Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

by pennylane 21.11.15 20:41

(sorry posted under wrong thread, so have brought it over)
HiDeHo, great thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Due to this topic being such a bone of contention in the past, many posters who strongly believe it all happened on 3rd May (as I do) have left or been banned due to strong disagreements arising. So I'm pleased to see it back on the table, not that it was ever off the table.

As I have mentioned before, I believe that everything happened fast and furious that night, and that G ran into the Smiths, hence Tanner was roped in to give him an alibi in the event he was identified. Her pathetic abductor sighting/alibi for Gerry, are so dire that even Op Grange couldn't make it work (lol), forcing the beleaguered Redwood to have his embarrassing “revelation.”

A commotion was heard as early as 9:10-9:15 by independent witnesses and I believe Maddie's name was heard being called. I believe she may have been found around this time. I'm told 'it's absurd' to suggest G would carry M through the streets, but I beg to differ. Faced with imminent arrest and loss of everything, what else could he do without a car if the ball was already rolling? It's quite possible G had a specific place in mind, and was forced to take the fastest route, and (imo) was seen! The discrediting of endless witnesses in order to make a specific theory fit, doesn't work for me I'm afraid.

Pat Brown has tested the timing on foot for a last minute scenario, and has confirmed it is possible for G to have pulled it off. The Mc's remained hauled up whilst others were out searching, in spite of knowing the massive red flags that would raise. I believe they had no choice as they had to back fit a story. The time lines written on M's book, the un-gemmied window, M's bed barely slept in, the pink blanket and blue sports bag still being there, the Mc's not searching, flip flopping Jane, etc. combined with the almost comedic version of events just doesn't stack up to a pre-planned crime. The entire night is a massive mess that reeks of last minute pandemonium. I also believe it possible M was indeed bare armed and bare foot, as described, because she was found suddenly and moved quickly. I believe she was moved again later, and that is when the blanket and blue sports bag disappeared and was used.

I value your work HDH and, as I said previously, there could well be another element that would explain the earlier discrepancies you have diligently outlined. For me, at least, the last minute scenario remains the most likely.

all in mho of course

by worriedmum 21.11.15 20:47

pennylane''The discrediting of endless witnesses in order to make a specific theory fit, doesn't work for me I'm afraid.'' agree

by **HiDeHo** 22.11.15 15:58

worriedmum wrote:pennylane''The discrediting of endless witnesses in order to make a specific theory fit, doesn't work for me I'm afraid.''

I do not decide on a theory and make anything 'fit'. When I looked at the witness statements I DID NOT KNOW if there would be one that was (relative) PROOF. My research is based on what I FIND, not to fit some preconceived idea.

I don't need to be right... I ONLY WANT THE TRUTH and if that proves me wrong then thats how it has to be.

It's not meant to be about discrediting. I looked at each one individually and NOT ONE was credible PROOF she was seen..

Some were mistaken. We KNOW that Maddie was easily mistaken for one of the other T7 children. Miguel Matias was CONVINCED it was Maddie at the Paraiso on Thursday afternoon. We know from CCTV footage that she WASN'T there

How many other people were mistaken?

I would WELCOME someone to point out a witness statement that is specific to Madeleine (as opposed she was in a group) but as yet noone has been able to produce one.

This isn't a quick 'guess' either. I spent a LOT of time researching and compiling MANY threads on the subject as the FACTS are what is important to me.

Any one of these threads confims the extensive research (and they are just a FEW of the threads available)

Category: When Did Madeleine 'Disappear' BEFORE 5.30pm or AFTER?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Title: BEFORE 5.30pm Thursday or AFTER - Opinion HiDeHo (From Remembering Madeleine Forum)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Summary of Witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From one of the above links.....

I'm not looking to prove she WASN'T there, I'm looking for proof that SHE WAS. - Big Difference!

by pennylane 22.11.15 16:49

HiDeHo wrote:
worriedmum wrote:pennylane''The discrediting of endless witnesses in order to make a specific theory fit, doesn't work for me I'm afraid.''

I do not decide on a theory and make anything 'fit'. When I looked at the witness statements I DID NOT KNOW if there would be one that was (relative) PROOF. My research is based on what I FIND, not to fit some preconceived idea.

