Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Woofer wrote:Why would it have to be the next day?  Why not wait until say, 5th - 7th when low tide would be even later at nearer midnight.  Don`t they have bait diggers there who wouldn`t look out of place digging in the sand at low tide.

I must say tho` that it would be one hell of a risky business.

I personally don`t think anyone would place their newly deceased child anywhere without a covering.

Pershing36 wrote:If and a big if, he was heading towards the beach is there any chance that somebody could have come up with a boat?  Portugal has some deep ocean ledges and if a body is weighed down and goes below about 200 feet it will never re-surface.

However could they really have arranged all that in that time?  I doubt it personally.

Châtelaine wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:If and a big if, he was heading towards the beach is there any chance that somebody could have come up with a boat?  Portugal has some deep ocean ledges and if a body is weighed down and goes below about 200 feet it will never re-surface.

However could they really have arranged all that in that time?  I doubt it personally.

***
Just bury in the sand at rising tide.
IF this was an instant survival reaction to something very wrong, do not forget that the major part of them were medics, who would have had served many a time in E.R., where nothing goes but educated gut reaction and speed, speed ...

Portia wrote:After a whole day of tennis and 14 bottles of wine

Woofer wrote:Why would it have to be the next day?  Why not wait until say, 5th - 7th when low tide would be even later at nearer midnight.  Don`t they have bait diggers there who wouldn`t look out of place digging in the sand at low tide.

I must say tho` that it would be one hell of a risky business.

I personally don`t think anyone would place their newly deceased child anywhere without a covering.

galena wrote:1) Wouldn't there be a huge risk of it being found by a member of the public before they were able to move it?
2) Wouldn't it be rather hard to find again and difficult to dig up without exciting attention from other beach goers -  bearing in mind that the season was just beginning?
Yes, it would have been very risky if buried there on the night of the 3rd. Had this been a couple of nights before, they would still have had chance to go back the following night to carry out a removal and relocation.
As for finding 'it' again, some marker could have been used. A rock, for example.

3) Wouldn't he have needed a spade or some implement to dig deeply enough to bury the body safely?
Buckets and spade spring to mind.
Also, how many kids dig big holes on the beach during the day and don't fill them back in? There could have been a very convenient hole left behind at the end of the day. [And if that hole was dug by a guilty party in the late afternoon, in preparation, say, it would facilitate a speedy hiding.]

4) Wouldn't Gerry have been covered in sand and looked somewhat dishevelled when he got back to the bar? Could he have changed first?
5) Would Gerry have been able to dig a grave deep enough to avoid accidental discovery, bury the body, tidy up the sand and then get back to the Tapas Bar in 10 minutes in time to hear Kate announce Madeleine's disappearance? He can run. He seems to be very good at it. Better than the average bloke, perhaps. I wonder how long it would take to run back from the beach? They made it to the top of the cliff in 19 mins, iirc.

Actually I'm pretty sure I remember a similar discussion on this back in 2007 on either digispy or mirror forums. I think consensus was - people wanted it to be Gerry but no-one could see how it could be done.  Far from providing us with new evidence Crimewatch has us going round in circles! That Crimewatch programme did not do as it said on the tin. It did something quite different.

Lance De Boils wrote:

Woofer wrote:Why would it have to be the next day?  Why not wait until say, 5th - 7th when low tide would be even later at nearer midnight.  Don`t they have bait diggers there who wouldn`t look out of place digging in the sand at low tide.

I must say tho` that it would be one hell of a risky business.

I personally don`t think anyone would place their newly deceased child anywhere without a covering.

I am not a squeamish person.
I have also learned the skill that is necessary in certain lines of work: detatching emotionally from the job at hand. Feelings and emotions sometimes run high afterwards, when at home and trying to wind down. But some work requires the ability to adopt a calm, methodical and perhaps scientific approach.

Yet I couldn't even bring myself to bury the family pet rabbit without first wrapping it carefully and thoroughly with an old, but soft towel.

If it was my child....

littlepixie wrote:I have always thought that they WANTED the body to be found in the early days. That is why Gerry was telling people that paedophiles had taken her.
If she had been found at that early stage providing there was no DNA on her linked to them everyone would have felt terribly sorry for them losing their child to a predator. Everything could have been blamed on the abductor. If they were that forensically aware that they tried to clean the apartment of all traces of her DNA then they would have been sure there was none on her body.

I think she was only moved because the dogs tied her dead body to their apartment. Then whatever condition her body was in could NOT be blamed on an abductor.

Lance De Boils wrote:

galena wrote:1) Wouldn't there be a huge risk of it being found by a member of the public before they were able to move it?
2) Wouldn't it be rather hard to find again and difficult to dig up without exciting attention from other beach goers -  bearing in mind that the season was just beginning?
Yes, it would have been very risky if buried there on the night of the 3rd. Had this been a couple of nights before, they would still have had chance to go back the following night to carry out a removal and relocation.
As for finding 'it' again, some marker could have been used. A rock, for example.

3) Wouldn't he have needed a spade or some implement to dig deeply enough to bury the body safely?
Buckets and spade spring to mind.
Also, how many kids dig big holes on the beach during the day and don't fill them back in? There could have been a very convenient hole left behind at the end of the day. [And if that hole was dug by a guilty party in the late afternoon, in preparation, say, it would facilitate a speedy hiding.]

