Re: Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case

by kaz 01.07.24 18:36

kaz wrote:Nobody wants to find a dead cat - by Miri AF (substack.com)

A very plausible and interesting theory .

Wrong place. Wrong time. Apologies

by Honesty Yesterday at 5:05

Paddingtom wrote:Hi Honesty,

Bernt does not feel the Smith sighting matters. He thinks it was probably a random. He is aware of all the theories and goes with the Random. He says GM wouldnt be so stupid to wander around PDL with a corpse.

He says tghe Smiths photofit was suppressed for years because it looked too much like gerry but feels that the Smiths could have been influenced by all the pictures of GM everywhere....very possibly....

He aslo says it was pointless carrying a decoy. I 100% disagree. There was an enormous point. To show an abductor and abductee on cctv. and also to setup the inference that they escaped by sea which links nicely with Sagresman turning up. Just my opinion. ps..he also says the CCTV at Estrela de Luz was not working, which to me is a bit irrelevant. The mccanns wouldnt have known it wasnt working and Goncalo id on record as saying hes devastated that his officers didnt get to the tape before it was overwritten......not, it was broken.....that it was overwritten. so it would appear it was working, but even if it wasnt, the mmccanns woiuldnt know that and wanted to get the abductor on cctv walking towards the beach. The more I test my theory, the more Im convinced its right. humble arent i? he he,

Thank you, Paddington. That's very interesting. If it's not spoiling it for others, where does he think the body was kept until it was 'disposed' of, to use GM's term.

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 6:13

I disagree about a child being carried about for cctv.
You would see gerry on it as it appears he wasn't in disguise.
I know you think the pictures would be fuzzy but again I disagree as gerry would have no idea about the quality of each cctv camera.
It doesn't make sense and is unnecessary with Tannerman in the frame.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 7:38

Hi Honesty,

I think the information about where Bernt thinks she was temorarily stored is already out there. You know those raised tombs in graveyards. well you can slide the lids off. Bit morbid but they were desperate.

Hi Bluebagthepirate. Youre perfectly entitled to disagree...youre in good company.

I think it was Silentscope that told us Gerry had changed clothes during the evening...perhaps he spilt a drink on himself or perhaps he wanted to be wearing different clothes to the cctv.? just a thought.

Im trying to rember back to 2007 how good the quality of cctv was then and I really cant. All I can see is the Bulger case which was earlier and cctv might have improved. It is just my belief that it wasnt that great back in those days. maybe a change of clothes would be all that was needed?

Also, Im suspecting that Tannerman was only invented in order to distract the police from the disasterous smith sighting. i.e. to send Tannerman in a completely different direction and completely different time so they could say they were not the same person.

Ive tried to imagine a scenario where Tannerman was always going ti be used to send the police in the correct direction, but Im struggling to see how that could have worked although it would have been very useful.

For me it makes enormous sense for Tannerman to be the first clue....i.e. he went that way. Then CCtv captures him on his way to the beach. Then Sagresman takes the rap.

But until I can work that out, my belief is that Tannerman only came about because they wanted to keep the police away from the Smith sighting.

But like I say, you must make your own mind up.

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 7:55

I don't even think it's certain the Smith sighting was that night.

When did they come forward?

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 8:18

So the theory is that Gerry, after unexpectedly bumping into Jez walks around the streets by some bars in the hope of being caught on cctv of unknown fuzziness whilst hoping not to unexpectedly bump into other people by bars then change clothes and leave them on the bed?

I'm thinking not because it makes no sense whatsoever.

by crusader Yesterday at 8:22

If Madeleine died earlier in the week, what was the point of the Tannerman sighting.
There would be no reason to send the police in another direction.
It's overly complicated, the Smiths are the only people independent witnesses to see someone with a child on 3rd May.
If it was to try to show Madeleine was still alive on 3rd, job done.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 8:27

Ah, I think that is one thing everyone agrees on. It was definately 3rd because some members of the smiths were going home the next day so remembered it and also the pub had a receipt for their drinks for 3rd.

Ive just looked at google earth again and I really cant imagine that Tannerman could have always been intended. He had to be a last minute invention to negate the smith sighting.

I dont know how to load the earth image to show everyone. so I will just have to explain as best I can.

