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

loopzdaloop wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

I think she cracked her head open on the floor there, attempting to look out the window and it is where she breathed her last.
I think it was the night that Mrs Fenn heard extended crying.
Even in the crimewatch episode they admitted leaving their children behind most of the night. They only changed their mind after Maddie (allegedly said) "Mummy why didn't you come for us when we were crying", the morning after the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying. Considering that the Mccann's very rarely say anything that makes themselves look bad, and use all the dark arts to surpress information, I find it weird that they should do so in this instance and then repeat it again on crimewatch.
I'm convicted that this anecdote serves an alternate purpose, which is to 'prove' that Maddie was alive the morning after. Which I don't think she was.
I think they found her and she was more than 2 hours dead and another Tapas tried to do CPR (as they could have initially thought she could have been comatose due to the sedation drugs. The CPR is what caused the specks by the door.

Sockpuppet wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

I think she cracked her head open on the floor there, attempting to look out the window and it is where she breathed her last.
I think it was the night that Mrs Fenn heard extended crying.
Even in the crimewatch episode they admitted leaving their children behind most of the night. They only changed their mind after Maddie (allegedly said) "Mummy why didn't you come for us when we were crying", the morning after the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying. Considering that the Mccann's very rarely say anything that makes themselves look bad, and use all the dark arts to surpress information, I find it weird that they should do so in this instance and then repeat it again on crimewatch.
I'm convicted that this anecdote serves an alternate purpose, which is to 'prove' that Maddie was alive the morning after. Which I don't think she was.
I think they found her and she was more than 2 hours dead and another Tapas tried to do CPR (as they could have initially thought she could have been comatose due to the sedation drugs. The CPR is what caused the specks by the door.

My problem with a death prior to May 3rd is Kate's scream as heard by J.R.Salcedas on the night of the disappearance.  Kate must have discovered something awful at this point.

Others have suggested that perhaps Kate discovered that Maddy's body had been removed at this time.  Well, in that case, the body must have been in the apartment for 2 days, if your assumption is that she died on May 1st.

It doesn't matter how much cleaning you do or how much air freshener you use, the smell of a dead body does not go away very easily, as demonstrated by the hire car boot being seen open night and day for weeks.  The GNR would have immediately sensed this smell on arrival.

If Maddy died previous to 3rd May, she must have been removed pretty sharpish.

So what did Kate scream about?

galena wrote:

Sockpuppet wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

I think she cracked her head open on the floor there, attempting to look out the window and it is where she breathed her last.
I think it was the night that Mrs Fenn heard extended crying.
Even in the crimewatch episode they admitted leaving their children behind most of the night. They only changed their mind after Maddie (allegedly said) "Mummy why didn't you come for us when we were crying", the morning after the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying. Considering that the Mccann's very rarely say anything that makes themselves look bad, and use all the dark arts to surpress information, I find it weird that they should do so in this instance and then repeat it again on crimewatch.
I'm convicted that this anecdote serves an alternate purpose, which is to 'prove' that Maddie was alive the morning after. Which I don't think she was.
I think they found her and she was more than 2 hours dead and another Tapas tried to do CPR (as they could have initially thought she could have been comatose due to the sedation drugs. The CPR is what caused the specks by the door.

My problem with a death prior to May 3rd is Kate's scream as heard by J.R.Salcedas on the night of the disappearance.  Kate must have discovered something awful at this point.

Others have suggested that perhaps Kate discovered that Maddy's body had been removed at this time.  Well, in that case, the body must have been in the apartment for 2 days, if your assumption is that she died on May 1st.

It doesn't matter how much cleaning you do or how much air freshener you use, the smell of a dead body does not go away very easily, as demonstrated by the hire car boot being seen open night and day for weeks.  The GNR would have immediately sensed this smell on arrival.

If Maddy died previous to 3rd May, she must have been removed pretty sharpish.

So what did Kate scream about?

How do we know it was really Kate screaming?  I hear horrendous screams most weekends - not someone making a terrible discovery just young folk out partying ...

Sockpuppet wrote:

galena wrote:

Sockpuppet wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

I think she cracked her head open on the floor there, attempting to look out the window and it is where she breathed her last.
I think it was the night that Mrs Fenn heard extended crying.
Even in the crimewatch episode they admitted leaving their children behind most of the night. They only changed their mind after Maddie (allegedly said) "Mummy why didn't you come for us when we were crying", the morning after the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying. Considering that the Mccann's very rarely say anything that makes themselves look bad, and use all the dark arts to surpress information, I find it weird that they should do so in this instance and then repeat it again on crimewatch.
I'm convicted that this anecdote serves an alternate purpose, which is to 'prove' that Maddie was alive the morning after. Which I don't think she was.
I think they found her and she was more than 2 hours dead and another Tapas tried to do CPR (as they could have initially thought she could have been comatose due to the sedation drugs. The CPR is what caused the specks by the door.

My problem with a death prior to May 3rd is Kate's scream as heard by J.R.Salcedas on the night of the disappearance.  Kate must have discovered something awful at this point.

Others have suggested that perhaps Kate discovered that Maddy's body had been removed at this time.  Well, in that case, the body must have been in the apartment for 2 days, if your assumption is that she died on May 1st.

It doesn't matter how much cleaning you do or how much air freshener you use, the smell of a dead body does not go away very easily, as demonstrated by the hire car boot being seen open night and day for weeks.  The GNR would have immediately sensed this smell on arrival.

If Maddy died previous to 3rd May, she must have been removed pretty sharpish.

So what did Kate scream about?

