The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by Guest on 27.02.12 15:40

Monday, February 27, 2012





Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's





The Smith family sighting or the Jane Tanner sighting; which is more likely to be someone carrying off Maddie than the other? Or, could they be, as the McCanns now encourage us to believe, the same man?

Let's start with a question we commonly hear about possible suspect sightings: when someone is spotted near a crime scene who has nothing to do with the crime but never comes forward and says, "That was me," doesn't that prove that the person spotted is indeed the suspect?

Not necessarily. First of all, the sighting may not even be a fact. Jane Tanner's sighting lacks credibility, so is no surprise that some innocent man carrying a child in his outstretched arms hasn't come forward (although Stephen Carpenter, another British vacationer, admitted to crossing the road fifteen minutes later with his wife and children). On the other hand, the Smith family sighting at approximately 9:50-9:55 is very credible since nine witnesses saw the man and they have no connection to the McCanns. So, that no one came forth to admit being that man may be because he is really the one carrying off Maddie.

Secondly, some people just don't want to admit it was them and then have the unpleasant repercussions of having to deal with the police and the media. Look what happened to Murat.


Next, we have the issue of how the child was carried. Dead or alive, the Smith sighting suspect carried the child up against his body in a more normal carry position. The child's arms were hanging down which would be absolutely the case with a dead child (although it is also possible with a live one). Mr. Smith later saw a video of Gerry carrying one of his remaining children and thought the man his family had seen could well be him. The Jane Tanner sighting has the abductor holding a limp child in his outstretched arms. This is an odd way to carry a child any distance as it is awkward and tiring. Also, if the man abducted the child, he would be far smarter to carry the child up against his shoulder where he could duck his head down alongside the child's head and keep his own face somewhat hidden. Carrying the child at waist level leaves one's face exposed and draws attention to the person due to the odd positioning of the child.

And how does it make sense that the abductor would carry the abducted child that way? If he scooped Maddie up from her bed, her head would naturally end up over his right arm and Jane Tanner wouldn't have seen two little feet. And how does the man get out the door and close it behind him with both hands cradling the child? (Not to mention, closing the door when you are in a hurry - since "the abductor" already have left evidence of a break-in with the open window - it is hardly is worth the effort.)

Mr. Smith believes Gerry McCann may be the man he saw on the Rua da Escola. Some say this is an impossibility because Gerry was dining in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the sighting. Well, he is if you believe some of the statements of the Tapas 9 but there is no independent corroboration by any of the waiters that he was there exactly when Kate sounded the alarm after 10 pm nor can any independent witness put Gerry in the Tapas restaurant for the period of time prior to Kate raising the alarm. So there is nothing to say that this wasn't Gerry that the Smith's saw who then dumped the child he was carrying and returned to take his seat in the Tapas just before Kate showed up.

But, could he have made it to the location of the Smith sighting and back in time? Before I went to Praia da Luz I was told by some the idea was laughable, that the Smith sighting was quite a distance from the Tapas - half a mile is what the McCanns claim in their documentary, Madeleine was Here.

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and half (1/2) mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town.

When I looked at a map before I went to Portugal on Google and put in the locations, I did come up with 800 meters (half-mile) but that was by car and followed a rather circuitous route. the walking route didn't seem that far and, indeed, Google said it would take six minutes.

This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner.

And, yes, it does take a bit of time to hide the body, but, in a pinch and a panic, I saw three good places to ditch a corpse in a hurry; a storage shed right by the road only part way to the beach (cutting an extra minute or so off the trip), a large clump of reeds where the road accesses the beach and one could quickly stuff the little body into, and, also at that location, a number of overturned small boats one could temporarily store a body underneath. At this point in time, if one would just trying to lose a dead child, any place might do, including a dumpster of which there were a number of in the area. If the body is later found in any of the those places, it could be suspected that a sex predator dumped his victim there, and, if the body wasn't immediately discovered and one had time to find a better spot to prevent the child being found and an autopsy done, any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours. If there was no one out searching, these locations are dead quiet and no one is around; I can testify to since I spent from 3 am to 5 am wandering about Praia da Luz and never ran into anyone.








Which sighting is more likely to be Madeleine McCann? The Smith sighting, clearly, but the McCanns will have none of it unless it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. I repeat what I stated in my last blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by david_uk on 27.02.12 15:55

A much more interesting blog this time!. Where these locations searched properly after Smith sighting was reported? where forensic teams sent to these places?

david_uk

Posts : 320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by tigger on 27.02.12 16:15

They really have a problem with accurate distances haven't they? 49 metres. 100 metres, One minute or two minutes at normal walking pace.
Now half a mile which at a moderately fast walking pace would take about 15 minutes? Pat tells us she did it comfortably in 5 minutes.
I still think it was a live child because I don't think Maddie died on the 3rd. A borrowed child, plenty of time to give her back - instead of the body drop, it's a ready and waiting child drop.