The smith sighting was SW of 5A The most straightforward way to get there (and likely not be seen) was by turning left out the front door of 5A then straight across the dogleg junction. Past Estrela de Luz and then a southerly heading towards the smiths.

It would be pointless for the abductor to come out the back patio doors and then walk up the side of 5a and then turn left across the front of it. Far easir to go out the front door to start with. (or the window if you want to go down that route)

now then, there is no way an observer at the entrance to the tapas area could see him. The only way I can think that he would be seen would be from the apartments overlooking the dogleg junction.

I dont know what apartments they all had. If one of them had a dogleg junction apartment then maybe he was going to be seen from there. otherwise I can only think that he was invented to negate smithman.

Also, at this point I think serious minds were involved and I do not think all these plans were concocted by GM. I think it went far higher than that and they were used to having to come up with solutions to problems.

Does anyone know the occupants of the apartments overlooking the dogleg junction? R.1 de Maio?

Crusader, the point of Tannerman was to send the police in the opposite direction because having been seen by the smiths, they had to abandon plan A. the smiths could identify GM.

If tannerman was always intended, it could only have been to point the police towards the cctv.

by crusader Yesterday at 8:44

We know the Smiths saw someone with a child, so why would they need to abandon plan A, they didn't need to mention Tannerman once Gerry? had been seen by the Smiths.
This is their mistake in my opinion, they didn't have to prove anything, that was the police job.
All they had to do was say Madeleine had been abducted, nothing else.
The Smith sighting was either to try to prove an abduction or it was someone with their own child.

by Cake Lover Yesterday at 8:57

Perhaps the McCann's went overboard, and invented too much?

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 9:01

Paddingtom wrote:Ah, I think that is one thing everyone agrees on. It was definately 3rd because some members of the smiths were going home the next day so remembered it and also the pub had a receipt for their drinks for 3rd.

They never drank on other nights?

by **PeterMac** Yesterday at 9:53

Tannerman wasn't carrying Madeleine
Smithman wasn't carrying Madeleine
Madeleine died on 2/5/7, and her body was out of the apartment by late 2/5/7 or very early hours of 3/5/7

Tannerman was pure invention - but kept everyone focussed on abduction for 8 years
Smithman is irrelevant - but has kept everyone focussed on 3/5/7 for 17 years

Both very clever in their own way.

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 9:58

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Paddingtom wrote:Ah, I think that is one thing everyone agrees on. It was definately 3rd because some members of the smiths were going home the next day so remembered it and also the pub had a receipt for their drinks for 3rd.
They never drank on other nights?

I'll answer my own question... yes they did (they're Irish!)

From their own statement they frequented the bars in PDL and saw Robert Murat drunk a number of times.

As Peter says, the Smithman "sighting" is meaningless.

It makes no sense anyway as it would be a ridiculous unnecessary risk to have Gerry spotted somewhere he officially wasn't supposed to be.

by sandancer Yesterday at 10:03

Regarding cctv, If I remember rightly it was not allowed to face onto public streets only on private grounds .

I'm sure the camera the PJ tried to access footage from was at a hotel .

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me , my memory is not what it was !

by crusader Yesterday at 10:16

The CCTV on private property is different from public CCTV.
The council run ones are usually fixed to poles or street lights.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 11:01

crusader wrote:We know the Smiths saw someone with a child, so why would they need to abandon plan A, they didn't need to mention Tannerman once Gerry? had been seen by the Smiths.
This is their mistake in my opinion, they didn't have to prove anything, that was the police job.
All they had to do was say Madeleine had been abducted, nothing else.
The Smith sighting was either to try to prove an abduction or it was someone with their own child.

They didnt want GM to be seen by people that could ultimately identify him. Thats why they wanted cctv to see him...it couldnt testify it was him. So, when the smiths saw him they had to abandon plan A and try and send the police in the opposite direction.

I agree with Petermac that no-one was carrying mm. My theory is that GM was carrying Ella.

Going back to whether Tannerman was intended all along or not, I ve just had a brainwave. If any of their flats looked north that would have been a perfect vantage point to see Tannerman walking from right to left towards R.1 o de Maio. Does anyone know who stayed in what flat and whether they had a northerly view please? I cant find it.

