Could Smithman be the key to Madeleine's disappearance?

[pegasus]

Some idiot. If that's what happened, he - abductor or person or persons Madeleine knew - got away with it.

What else could someone without transport do?

Nothing?

[Lyall]

Nothing?

That's true But someone clearly did do something.

[Alfred R Jones]

It's less easy to move quickly if you're carrying a suitcase.

why so? Arent' the weights roughly equivalent and a suitcase can have wheels and / or a handle, unlike a 30kg corpse.  Why the need to move quickly anyway? Why wait until the alarm is raised to move the body?

It's also greatly more suspicious if you're seen moving briskly with one. You'd not be intercepted at the time but the day after it would be suspicious to witnesses.

More suspicious than being seen carrying the child who turned out to be missing??

So would a man carrying a blanket.

A child wrapped in a blanket on a chilly night would look more suspicious than an uncovered corpse??

Both are not common sights late at night.

I would venture that a man with a suitcase and / or a child wrapped in a blanket are a more common sight than a man carrying a corpse in PdL.

[Lyall]

why so? Arent' the weights roughly equivalent and a suitcase can have wheels and / or a handle, unlike a 30kg corpse.  Why the need to move quickly anyway? Why wait until the alarm is raised to move the body?
More suspicious than being seen carrying the child who turned out to be missing??
A child wrapped in a blanket on a chilly night would look more suspicious than an uncovered corpse??
I would venture that a man with a suitcase and / or a child wrapped in a blanket are a more common sight than a man carrying a corpse in PdL.

 &%+((£ And how would anyone know it was a corpse?

They wouldn't.

[Alfred R Jones]

&%+((£ And how would anyone know it was a corpse?

They wouldn't.

OK - and apart from that? They would know the next morning when they turned on their TVs that a child (looking suspiciously like the sleeping / dead version they saw in the arms of a man looking suspiciously like the bloke doing an appeal for her safe return) had disappeared.

[Lyall]

OK - and apart from that? They would know the next morning when they turned on their TVs that a child (looking suspiciously like the sleeping / dead version they saw in the arms of a man looking suspiciously like the bloke doing an appeal for her safe return) had disappeared.

But in the first days the nature of the crime wasn't known. (It still isn't over seven years later I would say.) I didn't pay too much attention to the TV early in May 2007, but even so you couldn't avoid the case (I was sick of the massive coverage by the time motormouth Laurie Campbell turned up).

Most of the time they seemed to be talking about Madeleine having left the apartment herself, so I can understand witnesses not putting two and two together quickly.

[Alfred R Jones]

But in the first days the nature of the crime wasn't known. (It still isn't over seven years later I would say.) I didn't pay too much attention to the TV early in May 2007, but even so you couldn't avoid the case (I was sick of the massive coverage by the time motormouth Laurie Campbell turned up).

Most of the time they seemed to be talking about Madeleine having left the apartment herself, so I can understand witnesses not putting two and two together quickly.

I can't understand it at all.  The media coverage from word go was suggestive that something suspicious had gone on, not that she'd just gone off by herself.  Anyone seeing a child that bore a close resemblance to her, being carried away at night in the arms of a man who bore a close resemblance to her father would have to have been pretty negligent not to have reported it straight away.  Oh wait....

[Alfred R Jones]

From 4th May 2007

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/05/04/uk-portugal-girl-idUKL0439120620070504

[Lyall]

From 4th May 2007

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/05/04/uk-portugal-girl-idUKL0439120620070504

Yep, the papers were far quicker to declare their opinion of the nature of the incident (some did it instantaneously in fact).

But not everyone reads papers.

(Or watches ITV).

[Lyall]

I can't understand it at all.  The media coverage from word go was suggestive that something suspicious had gone on, not that she'd just gone off by herself.  Anyone seeing a child that bore a close resemblance to her, being carried away at night in the arms of a man who bore a close resemblance to her father would have to have been pretty negligent not to have reported it straight away.  Oh wait....

Not everyone phones the police immediately, or at all. There's a 0.001% chance I walked past the guys who blew up Manchester just over 12 hours later in 1996, but did I phone the police? No.

(stop giggling now. 'tis a true story).

[Alfred R Jones]

Not everyone phones the police immediately, or at all. There's a 0.001% chance I walked past the guys who blew up Manchester just over 12 hours later in 1996, but did I phone the police? No.

(stop giggling now. 'tis a true story).

Was one of them carrying a bomb in his outstretched arms, walking quickly and avoiding eye contact when you greeted him?

[jassi]

If Smithman is the carrier of Madeleine, then he must have been in the apartment so could easily pick up the bag.

[Lyall]

Was one of them carrying a bomb in his outstretched arms, walking quickly and avoiding eye contact when you greeted him?

Nope, but they were instantly remarkable, and out of place. A man carrying a child in a holiday resort isn't. Hence, perhaps, why their memory wasn't jogged sooner.

[Alfred R Jones]

Nope, but they were instantly remarkable, and out of place. A man carrying a child in a holiday resort isn't. Hence, perhaps, why their memory wasn't jogged sooner.

What did jog them into action then, I wonder...?  Wasn't it the fact of Murat being made an arguido?  A bit odd that don't you think?

[Alfred R Jones]

If Smithman is the carrier of Madeleine, then he must have been in the apartment so could easily pick up the bag.

But Smithman wasn't seen with a bag was he?