I don't need to be right... I ONLY WANT THE TRUTH and if that proves me wrong then thats how it has to be.

It's not meant to be about discrediting. I looked at each one individually and NOT ONE was credible PROOF she was seen..

Some were mistaken. We KNOW that Maddie was easily mistaken for one of the other T7 children. Miguel Matias was CONVINCED it was Maddie at the Paraiso on Thursday afternoon. We know from CCTV footage that she WASN'T there

How many other people were mistaken?

I would WELCOME someone to point out a witness statement that is specific to Madeleine (as opposed she was in a group) but as yet noone has been able to produce one.

This isn't a quick 'guess' either. I spent a LOT of time researching and compiling MANY threads on the subject as the FACTS are what is important to me.

Any one of these threads confims the extensive research (and they are just a FEW of the threads available)

Category: When Did Madeleine 'Disappear' BEFORE 5.30pm or AFTER?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Title: BEFORE 5.30pm Thursday or AFTER - Opinion HiDeHo (From Remembering Madeleine Forum)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Title: Summary of Witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From one of the above links.....

I'm not looking to prove she WASN'T there, I'm looking for proof that SHE WAS. - Big Difference!

HiDeHo, I never meant to imply you have any other agenda than finding the truth! In fact I'm 100% certain you don't, and I'm also 100% certain you are a humble and diligent person, without any ego to be right, just an honest desire to find the truth of what happened to Madeleine. roses

You ask 'how many other people were mistaken?' That's the question, maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

Why is the nanny, Catriona Baker not credible?

by worriedmum 22.11.15 20:14

Pennylane, Hideho, I agree we are all just trying to get to the truth. Few have worked so tirelessly as Lizzie. I applaud her wholeheartedly.

by pennylane 22.11.15 20:59

worriedmum wrote:Pennylane, Hideho, I agree we are all just trying to get to the truth. Few have worked so tirelessly as Lizzie. I applaud her wholeheartedly.

Ditto!

I understand some alleged witnesses can be mistaken, or confused as to whether they saw Maddie or not, but where I disagree is that the Smith family, Mrs Fenn, the nanny, et al, are all lying and hence don't give a stuff about a missing 3 year old child. I simply don't see the motive for such a heinous lie. Where the tapasniks are concerned I feel there is strong motive to mislead/lie, and I definitely believe Ms Tanner is lying.

by worriedmum 22.11.15 21:35

Yes I believe the Smiths

by Amy Dean 22.11.15 21:44

There is certainly no reason (that we know about anyway) for them to lie.

ontopic

by jeanmonroe 26.11.15 10:36

Amy Dean wrote:There is certainly no reason (that we know about anyway) for them to lie.

Then, WHY DID they 'lie'.?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.15 11:05

jeanmonroe wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:There is certainly no reason (that we know about anyway) for them to lie.

Then, WHY DID they 'lie'.?

Just to recap on the evidence of fabrication by all three, here are six threads (two for each) which present some of the best arguments:

MRS FENN

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

MARTIN SMITH

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

CAT BAKER

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the case of Pamela Fenn, the arguments centre around multiple queries about the alleged burglary and the alleged crying incident on 1 May.

In the case of Martin Smith, the FIVE wholly different reasons the family give for doing nothing about reporting their sighting for 13 days, until the day after Murat was made an arguido, coupled with all manner of discrepancies I've set out on the 'SMITHMAN 4' and 'SMITHMAN 5' threads, ought to make most people reconsider whether they are witnesses of truth

In the case of Catriona Baker, there is clear evidence that she lied about (a) the 'high tea' on 3 May (b) the claim that Madeleine went sailing on that Thursday morning ,and (c) about seeing the children having lunch in the eating area each date (which the McCanns themselves contradict.

As for them having 'no reason' to lie, I think the proposition is this:

1. Something nasty, immoral or illegal was going on in Praia da Luz that week.

2. If so, both the McCanns and Robert Murat might somehow be connected with that, and

3. Mrs Fenn and Martin Smith had clear connections to Robert Murat, and Cat Baker seems to have been known to the McCanns before April 2007.

by Richard IV 26.11.15 11:20

@Tony Bennett wrote "3. Mrs Fenn and Martin Smith had clear connections to Robert Murat,"

I disagree about the use of the words `clear connections`. It makes it sound as if they were more close than they actually were. As far as we know the connections were only loose, no more than a passing hello to a local resident. Perhaps you have inside knowledge of their closer relationships in which case I am mistaken.

by Carrry On Doctor 26.11.15 11:51

I am still on the fence re Smithman, but the wholesale lying (that is gradually unravelling) from so many quarters suggests that apparent 'loose connections' might well be as TB has suggested, clear connections.

