Re: Theory

by Garth 20.05.11 20:09

I have a feeling that the main things that will be discovered by SY is the complete and utter amateurish investigation carried out by the PJ.

by Garth 20.05.11 20:13

If the abductor wanted to get the child out of sight, he would have turned left, not right, and definitely not walked across the top of the road, which the tapas lot could see when walking up the hill. If it was planned, they must have known which route the tapas gang took. He would have turned left, which is the way to the Smith sighting!!

In your opinion.

In my opinion the objective would be to get the child out of sight..............not wander along the top road where the girl could have been recognised by someone.

If you rob a house, you dont parade what you have robbed by walking down the same road. You get out of sight first.

by Garth 20.05.11 20:14

All starting to make sense now isn't it people!

by Martin 20.05.11 20:17

Garth wrote:The blood wasn't Madeleines for a start. And no trace of any evidence because the forensic person was hopeless. If other people touched the shutters after Kate, then where were their prints?

Yep, you've got it...........they were hopeless.

Is that it? You can't back up your theory with facts, but you're quite happy to come on here and toss insults around at everyone else!

With those sorts of answers you'll be off the payroll soon!

by Garth 20.05.11 20:18

BTW how the hell is an abductor supposed to know the McCanns would be walking up the road exactly?

What is significant, is that is was the shortes route to get her out of sight. The next bit was just to get her to the planned location which meant walking around the top apartments............and is why it took 25 mins or so before the Smiths sighting.

by Guest 20.05.11 20:18

Garth wrote:If the abductor wanted to get the child out of sight, he would have turned left, not right, and definitely not walked across the top of the road, which the tapas lot could see when walking up the hill. If it was planned, they must have known which route the tapas gang took. He would have turned left, which is the way to the Smith sighting!!

In your opinion.

In my opinion the objective would be to get the child out of sight..............not wander along the top road where the girl could have been recognised by someone.

If you rob a house, you dont parade what you have robbed by walking down the same road. You get out of sight first.

It is the same road Garth - you go left or right. Left takes you on the way to the Smith sighting - right takes you past the road the tapas lot walked up

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

by Garth 20.05.11 20:18

BTW how the hell is an abductor supposed to know the McCanns would be walking up the road exactly?

What is significant, is that is was the shortes route to get her out of sight. The next bit was just to get her to the planned location which meant walking around the top apartments............and is why it took 25 mins or so before the Smiths sighting.

by Guest 20.05.11 20:27

Garth wrote:BTW how the hell is an abductor supposed to know the McCanns would be walking up the road exactly?

What is significant, is that is was the shortes route to get her out of sight. The next bit was just to get her to the planned location which meant walking around the top apartments............and is why it took 25 mins or so before the Smiths sighting.

Well, it must have been planned Garth, they wouldn't enter an apartment, thinking someone was there would they? Therefore they must have been watching, even the night before - on the dry run, cough. So they would know one of the tapas lot was going up there every five minutes We had Matt at 9 ish - Gerry at 9.10, JT just after, and Jez walking around pushing his buggy from 8.45 till after 9.15.

by NewGuest 20.05.11 20:29

Garth - the shortest and quickest way to get her out of sight would be to drive a car into the carpark behind the apartments and then drive off. Was it you who said 'perhaps the abductor didn't have a car?'

I did find a report in an old Daily Mail - can't find the reference right now - which said that an elderly couple living in the area had seen a car that they didn't recognise driving rapidly out of the car park. The time was 8.30 pm.

They did report the siting to the police but I don't know whether it was followed up. If it was significant it would fit with the abduction theory, but the timing wouldn't fit with the Tapas 9/10s time line.

by Garth 20.05.11 20:35

It depends what you mean by planned.

As far as taking a child was concerned then yes 'planned'. How much pre planning was involved is a different matter. I don't think it was some sophisticated and planned abduction watching the McCanns movements over previous nights . What is for sure imo, is that they knew a child was there and that a child had been left on her own on a previous night and hence the sedating.

The purpose of the abduction I wouldn't want to speculate on but there is every chance that the little girl is alive imo. Although it doesnt appear likely i know.

by Guest 20.05.11 20:45

Garth wrote:It depends what you mean by planned.

As far as taking a child was concerned then yes 'planned'. How much pre planning was involved is a different matter. I don't think it was some sophisticated and planned abduction watching the McCanns movements over previous nights . What is for sure imo, is that they knew a child was there and that a child had been left on her own on a previous night and hence the sedating.

The purpose of the abduction I wouldn't want to speculate on but there is every chance that the little girl is alive imo. Although it doesnt appear likely i know.

You have contradicted yourself there in the two sentences. You don't think they watched over previous nights, but they knew the child was there and had been left on her own a previous night = doh!!!! And how did he/they sedate her. Wake her up and give her tea with something in it. By injection, those two would wake her up. Chloroform would linger and as doctors K & G would smell it, it also leaves burn marks on the face, so the twins would have signs of these.

by Garth 20.05.11 20:45

newguest

Driving a car into the back carpark would do nothing more than attract attention. The car could have been identified which would have led to all sorts of problems. A person carrying a child in the streets before anyone was aware would not ring alarm bells until after the event..............which would have been too late.

