Wandering Off Topic

[Uncle Jr]

The simple fact of the matter is - when they heard about the missing child on 4th May it crossed their mind that this was the child they saw the night before and they said nothing for three weeks, not until Murat was plastered all over the news. You?re welcome to draw your own conclusions and I shall draw mine.   I don?t see what is remotely fantastical about deciding to contact the police to try and right a perceived wrong (ie that in their view the police were pointing the finger at the wrong man).

Are you in the 'exonerate Murat' camp? As suggesting such a thing de facto means that you believe that the Smith family fabricated the sighting, which is a fantastic idea, perverting the course of justice and jeopardising the search for a missing child to help a pal out of a tight spot.

I'd like to be able to find a reason to dismiss it too, I'd like nothing more, but we can't start going down the route of some dastardly plot hatched by Murat and the Smiths just because it doesn't fit our narrative. Let's not sink to the level of the sceptics here who are adept at creating a false narrative to meet their agendas.

[Uncle Jr]

Furthermore, we are led to believe that the child in Smithman?s arms looked so deathly pale and basically drugged or dead that it prompted Mrs Smith to ask Oh is she asleep, which suggests concern even before they knew of the disappearance the next day, but still they waited three weeks!  But do carry on putting the Smiths on a pedastal, how amazingly public spirited they (very belatedly) turned out to be.

You can denigrate the sighting, besmerch the family and even pour scorn on the timings and motives as much as you please, but from a purely legal perspective we have an unresolved eye witness account. It's really problematic if CB is ever charged, and might be one reason why he hasn't been charged. This is my point. It exists, however displeasing a concept that is, and a defence will be negligent in their duty if they did not make it the cornerstone of their case. Its veracity is now irrelevant.

[Lace]

Gerry claims he knew immediately, because of Kate & the window, but then he suggests they split up & search as if she had just wandered out. Then, he disappears like his daughter, while Kate, according to Diane 5 minutes later, she is sat on the bed & not running up & down the carpark wishing she'd dressed Maddie in long sleeves, as she claimed in her book.

No matter what Gerry thought he could have been wrong.  The first instinct is to search and make sure.

[Wonderfulspam]

No matter what Gerry thought he could have been wrong.  The first instinct is to search and make sure.

He couldn't have been wrong. The window was open, the child gate locked. Her only way of leaving the apartment on her own was via the window, according to both Mccanns. Me personally, I'd alert the authorities immediately, but Gerry disappeared & Kate sat on the bed.

[Joe Blogs]

He couldn't have been wrong. The window was open, the child gate locked. Her only way of leaving the apartment on her own was via the window, according to both Mccanns. Me personally, I'd alert the authorities immediately, but Gerry disappeared & Kate sat on the bed.

I suppose you could add to that, what was the point of checking the pool area!
Did they think tha abductor had taken Maddie for a swim?

[Uncle Jr]

I suppose you could add to that, what was the point of checking the pool area!
Did they think tha abductor had taken Maddie for a swim?

Well I would check to see if she managed to get out of the apartment, wandered and fell in the pool and drowned.

[Joe Blogs]

Well I would check to see if she managed to get out of the apartment, wandered and fell in the pool and drowned.

Yes, fair enough, Uncle!
But as Spam said, all those type of actions would have made sense if it wasn't for the open window!
No way an abductor would hide in the complex instead of skedaddling out of the vicinity ASAP!

[Wonderfulspam]

According to Mr McCann, when he saw the open window he went out of the front door & to his horror, which he felt in the pit of his stomach, he realised the shutters could be opened from the outside.

https://youtu.be/uclCEHnW0Nk?t=1369

[Vertigo Swirl]

Are you in the 'exonerate Murat' camp? As suggesting such a thing de facto means that you believe that the Smith family fabricated the sighting, which is a fantastic idea, perverting the course of justice and jeopardising the search for a missing child to help a pal out of a tight spot.