I hope their problem with measurements doesn't extend to their professions.
Just to recap:
PeterMac:
49 metres One minute
100 metres two minutes.

half a mile = 800 metres = 16 minutes
actual distance = took 5 minutes.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by aiyoyo on 27.02.12 16:44

I have a problem with that.
How did gerry know about the possible 3 dumping grounds unless he'd already sussed it out earlier in advance.
If Maddie's accident took place while they were at the Tapas, where would Gerry get the time to do that considering they only left the apt on 8.30 to the Tapas bar. And by 9.05 he was back at the Apt for his first check, and the rest of the time line we know.

What above cadaver development time?
Would there be enough time between 8.30 (time she was left alone) to 9.50 (time Gerry was alleged sighted) for cadaver to develop? Who moved Maddie from place to place in the apt, from wardrobe to behind the sofa, then to flower bed outside, and at what time?
Even given Gerry didn't return to the Tapas Bar from his check, he would have only half-an-hour max (between chinwag with Jez Wilkins to Smith's sighting) to stage the scene, clean up lab style, to taking Maddie to the dump (so to speak).

Questions have to be asked would a bunch of intelligent professionals do a rush disposal like that and risked being caught?
Don't forget that would mean the group of friends wasn't given the chance to see Maddie, or see how they can help her, nor say goodbye to Maddie properly before Gerry rushed her off to dumping ground - how cold is that?
This is only possible if none of their friends were let in about the accident - could it be none of their friends know about their involvement. If so, how to explain Janey's lies?

If there was a strong reason for having to hide Maddie from autopsy, why take the risk?
The risk of her being found is real since the area is literally only 8 minutes away - did sniffer dogs used by PJ cover the area of Smith's sighting? How did they know the area wasn't going to be searched?

Of course its plausible that the man could be Gerry, but how do we know the Police haven't eliminated the man since 20% of the files was kept under lock and key. Was Amaral kept in the loops throughout even after he was off the case?

Maybe it's just me, I find that style of disposal clinically cold and inhuman, not something one would do to their own flesh and blood; a stranger yes, because there's no emotional ties. If the mccanns had done that to Madeleine then they are worst than animals in my eyes.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by rainbow-fairy on 27.02.12 16:55

Jane Tanner's sighting is absolutely ludicrous, and possibly one of the big reasons why people don't believe the abduction story. But, the McCann's keep using it - why?
Simple.
It is crucial that Gerry has an alibi for the exact time the 'abductor' was on the streets. An alibi in the tapas, nearer the time of the Smith sighting would put Gerry on shaky ground indeed. Far better he was outdoors, conversing with a non-tapas and witnessed by JT who witnessed the 'abductor' at the very same time. That way, if and when Gerry was seen 35 mins or so later with a child (whether alive or dead) logic would say 'this can't be the same man'. I believe this is why the JT sighting became crucial to Gerry's alibi. He knew he'd been seen, but without knowing if the Smiths would come forward, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. When Smith did come forward, and horror of horrors partly ID'd Gerry, they were left with no choice. They had to not only acknowledge the sighting (to not do so would be a massive indication of guilt) but they also had to try and morph them together. Which is why we get ridiculous stories from Pro-trolls - 'Maybe the abductor was hiding' (er yes, and maybe he wasn't! Wink)
I believe this is what Gerry was referring to when he said 'There's been a disaster...' he never for one minute thought he'd be seen so close up, at so many angles, as he was by the Smith family in that alleyway near 10 at night (chance in a million, and a disaster!)

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by tigger on 27.02.12 17:04

@aiyoyo wrote:I have a problem with that.
How did gerry know about the possible 3 dumping grounds unless he'd already sussed it out earlier in advance.
If Maddie's accident took place while they were at the Tapas, where would Gerry get the time to do that considering they only left the apt on 8.30 to the Tapas bar. And by 9.05 he was back at the Apt for his first check, and the rest of the time line we know.

What above cadaver development time?
Would there be enough time between 8.30 (time she was left alone) to 9.50 (time Gerry was alleged sighted) for cadaver to develop? Who moved Maddie from place to place in the apt, from wardrobe to behind the sofa, then to flower bed outside, and at what time?
Even given Gerry didn't return to the Tapas Bar from his check, he would have only half-an-hour max (between chinwag with Jez Wilkins to Smith's sighting) to stage the scene, clean up lab style, to taking Maddie to the dump (so to speak).

