Could Smithman be the key to Madeleine's disappearance?

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh really do you think? Hypothesis: We've found her dumped in the wasteland only a 150 metres away but she's been dead for many hours. Hmmm.....

The question was about the idiotic risk taken by "Smithman" undisguised and carrying the undisguised corpse of (what was soon to become) the missing child whose photo would be circulated throughout the resort and beyond.  Your response does nothing to address this point.  What you and others are suggesting is utterly nonsensical, unless we are to believe that "Smithman" was behaving completely irrationally or wanted to be id'ed and caught. 

[pathfinder73]

The question was about the idiotic risk taken by "Smithman" undisguised and carrying the undisguised corpse of (what was soon to become) the missing child whose photo would be circulated throughout the resort and beyond.  Your response does nothing to address this point.  What you and others are suggesting is utterly nonsensical, unless we are to believe that "Smithman" was behaving completely irrationally or wanted to be id'ed and caught.

What other option did he have if he had to make her disappear. She hasn't been found so it worked however idiotic you think it was.

[G-Unit]

The question was about the idiotic risk taken by "Smithman" undisguised and carrying the undisguised corpse of (what was soon to become) the missing child whose photo would be circulated throughout the resort and beyond.  Your response does nothing to address this point.  What you and others are suggesting is utterly nonsensical, unless we are to believe that "Smithman" was behaving completely irrationally or wanted to be id'ed and caught.

Is it more ridiculous than an abductor carrying a child past her own father? That was accepted as a fact by some for years.

[Alfred R Jones]

What other option did he have if he had to make her disappear. She hasn't been found so it worked however idiotic you think it was.

I have already put forward an option - and that was to use a suitcase, or at least some attempt at disguising the corpse.  Why you should think this less desirable from Smithman's pov is quite beyond me.

[pathfinder73]

I have already put forward an option - and that was to use a suitcase, or at least some attempt at disguising the corpse.  Why you should think this less desirable from Smithman's pov is quite beyond me.

Speed to where he was getting to. It is quicker to open carry so he risked it. And then he would have to get rid of the bag. If they find that he could be arrested. What is your bag doing here?

[Alfred R Jones]

Is it more ridiculous than an abductor carrying a child past her own father? That was accepted as a fact by some for years.

Yes, it is WAY more ridiculous.  If Tannerman had been the abductor he may not have had any idea that the child's father was nearby.  In any case, most abductors (particularly those with a sexual motive) are foolhardy risk takers, we know this, it's part of the buzz.

[Alfred R Jones]

Speed to where he was getting to. It is quicker to open carry so he risked it. And then he would have to get rid of the bag. If they find that they could be arrested. What is your bag doing here?

LOL.  So, much easier and far less incriminating to get rid of a child's body than a suitcase, is that what you're telling us?

[pegasus]

Is it more ridiculous than an abductor carrying a child past her own father? That was accepted as a fact by some for years.

Yes and the problem is that after SY realised that first open-carrying sighting was irrelevant, instead of saying "hang on, that is a stupid method anyway, why assume the perp is so stupid, let's look at other methods and timescales", they instead just switched to another open-carrying sighting, equally unlikely to be relevant IMO.

[pathfinder73]

LOL.  So, much easier and far less incriminating to get rid of a child's body than a suitcase, is that what you're telling us?

You would only need a bag to conceal away from the crime scene. You would not need it after that first move away unless you wanted to incriminate yourself if your bag was found.

[Alfred R Jones]

Speed to where he was getting to. It is quicker to open carry so he risked it. And then he would have to get rid of the bag. If they find that they could be arrested. What is your bag doing here?

"What is your bag doing here?"

[Lyall]

The question was about the idiotic risk taken by "Smithman" undisguised and carrying the undisguised corpse of (what was soon to become) the missing child whose photo would be circulated throughout the resort and beyond.  Your response does nothing to address this point.  What you and others are suggesting is utterly nonsensical, unless we are to believe that "Smithman" was behaving completely irrationally or wanted to be id'ed and caught.

Not irrationally. Desperately.

[Alfred R Jones]

You would only need a bag to conceal away from the crime scene. You would not need it after that first move away unless you wanted to incriminate yourself if your bag was found.

And you don't think walking undisguised through town carrying the undisguised corpse of a missing child risks in any way incriminating yourself?

[pathfinder73]

And you don't think walking undisguised through town carrying the undisguised corpse of a missing child risks in any way incriminating yourself?

If you haven't got a car then you have to do what you gotta do. This is panic station time.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not irrationally. Desperately.

Lyall - you seem quite normal.  Do you think it is rational behaviour to parade undisguised through town with the undisguised corpse of a missing child in your arms?  Can you envisage yourself being so desperate as to take a similar course of action?  Where was the desperation anyway?

[Alfred R Jones]

If you haven't got a car then you have to do what you gotta do. This is panic station time.

So, Smithman was in a state of abject panic, is that what you're telling us now?  That explains the idiotic behaviour then!