If they were indeed loose at the start they appear now to have become rock solid. All to keep a lid on what was going on, and what took place that week.

IMO

by willowthewisp 26.11.15 12:02

Richard IV wrote:@Tony Bennett wrote "3. Mrs Fenn and Martin Smith had clear connections to Robert Murat,"

I disagree about the use of the words `clear connections`. It makes it sound as if they were more close than they actually were. As far as we know the connections were only loose, no more than a passing hello to a local resident. Perhaps you have inside knowledge of their closer relationships in which case I am mistaken.

We know Gerry knows more about Robert Murat,eg the video,"I'm not going to comment on that ,Cough".
Did Gerry know Robert Murat before the holiday?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.15 14:20

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I am still on the fence re Smithman, but the wholesale lying (that is gradually unravelling) from so many quarters suggests that apparent 'loose connections' might well be as TB has suggested, clear connections. If they were indeed loose at the start they appear now to have become rock solid. All to keep a lid on what was going on, and what took place that week.

Yes. We have recently had a lot of statements, previously thought to be honest witness statements, that have come under intense scrutiny and have been found to be questionable at best and clearly dishonest at worst.

In addition to the ones mentioned, the outstanding example is the statement of Nuno Lourenco, in which he framed Wojchiech Krokowski as a paedophile kidnapper. Textusa's brilliant and thorough analysis of his lies in her 'Sagresman' article lays that bare.

On top of that we have: (a) the careful choreography of only informing the police about this allegedly dreadful event just as Krokowski's plane was taking of from Faro Airport (SIX whole days after the alleged incident took place), and (b) the impossible 'coincidence' that Lourenco's description of Krokowski/'Sagresman' matched that of Tannerman in 17 different respects...'didn't look like a tourist', clothes made of thick cloth, classic shoes, beige/cream trousers etc. etc.

All of this at least suggests evidence of a great deal of pre-planning.

------

Richard IV wrote: I disagree about the use of the words `clear connections`. It makes it sound as if they were more close than they actually were. As far as we know the connections were only loose, no more than a passing hello to a local resident. Perhaps you have inside knowledge of their closer relationships in which case I am mistaken.

REPLY: You make a valid point and I will try and answer it.

No, I have no ‘inside’ knowledge of these relationships, beyond what we all have from the PJ files, mccannfiles, pamalam’s site, the forums, newspaper reports etc. etc.

The specific evidence we have from two out of the four statements made about Martin Smith’s acquaintance with Murat state that the two had ‘known each other for 2 years’ and had ‘met several times’. This alone suggests quite a lot more than just the odd ‘passing hello’.

Apart from that, what we have is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence, namely:

1. That Martin Smith made no effort to report his claimed ‘sighting’ until the day after someone he knew – Murat – was made a suspect on an extremely serious charge

2. That he was able to be so adamant, on giving his statement to the PJ, that the man he said he saw was definitely not Murat

3. His overreaction when an Irish newspaper published an article reporting on his relationship with Murat – he saw a solicitor, threatened legal action and forced the newspaper to withdraw the article, and

4. Inconsistent and I suggest evasive statements about his acquaintance with Murat.

As for Mrs Fenn, the one thing we know for certain is that she and Mrs Jennifer Murat were both members of the local Residents Committee. Beyond that, we know that both had lived in Praia da Luz for a long time.

by pennylane 26.11.15 16:12

@Tony says: The specific evidence we have from two out of the four statements made about Martin Smith’s acquaintance with Murat state that the two had ‘known each other for 2 years’ and had ‘met several times’. This alone suggests quite a lot more than just the odd ‘passing hello’.

Sorry Tony, I have to disagree with the above. I've known some of my neighbours for nearly 20 years, and met them many times in the village shop or walking through the village, and still only know them by a passing hello.

Posters - stay on topic, please. Mod.

by woodpecker 26.11.15 18:16

I agree Pennylane.