Questions have to be asked would a bunch of intelligent professionals do a rush disposal like that and risked being caught?
Don't forget that would mean the group of friends wasn't given the chance to see Maddie, or see how they can help her, nor say goodbye to Maddie properly before Gerry rushed her off to dumping ground - how cold is that?
This is only possible if none of their friends were let in about the accident - could it be none of their friends know about their involvement. If so, how to explain Janey's lies?

If there was a strong reason for having to hide Maddie from autopsy, why take the risk?
The risk of her being found is real since the area is literally only 8 minutes away - did sniffer dogs used by PJ cover the area of Smith's sighting? How did they know the area wasn't going to be searched?

Of course its plausible that the man could be Gerry, but how do we know the Police haven't eliminated the man since 20% of the files was kept under lock and key. Was Amaral kept in the loops throughout even after he was off the case?

Maybe it's just me, I find that style of disposal clinically cold and inhuman, not something one would do to their own flesh and blood; a stranger yes, because there's no emotional ties. If the mccanns had done that to Madeleine then they are worst than animals in my eyes.



Pat I think, is still thinking it all happened on the 3rd. I am totally happy with G seen by the Smiths, I'm sure it was part of his brilliant plan. Just not 9 people at once from every angle.
But I'm 100% convinced it was the sub - blonde - as Maddy was described by the staff - whilst we known that her hair was brownish by that time.
No, I'm totally on board with the Smiths, just not with Gerry walking round with a fresh corpse. Too risky. Telephone pings also seem to indicate a 'handover' as do the analyses of Dr. Roberts. Earlier in the week. This was just performance night.
Because the two sightings were so far apart and they already had JW to alibi Gerry, they may have thought it safer to drop it. Because the Smiths I believe, also spoke to Gerry, who could not answer without giving away his Glaswegian accent.
For some reason they must have thought it better to point the finger at Murat, elaborating on that sighting alone and propping it up with three Tapas testifying they'd seen him on the evening of the 3rd.
If you think about it, the papers were awash with sightings from the start, Smiths, although they gave a statement the end of May - never mentioned.
Making the distance half a mile instead of 5 min walk was part of negating the Smiths. I think Gerry could not hide his face entirely, not surrounded by 9 people - part of the 'disaster' he was telling the the family about.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by rainbow-fairy on 27.02.12 17:26

@aiyoyo wrote:I have a problem with that.
How did gerry know about the possible 3 dumping grounds unless he'd already sussed it out earlier in advance.
If Maddie's accident took place while they were at the Tapas, where would Gerry get the time to do that considering they only left the apt on 8.30 to the Tapas bar. And by 9.05 he was back at the Apt for his first check, and the rest of the time line we know.

What above cadaver development time?
Would there be enough time between 8.30 (time she was left alone) to 9.50 (time Gerry was alleged sighted) for cadaver to develop? Who moved Maddie from place to place in the apt, from wardrobe to behind the sofa, then to flower bed outside, and at what time?
Even given Gerry didn't return to the Tapas Bar from his check, he would have only half-an-hour max (between chinwag with Jez Wilkins to Smith's sighting) to stage the scene, clean up lab style, to taking Maddie to the dump (so to speak).

Questions have to be asked would a bunch of intelligent professionals do a rush disposal like that and risked being caught?
Don't forget that would mean the group of friends wasn't given the chance to see Maddie, or see how they can help her, nor say goodbye to Maddie properly before Gerry rushed her off to dumping ground - how cold is that?
This is only possible if none of their friends were let in about the accident - could it be none of their friends know about their involvement. If so, how to explain Janey's lies?

If there was a strong reason for having to hide Maddie from autopsy, why take the risk?
The risk of her being found is real since the area is literally only 8 minutes away - did sniffer dogs used by PJ cover the area of Smith's sighting? How did they know the area wasn't going to be searched?

Of course its plausible that the man could be Gerry, but how do we know the Police haven't eliminated the man since 20% of the files was kept under lock and key. Was Amaral kept in the loops throughout even after he was off the case?

Maybe it's just me, I find that style of disposal clinically cold and inhuman, not something one would do to their own flesh and blood; a stranger yes, because there's no emotional ties. If the mccanns had done that to Madeleine then they are worst than animals in my eyes.


aiyoyo, you raise a very important point about cadaver odour. If we believe the dogs (and I do, 100%) then the timings become a real issue. If we assume that the McCann's have been utterly truthful about events until they went out (ie Maddie was alive, put to bed and left) then the time interval for cadaver odour to develop is very tight, not to mention cleaning up etc. Even if M was already 'gone' (and DP's statement is certainly iffy) it is still not long to put everything into place. I've thought of one possible way to reconcile death on May 3rd late with the dog alerts, but I need to think more about it before posting - it may not work...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by Ribisl on 27.02.12 22:07

I agree with aiyoyo, Mccanns are not that stupid.