How do we know it was really Kate screaming?  I hear horrendous screams most weekends - not someone making a terrible discovery just young folk out partying ...

'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother.'


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm


Salcedas didn't seem to think it was somebody partying.

Woofer wrote:

Hicks wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:Regarding the Smithman sighting at 21.55, coincidentally this is the exact time when R O'B returned to the Tapas table according to the sticker book timeline, thus giving the T9 a joint alibi, ie they were all together round the table and can vouch for one another

However, independent witnesses say the table was empty by 21.40, which would give none of them an alibi

I was thinking earlier, we have only really focused on the timeline BEFORE Madeleine went missing. What about the time just after, where was GM then?
What about the two men seen arguing at 11.00pm that night, as described on CW?

The Smithman may just have nipped back AFTER the initial commotion to where he was originally seen going, but with help this time.

GM deleted a call to his wife @23.17 (not long after the two men were seen arguing) in fact, he deleted four further calls to her that night.

We know he was on his balcony at 10.30 because Pamela Fenn spoke to him.  He told her a little girl had been abducted.  She asked if she could help by using her phone to call the police and he said they had already been called.

jozi wrote:

bobbin wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Let's get back on topic now...

If it was someone hiding a body it was a very good hiding place.

I'm still hung up on some background info that could make the Smith sighting more of a 'contrived sighting' than 'actual removal' of body.
Kate made phone calls, earlier on in the week, and early morning, to friend Amanda, whose husband would be some sort of authority or guide in how to clean forensic evidence away.
The blood spats found, had been cleaned and damaged by bleach.
Visits to the supermarket were written into Kate's diary.
A key lost, or break in to the chemical / cleaning cupboard were 'reported?' by one of the cleaners.
There was no forensic evidence of Maddie being in 5A, hence a very thorough 'cleaning' operation which would have needed time to perform and then verify.
Blood between tiles had been attempted to be cleaned.
This needs time, more than was available during the evening of 3rd.
There does appear to be panic, on 3rd, but I also remember the very original and now whooshed info about Jez seeing Gerry by the shutters, fiddling, when Jez first set out with son in buggy at around 8 to 8.30 on 3rd.
Since the story of broken shutters was already being fired off by Philomena, regardless of the real fact that the shutters had not been damaged, makes me think that the 'abduction' scene went awry when Gerry was caught trying to set the scene by damaging the shutters (the pre-run having been the bedroom shutters earlier on in the week, repaired by the shutter men).
The 'tannerman' development, could have been a compensation to try to cover for Jez seeing Gerry, who chatted.
Jane was seen by Jez outside 5A as he left his apartment. Perhaps Jane was on 'look out' for Gerry and hissed a warning to 'stop' the shutter setting up, as Jez was appearing.
When it was realised that Jane's sighting could not correlate with the actual road in view (as questioned by a Portuguese police-lady) then maybe the Smith sighting was thrown in.
On being seen by so many however, the stress would have been placed back on the 'tannerman' sighting.
What I do not understand is why
1. The McCs so strenuously sought to avoid the Smith sighting
2. Why Gerry stated that he had not seen Jane, whilst he was talking with Jez, since this was a 'given alibi' that he was now throwing away.
I am still also concerned that Jez thought his meeting with Gerry was earlier than Gerry tried to insist it was.
I think the 3rd did go into a messy panic, but more due to 'cock-up' at being discovered 'up to no good' and that Maddie had been well disposed of before 3rd.
The cleaning was too contrived and efficient. The shutters were 'not damaged' yet Philomena stated as if they had been. She clearly had not been told to 'shut it' in time, and that initial 'blurting' put the whole saga under the sort of microscope that the McCs would have least ever wanted.
Just IMO of course.

Yes bobbin, it was too clean, Mr Amaral commented on it also .The final stages for the abduction could only be put in place on the 3rd May night and I believe they did panic....even Murat said it was the biggest cock-up of the century, or words to that effect !!!

oakeso wrote:I don't believe JT saw Tannerman so found it annoying when SY subsequently identified him coming from the creche without his complimentary blanket walking in the opposite direction or mayb he was walking backwards. But now I think I see the funny side. 

I've always believed Smithman was real and that it was GM on a decoy mission after someone fluffed their lines/got cold feet. It fits so well, he'd be uncomfortable carrying a child that wasn't his own, Smith identified him and the efits are remarkably close. 

But I can't figure out what would take GM down Rua 25 de Abril - it seems to be well off his route. And too many things point to something happening before 3rd - if this was the plan I don't understand why he didn't wear a hoodie/baseball cap. It doesn't add up, too much risk. If nothing else a danger of being picked up on CCTV. 

Grand central for men taking a nightly stroll with sleeping daughters perhaps, I believe the Smiths were telling the truth.

Hicks wrote:
GM rang KM @23.17 ( deleted the call) so he wasn't with or near Kate if he had to call her on the phone, so where was he?

PeterMac wrote:Smithman is deadly to their sedation story.

Praiaaa wrote:Peter - are you able to elaborate on that?
I have wondered if it may have been GM that night, but not carrying MM, but carrying a sedated Sean. The intention being that a person could have been seen heading to the beach carrying a body, but there was no risk - in the event that GM was eg stopped by the police, he could demonstrate he was carrying his live, sleeping son to help him get to  sleep. (Maddie having been disposed of before that). And that sighting became too dangerous because Smith identified GM from the plane footage, which was not supposed to happen, just supposed to be a dark haired man carrying a child towards the sea at a time GM had an alibi.
Alternatively maybe it was MM being carried and the intention initially for her body to be found, but then for some reason the plan changed?
All IMO of course.