I have lived in the same road for 25 years and mainly I know other residents as casual acquaintances. A few I know better because their children were at school with mine, they played in our house and I met the parents that way. Some I wouldn't even know by sight because their working lives were different to mine and they'd be leaving/returning from work at different times to me.

Wasn't Mr Smith only the co-owner of the property which would mean he wasn't there that much? He might have 'known Mr Murat for 2 years' but that doesn't mean 2 years continously; he would only have had interaction with Mr Murat when he was actually in PDL.

I didn't know that Mrs Murat and Mrs fenn were on the local residents committee. I was on our local committee for years on and off, and there'd be committee members who rarely turned up, and they'd be times when I didn't attend which meant there'd be a few members I could pass in the street and not be sure who they were! Most people, in my experience, left promptly at the end of meetings (which were often boring). If I was friendly with a fellow committee member it was because I knew them anyway. Usually there was always a couple of members I didn't like who talked all the time or who made stupid contributions. What I'm trying to say is that being on a residents committee together does not mean necessarily that Mrs Murat and Mrs Fenn were good friends.

ontopic

by Richard IV 26.11.15 21:07

If this thread is about how a faked abduction could be achieved in less than an hour, it`s inevitable that the Smith sighting is going to crop up again. If the thread is now going off on a tangent, I will just thank Tony for replying to my post and leave it at that.

@Richard IV - Thread is drifting off topic, but do continue if you want to respond.

There are many Smith sighting threads, six of which are posted up-thread by Tony Bennett. Mod.

by sonic72 26.11.15 22:45

I've always thought it's impossible for them to have concocted a cover up on the night, on the spur of the moment.
They would need to put some thought into it, even if it wasn't a master plan.

This ties in with the cadaver detection in their apartment, that needed would also need time to develop.

So, IMO Madeleine 'disappeared' earlier than we are being told.

by Verdi 26.11.15 22:59

sonic72 wrote:I've always thought it's impossible for them to have concocted a cover up on the night, on the spur of the moment.
They would need to put some thought into it, even if it wasn't a master plan.

This ties in with the cadaver detection in their apartment, that needed would also need time to develop.

So, IMO Madeleine 'disappeared' earlier than we are being told.

Too contrived don't you think? Outdated photographs of Madeleine readily available, time-line scribbled on Madeleine's sticker book, unlocked patio door, hazy child check arrangements that could never be confirmed, stained pyjama top, child crying or not crying, elderly woman in apartment above, absence of any reliable independent witness who can confirm a living Madeleine on 3rd May (or days leading up to the 3rd), contradictory accounts of the groups movements during the week - shall I go on?

by Justice4madeleine 04.07.17 16:38

Hi, after stumbling across Richard D Halls videos on YouTube I found this forum and have been reading it for the past 5 months. After watching hideho's video "A Voice for Madeleine - The Song" (I'm sorry I don't know how to quote someone's original post) I was so emotional that I felt the need to register and say what a beautiful tribute to Madeleine that was and I'm constantly amazed at how much time and effort is put into getting justice for a beautiful little girl. As a stay at home mother of three I don't feel there would be much I could contribute to helping but would like to say a huge well done and thank you to everyone on this forum for giving Madeleine a voice and also for any of the general public who might be curious to be able to read freely the facts, and I sincerely hope that one day justice will prevail and the truth be out there for all to see. Since the parents first made a public statement it struck me as "just odd" "something's not right" they never once came across as genuinely concerned for their daughter, and after reading the files and facts available online my gut feelings were confirmed. I wish you all well and pray that one day all your hard work will come to fruition and justice will be done. HiDeHo your videos on YouTube are so moving, thoughtful and thought provoking, it's so nice to see there are good people in the world, taking their own time and resources for this little girl. I thank you all