If we work on the hypothesis that Mccanns didn't want Madeleine found because they had something to hide, it means even if the death happened by accident, the disposal of her body would have been carefully planned and thought through. How likely is it that you would be seen by somebody if you carried a dead child down a public street before 22.00 in a holiday resort? And giving yourself less than an hour before contacting the police who would most certainly start to search the whole area as soon as they arrive? I find that sequence of events hard to believe.
And if you take the cadaver dogs' evidence, Madeleine's body must have been in the apartment long enough to leave traces in more than one area. So does it follow then that she died earlier and her body was taken out of the apartment hours if not days before all the charades began?

Mccanns are far from stupid, yet their arrogance in believing they have outsmarted everyone and their love for constant public attention may one day become their own undoing. I sincerely hope so.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by littlepixie on 27.02.12 23:38

I think they wanted or hoped she would be found quickly. That is why they said paedophiles had taken her. I also think she was moved once the worries about drug traces were thought about.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by rainbow-fairy on 28.02.12 7:37

@tigger wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:I have a problem with that.
How did gerry know about the possible 3 dumping grounds unless he'd already sussed it out earlier in advance.
If Maddie's accident took place while they were at the Tapas, where would Gerry get the time to do that considering they only left the apt on 8.30 to the Tapas bar. And by 9.05 he was back at the Apt for his first check, and the rest of the time line we know.

What above cadaver development time?
Would there be enough time between 8.30 (time she was left alone) to 9.50 (time Gerry was alleged sighted) for cadaver to develop? Who moved Maddie from place to place in the apt, from wardrobe to behind the sofa, then to flower bed outside, and at what time?
Even given Gerry didn't return to the Tapas Bar from his check, he would have only half-an-hour max (between chinwag with Jez Wilkins to Smith's sighting) to stage the scene, clean up lab style, to taking Maddie to the dump (so to speak).

Questions have to be asked would a bunch of intelligent professionals do a rush disposal like that and risked being caught?
Don't forget that would mean the group of friends wasn't given the chance to see Maddie, or see how they can help her, nor say goodbye to Maddie properly before Gerry rushed her off to dumping ground - how cold is that?
This is only possible if none of their friends were let in about the accident - could it be none of their friends know about their involvement. If so, how to explain Janey's lies?

If there was a strong reason for having to hide Maddie from autopsy, why take the risk?
The risk of her being found is real since the area is literally only 8 minutes away - did sniffer dogs used by PJ cover the area of Smith's sighting? How did they know the area wasn't going to be searched?

Of course its plausible that the man could be Gerry, but how do we know the Police haven't eliminated the man since 20% of the files was kept under lock and key. Was Amaral kept in the loops throughout even after he was off the case?

Maybe it's just me, I find that style of disposal clinically cold and inhuman, not something one would do to their own flesh and blood; a stranger yes, because there's no emotional ties. If the mccanns had done that to Madeleine then they are worst than animals in my eyes.



Pat I think, is still thinking it all happened on the 3rd. I am totally happy with G seen by the Smiths, I'm sure it was part of his brilliant plan. Just not 9 people at once from every angle.
But I'm 100% convinced it was the sub - blonde - as Maddy was described by the staff - whilst we known that her hair was brownish by that time.
No, I'm totally on board with the Smiths, just not with Gerry walking round with a fresh corpse. Too risky. Telephone pings also seem to indicate a 'handover' as do the analyses of Dr. Roberts. Earlier in the week. This was just performance night.
Because the two sightings were so far apart and they already had JW to alibi Gerry, they may have thought it safer to drop it. Because the Smiths I believe, also spoke to Gerry, who could not answer without giving away his Glaswegian accent.
For some reason they must have thought it better to point the finger at Murat, elaborating on that sighting alone and propping it up with three Tapas testifying they'd seen him on the evening of the 3rd.
If you think about it, the papers were awash with sightings from the start, Smiths, although they gave a statement the end of May - never mentioned.
Making the distance half a mile instead of 5 min walk was part of negating the Smiths. I think Gerry could not hide his face entirely, not surrounded by 9 people - part of the 'disaster' he was telling the the family about.
tigger - bit in bold - I've posted this before and I totally agree. I too think Gerry was seen by the Smiths. Initially, I thought it was for the reason of being 'seen but not seen' (perhaps from a distance?) to provide a 'sighting' for the plan to work. However, the more I think about it, the route he took suggests otherwise (Amaral does state that the 'Smith alleyway' would ordinarily be deserted at that time) therefore I think it more likely Gerry was getting the sub to her parents. After all, logic dictates that if there WAS a sub she would be needed more or less up to 'abduction time' to cover all bases, but she'd need to be on the journey away from PdL before 'kick off' - they couldn't risk her being seen and someone recognising her as 'Maddie' could they?
Team McCanns reaction to the sighting tells us all we need to know IMO. It was Gerry all right - but not with a dead Maddie...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by tigger on 28.02.12 9:07

Exactly what I was thinking, possibly the most complicated part of the whole abduction was the sub.