4) Wouldn't Gerry have been covered in sand and looked somewhat dishevelled when he got back to the bar? Could he have changed first?
5) Would Gerry have been able to dig a grave deep enough to avoid accidental discovery, bury the body, tidy up the sand and then get back to the Tapas Bar in 10 minutes in time to hear Kate announce Madeleine's disappearance? He can run. He seems to be very good at it. Better than the average bloke, perhaps. I wonder how long it would take to run back from the beach? They made it to the top of the cliff in 19 mins, iirc.

Actually I'm pretty sure I remember a similar discussion on this back in 2007 on either digispy or mirror forums. I think consensus was - people wanted it to be Gerry but no-one could see how it could be done.  Far from providing us with new evidence Crimewatch has us going round in circles! That Crimewatch programme did not do as it said on the tin. It did something quite different.

Mine in red, galena.

Searcher wrote:If a terrible accident occurred to a child, and parents needed or wanted to conceal it, in my view they would:   Remove the child to another location, possibly with the help of trusted friends; a location that would preserve the body and not easily be found; arrange transport as needed, again with a trusted friend; try to clean up any evidence; construct a timeline alibi; return at some point ahead in time to take the child for burial in a remote place or at sea.  

They might at some point need the assistance of a boat, or a boat owner.  If they wanted to avoid an autopsy for some reason, the above would be urgent and vital.  They might then construct another story entirely and engage with high profile people to endorse their story.  If they had leverage in any direction, they might be obliged to use it, including any state secrets known to them or suspected.  If this was sufficiently effective it would sideline even forensic evidence, and contradictions in the parents' version of events.  Leverage would also be sufficient to ensure that any detective who came close to uncovering the truth would be sacked and their reputation smeared as incompetent.

Alongside this, a planned process of information / mis-information and dis-information would be carried out through the media to confuse the public, the police, the media.   The child would remain unfound until, at last, some element of truth emerged which would not and could not be ignored.  The parents would find themselves in court.

Searcher wrote:Yes, Pershing36, many apartments, many fridges. Or boats at the marina.

Searcher wrote:Yes.  It was said back in 2007 at the time, in the media, that a boat owned by a British person, moored in "the marina" [which must be Lagos I understand] was taken out on the night of 3 May "for the first time in two years".  I have great trouble believing in 'coincidences' and I have always wondered what happend with this story and follow-up.

Joss wrote:

Searcher wrote:Yes.  It was said back in 2007 at the time, in the media, that a boat owned by a British person, moored in "the marina" [which must be Lagos I understand] was taken out on the night of 3 May "for the first time in two years".  I have great trouble believing in 'coincidences' and I have always wondered what happend with this story and follow-up.

Searcher, That boat incident sticks in my mind as well. I wonder if the police ever pursued that, and how did that story evolve? I know it's been discussed throughout this case here and there. It is rather odd, especially for a boat moored for such a long time. I have trouble believing in a coincidence like that also. The same day that Madeline went missing.
I also find the McCann's with keys to the Church intriguing as well. If and how that might tie into this case could also prove interesting. I also wonder if Madeline's body might have been hidden in the Church somewhere at some stage?

littlepixie wrote:I think she was only moved because the dogs tied her dead body to their apartment. Then whatever condition her body was in could NOT be blamed on an abductor.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Joss wrote:

Searcher wrote:Yes.  It was said back in 2007 at the time, in the media, that a boat owned by a British person, moored in "the marina" [which must be Lagos I understand] was taken out on the night of 3 May "for the first time in two years".  I have great trouble believing in 'coincidences' and I have always wondered what happend with this story and follow-up.

Searcher, That boat incident sticks in my mind as well. I wonder if the police ever pursued that, and how did that story evolve? I know it's been discussed throughout this case here and there. It is rather odd, especially for a boat moored for such a long time. I have trouble believing in a coincidence like that also. The same day that Madeline went missing.
I also find the McCann's with keys to the Church intriguing as well. If and how that might tie into this case could also prove interesting. I also wonder if Madeline's body might have been hidden in the Church somewhere at some stage?

For anyone who hasn't read it there's quite a lot of information on Lagos Marina here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id399.html

Why doesn't it suprise me that the name George Brooks originally came from Michael Wright.

From Michael Wright's Rogatory statement:

16 April 2008

'As for additional information I would like to add that on Sunday, 6 May I went to the pizzaria in PdL and bought a large quantity of pizzas. I was attended by a girl from Liverpool. I explained to her my relationship to the McCanns and she told me that her father 'George' had seen a man carrying a child in his arms in the early morning of 4 May in the resort. I asked her if her father would speak about this to the Portuguese authorities. I don't know if the information was ever investigated.'

[Note: The pizzaria in Praia da Luz is not the Pizza Hut that George Brooks 'owned' in Lagos marina]

Joss wrote:

Searcher wrote:Yes.  It was said back in 2007 at the time, in the media, that a boat owned by a British person, moored in "the marina" [which must be Lagos I understand] was taken out on the night of 3 May "for the first time in two years".  I have great trouble believing in 'coincidences' and I have always wondered what happend with this story and follow-up.

Searcher, That boat incident sticks in my mind as well. I wonder if the police ever pursued that, and how did that story evolve? I know it's been discussed throughout this case here and there. It is rather odd, especially for a boat moored for such a long time. I have trouble believing in a coincidence like that also. The same day that Madeline went missing.
I also find the McCann's with keys to the Church intriguing as well. If and how that might tie into this case could also prove interesting. I also wonder if Madeline's body might have been hidden in the Church somewhere at some stage?