If the destination was far away then maybe the abductor(s) took her to a car parked near the Smiths sighting.....or, as is a possibility, she was taken away by boat. Pure speculation I know.

by niknaks08 20.05.11 20:48

if the abduction theory had more evidence than just jt s = sightings , lets say the same evidence that backs up the " died in the appartment" ,my guess is the mccanns/ supporters would be shouting from the rooftops how great and presise the dogs are ,forensics ect , think the mccanns /supporters need to think of new ways of solving crimes and fast as apparently , dna ,forensics , trained dogs, ect ect just doesnt cut it any more [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Garth 20.05.11 20:50

Candyfloss

I chuck the DOH back at you.

Night and previous night(s). One is singular and one is multiple. Wake up!......it aint that late!

by Garth 20.05.11 20:53

And yes Chloroform, jeez you dont have to smother the child to make her more sleepy. Minimal amount needed. Go check it out!

And don't forget, the window WAS open so any smell would have dispersed in that time between the final check roll

by WTF 20.05.11 20:55

.... its ETC roll

by Guest 20.05.11 20:58

Garth wrote:Candyfloss

I chuck the DOH back at you.

Night and previous night(s). One is singular and one is multiple. Wake up!......it aint that late!

Doh, what's the difference beween sophisticated planned abduction, and a planned, abduction It must have been planned if they were watching the night before. Why didn't they have a car just around the corner, not in the car park, just further down the road. It doesn't take much sophisticated planning for that. What's the point of having a car as far away as the Smith sighting, and walking around with a child.

by dragonfly 20.05.11 21:00

Garth wrote: Big Vern Today at 12:05 pm

This pathetic Garth character has to be a McCann or one of the Tapas mob.

-------------------------
Engage brain before you speak little man! <--------- do not mess with columbo

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why the theory doesn't fit. ain't we all still waiting for your answers All I've briefly read so far is people coming up with all sorts of lunatic theories. and yours is not!!!!! still no answer to the sedatives I see and no doubt your avoiding it!

by rose58 20.05.11 21:00

Garth Today at 8:53 pm

And yes Chloroform, jeez you dont have to smother the child to make her more sleepy. Minimal amount needed. Go check it out!

And don't forget, the window WAS open so any smell would have dispersed in that time between the final check
&&&&&&&&&&What time would that be then? Is it a fact that Madeleine was abducted at x time?And how long does the smell of chloroform take to dissipate?

by Garth 20.05.11 21:04

Hang on a minute.............if you read back, it wasn't me who suggested the car. I don't believe there was one.

And I certainly aint gonna explain what 'sophisticed' means.

What I'm trying very hard to explain to you is that they would have had 'knowledge' that the girl was alone. Watching the McCanns every movements on previous nights for would have had a tad more 'thought' gone into the abduction. Is that clear enough now................ roll

by Garth 20.05.11 21:07

Rose me old luv, go and do your research. There are infact other sedatives that DONT give off any smell.

by Guest 20.05.11 21:11

Garth wrote:Hang on a minute.............if you read back, it wasn't me who suggested the car. I don't believe there was one.

And I certainly aint gonna explain what 'sophisticed' means.

What I'm trying very hard to explain to you is that they would have had 'knowledge' that the girl was alone. Watching the McCanns every movements on previous nights for would have had a tad more 'thought' gone into the abduction. Is that clear enough now................

Yep, clear as mud, and your theory fits as well as OJ Simpson's glove!! Why take Madeleine and not one of the younger children?

by dragonfly 20.05.11 21:11

Garth wrote:McCanns go to dine. Abuctors wait.....one enters via patio door,the unlocked fire exit route for the kids the other watches not a good look out person over and then goes around to front. Person inside drugs child with sedative how are you suggesting this was done? waking her up and getting her to swallow a tablet? injection? chloroform? but then disturbed by GM....... again not a good look out person hides in closet. what closet could they fit in? did they start to re arrange the cots and move furniture about?about GM leaves, abductor opens window, from inside or out? how did they manage to do this with no noise ? put a silencer on the shutter? picks up child and passes her to accomplice.with no forensic trace ? Accomplice makes away. Abductor leaves via front door. to get out the front door you would need a key unless you are suggesting the mccanns left BOTH doors unlocked? JT spots accomplice with child. how do you explain her egg man no details to then a full description? Accomplice gets child out of sight before making way to other side of PDL but is then spotted by Smiths. they snatch a child and nearly get caught by Gerry but then choose to stroll round pdl in circles ? Can you be more specific regarding your theory with time lines ?e

No, you dont need a key to get out the front door. yes you do, if they lock it with a key from outside you can't just turn the latch ask your 'sas' pal

And the 'egg man' has got feck all to do with JT's sighting. yes it has, that was her description and the only witness to the 'abductor'

Jeez, its like trying to educate a banana! Is that a quote from Voltaire?

by rose58 20.05.11 21:15

Garth Today at 9:07 pm

Rose me old luv, go and do your research. There are infact other sedatives that DONT give off any smell.
&&&&&&&&&&&&You mentioned chloroform, hence my reply and questions to you. Why are you being patronising?What other sedatives give off no odour? I'm not that good with googling scientific stuff.

by rose58 20.05.11 21:17

My other question would be why did the parents not demand their remaining children not get tested for drugs that night or take them to A&E?

Log in for more topics