Also, PeterMac, Im interested that you are happy to accept Bernt's timeline. What was it that persuaded you away from 29th ?

by crusader Yesterday at 11:15

All the Tapas lot and the McCann flats faced the same way overlooking the pool.
5A McCann
5B Oldfield
5D O'Brien
5H Payne above.

by Silentscope Yesterday at 11:40

Bluebagthepirate wrote:So the theory is that Gerry, after unexpectedly bumping into Jez walks around the streets by some bars in the hope of being caught on cctv of unknown fuzziness whilst hoping not to unexpectedly bump into other people by bars then change clothes and leave them on the bed?

I'm thinking not because it makes no sense whatsoever.

What does make sense is:

Gerry had already set the timelines for an Alert at 22:00.
The Smiths sighting was at 21:55 - 22:03.

But the PJ suspect that the Alert was raised 21:20 -21:30
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

Half an Hour is missing.

That is the only time period where Smithman could have been Gerry. (If it was him)

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 11:40

Paddingtom wrote:

They didnt want GM to be seen by people that could ultimately identify him.

What, like Jez did 45 minutes earlier?

There is no way he would do something so unpredictably insane in a part of town with people in and out of bars and restaurants.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 11:45

when GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anyone. Goncalo says in his book that at that time of year only half the bars and restaurants were open and they closed at 9.00 . The streets would have been deserted.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 11:47

Silentscope wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:So the theory is that Gerry, after unexpectedly bumping into Jez walks around the streets by some bars in the hope of being caught on cctv of unknown fuzziness whilst hoping not to unexpectedly bump into other people by bars then change clothes and leave them on the bed?

I'm thinking not because it makes no sense whatsoever.

What does make sense is:

Gerry had already set the timelines for an Alert at 22:00.
The Smiths sighting was at 21:55 - 22:03.

But the PJ suspect that the Alert was raised 21:20 -21:30
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

Half an Hour is missing.

That is the only time period where Smithman could have been Gerry. (If it was him)

I think they were suposed to do it earlier but chatting to jez made the timeline slip and the alarm was raised by KM because she didnt know he had been held up.

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 11:52

Paddingtom wrote:when GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anyone. Goncalo says in his book that at that time of year only half the bars and restaurants were open and they closed at 9.00 . The streets would have been deserted.

They were clearly not deserted... Jez... Smiths...

And bars and restaurants were open... Dolphin, Kelly's...

There were people on holiday in PDL, people who would have seen Gerry during the week at bars and creches and tennis sessions...

It makes no sense that Gerry would take the risk of walking around those streets - by the bars and restaurants - carrying a child.

Like happened with Jez just 45 minutes before.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 11:54

crusader wrote:All the Tapas lot and the McCann flats faced the same way overlooking the pool.
5A McCann
5B Oldfield
5D O'Brien
5H Payne above.

thanks so much Crusader. But Ive just found an article that shows the apartments from the north side. It would appear that they are like terrace houses, you know with a front and back garden. ALL of them overlokked the north side.

Therefore my theory now says that Tannerman was always intended. He would be seen going from Right to left towards the dogleg junction. Then he would turn up on cctv going to the beach. And then he would turn up in Sagres. Job done.

However, the smith sighting meant he had to go from left to right towards the Sagres road (and Murats house conveniently) and had to be seen from a different vantage point. i.e outside the tapas bar side.

I know you all think Im barking, but thats fine. I am very content in my little world and it all makes sense to me. I am happy with my days work. Now I must get back to the weeding.

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 11:55

Paddingtom wrote:when GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anyone. Goncalo says in his book that at that time of year only half the bars and restaurants were open and they closed at 9.00 . The streets would have been deserted.

Cleary at least Kelly's was not closed at 9.00 and I suspect neither were the others.

And half the bars is still half the bars.

by Paddingtom Yesterday at 13:01

its raining so im back. I suspect an occasional drunk wouldnt have mattered but the problem with the Smiths was that there were so many of them and even if one or two had had several drinks, clearly most would be stone cold sober. The other problem is that they could speak to each other about it and agree it was odd or perfectly normal.

I stand by my theory until someone ;persuades me otherwise and so far noone has. You dont have to believe it. Thats fine. we are all able to come up with theories taht are supported or not. noone has proof of anything yet. Lets hope one day we will.

Log in for more topics