Besides, it's only a short walk for Gerry - deliver the child on/near the beach to her parents. But I still think he wanted to be seen - an independent witness of a man with a child. Otherwise the child could easily have been picked up at an earlier time by car or in another spot where it was less likely to be observed.
Just bad luck - not only that, not locals but Irish as he would have been able to tell from their accent.

I think the Smiths can be excused for not reporting it sooner. The papers were full of JT's sighting. A white man - neatly dressed - hair well cut, would not be connected with that description.
But just think! Gerry must have been in agonies the following days - no report of the Smiths - perhaps that's why he was so bouncy a week later, filmed on the balcony? An alibi from JW and JT's abductor and any number of paedophiles featured in the press - thanks to careful feeding of information by TM.

Btw. the way in which the child was carried and Sean too - the McCanns tend to carry their offspring like so many bags of shopping. Never have I seen a child's arms around their necks, which is for me the normal way to carry a small child. Hand under bottom, arm around the body, arms around my neck.





____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by david_uk on 28.02.12 11:02

i would normally despair of talk of subs etc! as i do of wider MAsonic conspiracies. but i have for along time been of the opinion that Maddie met her fate before the 3rd of May, the night she was heard crying for example and was suprised when GA came out and said he beleives it was all in the same night. So perhaps given more time, a plan was made and staged that night.But then this would involved ALL the Tapas and I just do not think that that many people would stay quiet for this long.

david_uk

Posts : 320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by aiyoyo on 28.02.12 11:13

@littlepixie wrote:I think they wanted or hoped she would be found quickly. That is why they said paedophiles had taken her. I also think she was moved once the worries about drug traces were thought about.

Both possibilities are plausible, but that would mean she'd died before the mccanns left for dinner; and Gerry has had time to suss out a near enough dumping place for that purpose.
The problem with the first possibility is that unless autopsy supports the "P" angle, else how to blame it on paedophiles?
Besides the obvious violation evidence there must be forensics of a stranger on her to attribute it to external paedophiles.
If they hoped she would be found quickly is the reason for their hasty temporary dumping ground, it's a tricky situation more likely to implicate them than not.
She was definitely moved once more time at least.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by david_uk on 28.02.12 11:19

@aiyoyo wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:I think they wanted or hoped she would be found quickly. That is why they said paedophiles had taken her. I also think she was moved once the worries about drug traces were thought about.

Both possibilities are plausible, but that would mean she'd died before the mccanns left for dinner; and Gerry has had time to suss out a near enough dumping place for that purpose.
The problem with the first possibility is that unless autopsy supports the "P" angle, else how to blame it on paedophiles?
Besides the obvious violation evidence there must be forensics of a stranger on her to attribute it to external paedophiles.
If they hoped she would be found quickly is the reason for their hasty temporary dumping ground, it's a tricky situation more likely to implicate them than not.
She was definitely moved once more time at least.

I think there is alot more information yet to be released by GA regarding what GA thinks happened to the body between death and final fate. Where does GA think it was taken to in the Megane Hire car?

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion

david_uk

Posts : 320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by Newintown on 28.02.12 14:17

This may have been mentioned before but I'm always way behind everybody else -

what if Gerry hadn't bumped into Jez Wilkins on the night of the 3rd, if Wilkins had decided to stay in and watch TV. JT may still claim that she saw someone carrying away Madeleine but her and Gerry wouldn't have had Wilkins to back them up. I'm not sure where I'm leading to on this but it would have changed things around a lot.

Maybe Wilkins had mentioned to Gerry while they were playing tennis that he sometimes took his child out in the pushchair around 9.00 p.m. and Gerry was waiting for him to turn up. That's why Gerry was away from the Tapas table so long. I'm thinking aloud here, but it would be interesting to know other people's thoughts on this.

Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

What's innit for them?

Post by Guest on 28.02.12 15:17

@david_uk wrote:i would normally despair of talk of subs etc! as i do of wider MAsonic conspiracies. but i have for along time been of the opinion that Maddie met her fate before the 3rd of May, the night she was heard crying for example and was suprised when GA came out and said he beleives it was all in the same night. So perhaps given more time, a plan was made and staged that night.But then this would involved ALL the Tapas and I just do not think that that many people would stay quiet for this long.

