles]

He [Martin Smith] has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

Why did Martin Smith change his mind and, after all, give a photofit?

Maybe he did not change his mind exactly because after all he did not clearly see the face of the guy, but rather he suspected it could be Gerry McCann I believe from his walk + carrying style(that is exactly how I would carry a child BTW. How else would you?) So if he wasn't sure it was Gerry, but only suspected given his 60-80% statement why wouldn't he make an efit on his recollection from a dark street?

I do agree in general that it might indicate he has had a change of heart or is very unsure. Are there any other reports apart from the times claiming this?

[ferryman]

I don't think the point you make is relevant here because I can't see what info he would be giving away to a perpetrator. Maybe there is perhaps, yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released. On another note it could simply be that the dodgy detectives(unknown to them at the time but I'm pretty sure one was a fraudster) they hired did not pass it on or maybe they did not want to distract from the tanner sighting...

...yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released

I disagree.

That's not hard to fathom at all.

You can release an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted only against the backdrop of a live and on-going police enquiry, because otherwise you risk implicating a potentially innocent man.

Remember that these e-fits were in the possession of British and Portuguese police for at least a couple of years before the Crimewatch programme.

They (not the McCanns!) chose the moment of the crimewatch programme to release the e-fits.

Anyone who wants to have a toot should have a toot at the police, not the McCanns, if they believe the e-fits should have been unveiled publicly before ...

[lordpookles]

In regards to the police being in possession of the efits - ok noted.

Though the McCanns not releasing the efits themselves makes no sense to me as they were copiously releasing many efits without regard to implicating an innocent person - see their website.

[ferryman]

The critical bit is that the other e-fits they released were not of people in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted.

In other words, it is hypothetically possible that a couple with no direct involvement in Madeleine's abduction might, technically, have somehow have secured custody of a child in good faith that just so happened to turn out to be Madeleine.

Separation in time and geography from the original incident (in Praia da Luz on May 3rd 2007) does not, automatically, carry the same pejorative connotation for the adult seen with a child hypothesised to be Madeleine.

The other point is that we simply don't know when the McCanns themselves came to be in possession of the e-fits.

We know, only, that Kate devoted considerable space to the Smith e-fit in her book (and, indeed, was/is of the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.

[Eleanor]

Bleeding Hell.  Could we please get back to The Topic.  There are other topics within which to go.

Just don't give me a hard time when I, or some other Mod deletes this.

[Alice Purjorick]

Does anyone remember "Turtles Progress". Turtle had a minder named Razor Eddy.
I have reason to believe he [Razor Eddy] had a sister who seems to have turned up here.
Eraser Ellie...............

[Eleanor]

Does anyone remember "Turtles Progress". Turtle had a minder named Razor Eddy.
I have reason to believe he [Razor Eddy] had a sister who seems to have turned up here.
Eraser Ellie...............

You could well be right,  Sweetie.  Don't push your luck.

[Alice Purjorick]

You could well be right,  Sweetie.  Don't push your luck.

The worst that can that happen is I will banned. As I have observed elsewhere this is not real life.
I will observe the rules of the forum notionally, but threats if I do not ?  oh dear! how infra dig.

[pathfinder73]

The critical bit is that the other e-fits they released were not of people in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted.

In other words, it is hypothetically possible that a couple with no direct involvement in Madeleine's abduction might, technically, have somehow have secured custody of a child in good faith that just so happened to turn out to be Madeleine.

Separation in time and geography from the original incident (in Praia da Luz on May 3rd 2007) does not, automatically, carry the same pejorative connotation for the adult seen with a child hypothesised to be Madeleine.

The other point is that we simply don't know when the McCanns themselves came to be in possession of the e-fits.

We know, only, that Kate devoted considerable space to the Smith e-fit in her book (and, indeed, was/is of the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.

What a load of poppycock. A man seen carrying a child that matched Madeleine McCann around the same time as she was reported missing and efits the McCanns own investigation team produced in 2008 weren't released until SY got their hands on them and made them the new focus of the joint investigation case being reopened in Portugal. The McCanns went and did their own documentary and reconstruction months later where 1. they lied about how Smithman was carrying the child i.e. the same way as Tannerman 2. That the Smiths were all bunched to together when he passed 3. 9:50 sighting time ruling Gerry out 4. Didn't reveal the efits to try and identify this man. And two years later in 2011 their leaving no stone unturned book didn't have them in either.  This man has never come forward and he won't until SY come knock knocking on his door.

[Eleanor]

The worst that can that happen is I will banned. As I have observed elsewhere this is not real life.
I will observe the rules of the forum notionally, but threats if I do not ?  oh dear! how infra dig.

What makes you think that you are important enough to be banned?  No one ever gets banned from this Forum.

Just don't give me a hard time.  Just get back to the Notional, which I have to say is terminally boring on your part.  Do you have to work at it, or does it come naturally?