by **HiDeHo** 04.07.17 17:14

Justice4madeleine wrote:Hi, after stumbling across Richard D Halls videos on YouTube I found this forum and have been reading it for the past 5 months. After watching hideho's video "A Voice for Madeleine - The Song" (I'm sorry I don't know how to quote someone's original post) I was so emotional that I felt the need to register and say what a beautiful tribute to Madeleine that was and I'm constantly amazed at how much time and effort is put into getting justice for a beautiful little girl. As a stay at home mother of three I don't feel there would be much I could contribute to helping but would like to say a huge well done and thank you to everyone on this forum for giving Madeleine a voice and also for any of the general public who might be curious to be able to read freely the facts, and I sincerely hope that one day justice will prevail and the truth be out there for all to see. Since the parents first made a public statement it struck me as "just odd" "something's not right" they never once came across as genuinely concerned for their daughter, and after reading the files and facts available online my gut feelings were confirmed. I wish you all well and pray that one day all your hard work will come to fruition and justice will be done. HiDeHo your videos on YouTube are so moving, thoughtful and thought provoking, it's so nice to see there are good people in the world, taking their own time and resources for this little girl. I thank you all

Thank you so much for that.. The video means a lot to me as one of our members, Vicki Leeming, wrote the verse and my son did the song which I use in several other videos.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Some of the older videos prior to March 2015 can be seen here...

Title: HiDeHo4 VIDEOS 215 Newest - Oldest
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I also want to thank you for bumping this thread...

Just this week I started to put together a timeline of how they could fake the abduction if they were guilty of neglect and they discovered her body after they left for the restaurant...

I find it impossible to comprehend it would be possible...

I will be putting together a similar one looking at the timeline if she died after 5.30..

This is not complete but shows the basics...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Justice4madeleine 04.07.17 20:22

Thank you for the links to your older videos. I will definitely have a look through them, I have watched quite a few and they are so well made with music to match accordingly. My personal opinion is that it couldn't possibly have all been achieved in the one night with the time the mccanns had. I do lean towards Joanna's theory that it may have happened on the Wednesday as for me Sunday/Monday just seems like too many people would have to be "in the know" and after reading the files I tend to believe that dianne Webster was being truthful in her statement. I believe an accident happened and Kate and Gerry chose to cover that up, but a lot of things went wrong. Of course i don't have the knowledge that many on here do and most of what I've read has been from here, the files, YouTube etc. I'm very grateful for everybody's hard work and input though as without it, I, as I'm sure many others would be none the wiser as to the truth.

by worriedmum 04.07.17 23:46

I've just read your timeline.
Two questions spring to mind.
Firstly,if the twins were sedated, at what time would the sedative have to be administered in order for them to sleep so soundly throughout all the noise?Is there a maximum time limit for a drug to be safely ingested with a consequent normal recovery? eg if it is 12 hours maximum and they woke at 7am the following morning....

Secondly, if Jane Tanner had left the table but was not seen by either Jeremy Wilkins or Gerry McCann, where WAS she?

by Phoebe 05.07.17 8:42

This thread IMO goes to the heart of the matter. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] asks how long after sedation the soporific effect kicks in. That depends on what is used. For example, if the twins had been given an oral dose of chloral hydrate, (commonly used in paediatric sedation, usually well tolerated) the effects would be fully evident in about 20-30 mins. My primary difficulty in believing that Madeleine had been discovered dead on that Thursday night, having been put to sleep at the time the McCs give, is the cadaver odour. All I can find re. tests on how long it takes for dogs to be able to detect same, are the carpet square tests, wherein pieces of material which have had contact with a corpse for varying periods are tested to ascertain the contact duration needed before a dog alerts to them. This is quite different to a full body in contact with a surface, so the suggested minimum time of 90mins might actually be much shorter in such instance. Surely the P.J. queried this with Martin Grime? If this were the case, it is not impossible for Madeleine to have been discovered, moved and hidden before the 10p.m. alert, especially as the discovery could have occurred as early as, say, 9.15. By all accounts Jane, Russell and Gerry were away from the tapas for quite a while during the dinner period. If this were so, it would suggest they had been very lucky in succeeding in moving Madeleine, first before 10pm and later moving her to a more secure location around 4-5 am. I cannot fathom why there is such a strong claim that Cat. Baker was already known to the McCanns before that holiday. This seems to be based on the fact that one of her Facebook friends was Jon Corner's daughter, but the nature of Facebook is that people have "friends" and receive "friend" requests from people they have never met or from those who know people who know them! Yes Cat visited them in Rothley, but that was AFTER their shared experience and IMO is not evidence that she knew them prior to May 07. I don't believe her testimony, but for reasons other than thinking her a friend of the McCs, prepared to help them.