Think of what would happen if they broke ranks (=when they will breaks ranks):

1. They have to refund the hush money they received from the Express;
2. They look like a bunch of idiots, if not worse;
3. Kate & Gerry might be cross with them.

Also, their careers would be in tatters, fingers would be pointed at them for the rest of their lives, and they would be charged with obstructing the course of Justice here and abroad, at the very least. If not with conspiracy to commit manslaughter. etc etc.

So: mum's the word, untill the first one cracks, which will happen if SY do their job the way they have been taught how to do it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by tigger on 28.02.12 15:51

@david_uk wrote:i would normally despair of talk of subs etc! as i do of wider MAsonic conspiracies. but i have for along time been of the opinion that Maddie met her fate before the 3rd of May, the night she was heard crying for example and was suprised when GA came out and said he beleives it was all in the same night. So perhaps given more time, a plan was made and staged that night.But then this would involved ALL the Tapas and I just do not think that that many people would stay quiet for this long.

In the first place: I think Amaral went with what would stick. He may have a very good idea what really happened, but like a good policeman he will go with what will stand up in court. An awful lot of what we discuss here won't stand up in court - even though it's interesting.

I too, prefer as few players as possible - but Maddie is the central figure here. So I've just posted a youtube video which contains a lot of photographs were it seems glaringly obvious that Maddie was not a well, possibly not even a 'normal' child in the physical sense.

I think we can agree that her parents aren't normal people in the psychological sense. At least, none of their reactions are normal for the circumstances.
The big stumbling block is the Fund. Therefore I am convinced it was planned. How they got the family and the T7 on board, I don't know. But a plan may well succeed without all participants knowing the whole of it. Just a need-to-know that e.g. Maddie was ill, suddenly got worse and there can't possibly be a PM - loss of jobs, home, twins etc. Once you're in, hard to get out without damage.
The biggest obstacle has been the instant protection/cover up. Which is perpetuated by their lawyers - British libel laws being what they are.
There is simply no independent record of Maddie's presence in PdL after the 29th april. I would put her death at the latest on the 1st. But earlier would make more sense in view of the phone activity and the creche sheets.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by aiyoyo on 01.03.12 13:36

@david_uk wrote:i would normally despair of talk of subs etc! as i do of wider MAsonic conspiracies. but i have for along time been of the opinion that Maddie met her fate before the 3rd of May, the night she was heard crying for example and was suprised when GA came out and said he beleives it was all in the same night. So perhaps given more time, a plan was made and staged that night.But then this would involved ALL the Tapas and I just do not think that that many people would stay quiet for this long.

I am with you there. The sub etc things I find hard to digest.
Why would they add unnecessary dramarama to their already dire situation if Maddie was already dead on 30th April? Why would they go to the extent of forging signature and substituting - to serve what purpose?

I am also of the opinion Maddie met her fate before 3rd May, but it could still be May 3rd as in early morning of that same day. Else how about the washed curtains, furniture rearrangement, scrubbed floor and scrubbed clean of forensics - how to fit in those all in the short time?
I am not going to be popular saying this but I feel Pat Brown is giving too much credence to intelligence I suspect she got from Amaral himself when she gave strong credence to Smith's sighting - we know Amaral's stance on that.
She is after all equally in the dark about evidence in the unreleased files as us, and can only do her profiling from intelligence and data in public domain. There is no way to know how much evidence have developed post Amaral. Doubtless Amaral knows a lot more than he'd let on so far, and he knew with conviction Maddie is dead in the Apt and so and so involved, but who is to know whether he was let in on every evidence that developed post his shift.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by aiyoyo on 01.03.12 14:18

@tigger wrote:
@david_uk wrote:i would normally despair of talk of subs etc! as i do of wider MAsonic conspiracies. but i have for along time been of the opinion that Maddie met her fate before the 3rd of May, the night she was heard crying for example and was suprised when GA came out and said he beleives it was all in the same night. So perhaps given more time, a plan was made and staged that night.But then this would involved ALL the Tapas and I just do not think that that many people would stay quiet for this long.

In the first place: I think Amaral went with what would stick. He may have a very good idea what really happened, but like a good policeman he will go with what will stand up in court. An awful lot of what we discuss here won't stand up in court - even though it's interesting.

I too, prefer as few players as possible - but Maddie is the central figure here. So I've just posted a youtube video which contains a lot of photographs were it seems glaringly obvious that Maddie was not a well, possibly not even a 'normal' child in the physical sense.