I'd like to be able to find a reason to dismiss it too, I'd like nothing more, but we can't start going down the route of some dastardly plot hatched by Murat and the Smiths just because it doesn't fit our narrative. Let's not sink to the level of the sceptics here who are adept at creating a false narrative to meet their agendas.

Of course I don't think they fabricated anything, I just think they saw that Murat was being put in the frame by the police and thought it would be helpful to come forward and say that they had seen a man walking through town with a child that looked like Madeleine that evening and that the man definitely wasn't Murat.    No dastardly plot required. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

You can denigrate the sighting, besmerch the family and even pour scorn on the timings and motives as much as you please, but from a purely legal perspective we have an unresolved eye witness account. It's really problematic if CB is ever charged, and might be one reason why he hasn't been charged. This is my point. It exists, however displeasing a concept that is, and a defence will be negligent in their duty if they did not make it the cornerstone of their case. Its veracity is now irrelevant.

And if the prosecution is worth it's salt they will point out just how vague and unreliable this sighting was, a red herring if ever there was one and fairly easy to demonstrate that it had scant evidential value against anyone specific.  IMO.

[Uncle Jr]

And if the prosecution is worth it's salt they will point out just how vague and unreliable this sighting was, a red herring if ever there was one and fairly easy to demonstrate that it had scant evidential value against anyone specific.  IMO.

It's all hypothetical, as I believe it will never be resolved unless somebody squeals, but I hope you're right.

[Uncle Jr]

Of course I don't think they fabricated anything, I just think they saw that Murat was being put in the frame by the police and thought it would be helpful to come forward and say that they had seen a man walking through town with a child that looked like Madeleine that evening and that the man definitely wasn't Murat.    No dastardly plot required.

From what I've seen from the official statement, Martin Smith was answering a direct question as to whether he thought the person he saw was Murat.
And it looks like theirs was an incidental, casual acquaintance, with Smith stating they'd 'met in a bar a couple of years before'. There's reports of them bumping into eachother infrequently.
So they weren't friends and Smith didn't proffer this proclamation unprompted.

[Wonderfulspam]

The police need to hurry up & do something about all this before any other little girls get abducted in similar circumstances. I'm not sure I want to live in a society where gangs of predatory paedophiles go around snatching little girls from holiday apartments, drugging them & changing their pyjamas.

[Wonderfulspam]

In other news. The gang rape by 4 men of a 20year old woman in Epsom. The locals were rightly peeved when the police failed to release descriptions of the attackers. It turns out, the police can't find any evidence of this rape. Now, this young woman has falsely reported a very serious crime, which, if these imaginary men had been found guilty of, would likely have resulted in 15 year terms & possible deportation. Well I'm sorry but this young woman should be charged, convicted & then sentenced, as if she were one of the rapists. Women should not be allowed to get away with false claims of rape & parents of missing children should not be allowed to get away with faked child abductions either.

[Wonderfulspam]

In other news. The gang rape by 4 men of a 20year old woman in Epsom. The locals were rightly peeved when the police failed to release descriptions of the attackers. It turns out, the police can't find any evidence of this rape. Now, this young woman has falsely reported a very serious crime, which, if these imaginary men had been found guilty of, would likely have resulted in 15 year terms & possible deportation. Well I'm sorry but this young woman should be charged, convicted & then sentenced, as if she were one of the rapists. Women should not be allowed to get away with false claims of rape & parents of missing children should not be allowed to get away with faked child abductions either.

Honestly, I'm very angry about this. I was really hoping she'd been gang raped by a bunch of asylum seekers & it would fuel a far right uprising at the next election. We could have elected a radical right wing party that would deport all the Muslim immigrants who so badly mistreat women, so that we can have a homogenous Whites only society again. I'm sorry but this has annoyed me & now I think the Muslims might be right. Women should be forced to view the world through a letterbox slot in their Niqabs. They should not be allowed to hold jobs or drive or do anything without a male chaperone & most important of all they should hurry up & cook my tea.