I think we can agree that her parents aren't normal people in the psychological sense. At least, none of their reactions are normal for the circumstances.
The big stumbling block is the Fund. Therefore I am convinced it was planned. How they got the family and the T7 on board, I don't know. But a plan may well succeed without all participants knowing the whole of it. Just a need-to-know that e.g. Maddie was ill, suddenly got worse and there can't possibly be a PM - loss of jobs, home, twins etc. Once you're in, hard to get out without damage.
The biggest obstacle has been the instant protection/cover up. Which is perpetuated by their lawyers - British libel laws being what they are.
There is simply no independent record of Maddie's presence in PdL after the 29th april. I would put her death at the latest on the 1st. But earlier would make more sense in view of the phone activity and the creche sheets.

It is not too difficult to get T7 to agree to get onside, if T7 were lied to by the mccanns as to the true nature of her accident.
If they were given to believe she met her fate as a result of self caused accident and if they believed they risk facing neglect charges, then it's easier to understand why they agreed to the cover up. Else, I cant see how all of them, one or two of them maybe, but not all of them will agree to help mccanns hide a homicide.

I know people are divided over the neglect issue, with a section of people believing the neglect was to allow an alibi for abduction.
I believe the children were left alone every night, but not checked on, apart from May3rd which is just charade to allow the fake abduction. Kate told us about the nightly neglect in her bewk - remember the "special message" she said was penned against their blocked bookings on the Tapas Bar reservations book, and which was left open by the Pool side for anyone who care to look. It's a ridiculous way to insinuate that was what the abductor did, but effectively she admitted to nelgect and none of the Tapas 7 objected to that for they must have vetted her bewk before publication.

Far as I am concerned, I feel it is only plausible if they gave themselves reasonable time(say within 24 hours) to clean, dispose, and get rid of evidence, but not that much time that they had to complicate it by sub etc. It simply does not make sense to factor in a lot more outside elements risking being exposed for their lies.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by Upsy Daisy on 01.03.12 16:51

know people are divided over the neglect issue, with a section of
people believing the neglect was to allow an alibi for abduction.
I
believe the children were left alone every night, but not checked on,
apart from May3rd which is just charade to allow the fake abduction.
Kate told us about the nightly neglect in her bewk - remember the
"special message" she said was penned against their blocked bookings on
the Tapas Bar reservations book, and which was left open by the Pool
side for anyone who care to look. It's a ridiculous way to insinuate
that was what the abductor did, but effectively she admitted to nelgect
and none of the Tapas 7 objected to that for they must have vetted her
bewk before publication.


perhaps, if the 'accident/incident/situation' happened prior to May 3, the note in the reservation may have been planted by T9 to support the abduction theory..as in, they had to be seen to be neglecting the kids with written evidence to prove that they were, when in fact, they were not and were taking it in turns to do the babysitting as planned all along.

Something else that occurred to me, slightly off topic, does anyone know if Kate was questioned about making plans to have the kids in creche all day during the holiday, prior to her going, ie. did she discuss/book/email anyone or MW resort ahead of time to book activities or creche slots for the kids, thus proving that she had planned to have them in creche all day? If not, perhaps the kids in creche all day had to be put in place AFTER an early incident occurred since they would have needed all the kids out of the way to 'deal with' the situation at hand and having the kids in creche would have been the perfect solution.

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by russiandoll on 01.03.12 16:52

Apologies if I appear dense, but I am rather tired. Have been doing a lot of reading and looking at apparent anomalies in the creche sheets and even tapas booking forms......trying not to get bogged down in detail as it risks reading too much into things and following extremely complicated avenues when the crux of the matter was probably simple and it is the postscript that has been like getting stuck in a maze.
I am now asking myself why would a sub be needed if indeed Maddie was not alive earlier, say 29th/30th... there was no requirement for her continued attendance at creche, her parents could have given plausible reasons which would not have aroused curiosity from the staff... couldn't they? Creche was an option for children not compulsory, I bet a few children start off at those creches and then for a variety of reasons stop attending......shy, dont mix with others easily in a strange environment, not happy with the new and strange, even if nice, creche staff....under the weather, over tired....any number of reasons for " she is not coming today, other plans.." it was not a school where you need to give a reason for non-attendance. That reminds me, Stella posted in her new research area that one day Maddie was late and nor reason was given for late arrival.......I thought you could drop off and pick up any time within opening and closing times in a creche like this on holiday.......they are not nurseries with set times for start and finish, as far as I am awar; .the sheets show that children were not always dropped of at opening and picked up at closing time.
Why would it be necessary to complicate so much and take such a high risk strategy, by using a sub?

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by Upsy Daisy on 01.03.12 16:56

perhaps it was booked in advance and she had to show presence... i just posted this on another thread, which may or may not be significant.

'Something else that occurred to me,
slightly off topic, does anyone know if Kate was questioned about making
plans to have the kids in creche all day during the holiday, prior to
her going, ie. did she discuss/book/email anyone or MW resort ahead of
time to book activities or creche slots for the kids, thus proving that
she had planned to have them in creche all day? If not, perhaps the kids
in creche all day had to be put in place AFTER an early incident
occurred since they would have needed all the kids out of the way to
'deal with' the situation at hand and having the kids in creche would
have been the perfect solution.'

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by russiandoll on 01.03.12 16:59

@Upsy Daisy wrote:
know people are divided over the neglect issue, with a section of
people believing the neglect was to allow an alibi for abduction.
I
believe the children were left alone every night, but not checked on,
apart from May3rd which is just charade to allow the fake abduction.
Kate told us about the nightly neglect in her bewk - remember the
"special message" she said was penned against their blocked bookings on
the Tapas Bar reservations book, and which was left open by the Pool
side for anyone who care to look. It's a ridiculous way to insinuate
that was what the abductor did,
but effectively she admitted to nelgect
and none of the Tapas 7 objected to that for they must have vetted her
bewk before publication.


perhaps, if the 'accident/incident/situation' happened prior to May 3, the note in the reservation may have been planted by T9 to support the abduction theory..as in, they had to be seen to be neglecting the kids with written evidence to prove that they were, when in fact, they were not and were taking it in turns to do the babysitting as planned all along.

Something else that occurred to me, slightly off topic, does anyone know if Kate was questioned about making plans to have the kids in creche all day during the holiday, prior to her going, ie. did she discuss/book/email anyone or MW resort ahead of time to book activities or creche slots for the kids, thus proving that she had planned to have them in creche all day? If not, perhaps the kids in creche all day had to be put in place AFTER an early incident occurred since they would have needed all the kids out of the way to 'deal with' the situation at hand and having the kids in creche would have been the perfect solution.


not sure about the above, will try to find out though. highlighted in bold..., that note was not released in the files, neither were 2 of the tapas booking sheets . What were released imo show anomalies from 1-3 May.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by rainbow-fairy on 01.03.12 17:29

@russiandoll wrote:Apologies if I appear dense, but I am rather tired. Have been doing a lot of reading and looking at apparent anomalies in the creche sheets and even tapas booking forms......trying not to get bogged down in detail as it risks reading too much into things and following extremely complicated avenues when the crux of the matter was probably simple and it is the postscript that has been like getting stuck in a maze.
I am now asking myself why would a sub be needed if indeed Maddie was not alive earlier, say 29th/30th... there was no requirement for her continued attendance at creche, her parents could have given plausible reasons which would not have aroused curiosity from the staff... couldn't they? Creche was an option for children not compulsory, I bet a few children start off at those creches and then for a variety of reasons stop attending......shy, dont mix with others easily in a strange environment, not happy with the new and strange, even if nice, creche staff....under the weather, over tired....any number of reasons for " she is not coming today, other plans.." it was not a school where you need to give a reason for non-attendance. That reminds me, Stella posted in her new research area that one day Maddie was late and nor reason was given for late arrival.......I thought you could drop off and pick up any time within opening and closing times in a creche like this on holiday.......they are not nurseries with set times for start and finish, as far as I am awar; .the sheets show that children were not always dropped of at opening and picked up at closing time.
Why would it be necessary to complicate so much and take such a high risk strategy, by using a sub?
hi russiandoll!
I am not 100% convinced by the sub theory, but I certainly am open-minded about it.
To your query 'Why would she need to be seen to be at creche if something happened earlier?' The thing I can think of is this - had your child gone to creche for a day or so, then not gone the rest of the week, although their siblings did, wouldn't there be more questions if she then disappeared? Along the lines of 'You told creche she was ill/unhappy about attending/doing other things. Was she really? Was she even alive?'
Obviously, attendance at creche gives independent 'proof of life'. Without the nannies, it would be mainly T9 to attest she was ever even in PdL at all? That is the main reason I can think of for a sub. Proving she was alive until they had everything in place for 'kick-off'? Hope this helps - I've probably confused you even more - I've confused myself!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

Post by russiandoll on 01.03.12 17:46

not confused me at all Rainbow Fairy......we are in a confusing place with this case at the start. If there was a sub I agree a proof of life reason.
So high risk and who on earth would allow their child to be used like this and it surely means pre planning? And a little girl being happily dropped off and picked up, it would have to be by an adult she was familiar with surely? There would have been none of that recognition from afar and running to Mummy or Daddy would there?

I am trying to keep things simple and avoid some of the more outlandish theories but those sheets are so very strange they do raise some questions.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum