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

russiandoll wrote: 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... but such a high risk strategy and she would have to be there from the start almost so as to be accepted by staff as the real thing.
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 avid some of the more outlandish theories but those sheets are so very strange.

aiyoyo wrote:

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.

worriedmum wrote:If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

worriedmum wrote:If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

tigger wrote:

worriedmum wrote:If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

As to your last point, simple would be good, but: these were allegedly printed within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, wouldn't it be more logical:
a) to search for your daughter who could only be minutes away
b) use a recent photograph from your camera to print out - not a picture from nearly 18 months ago (and why would that be so easily available at that time?)
c) how did the eye defect get on the photograph? Because they are on record on the 11th May 2011 in the Piers Morgan interview that it was just a fleck which you could only see from very close by

Simple would be nice - simple would be shouting her name, not leaving your other two children alone and simple would be to assume she'd wandered off, through the open patio door - it wasn't locked, a four years old could easily open it. Especially in view of the fact that Maddie often woke during the night and got a star on a chart at home when she stayed in bed all night.
That's simple.
Shouting - not her name, but 'They've taken her!' is not simple although it handily gives us the whole of the plot line. Paedophiles turned up in droves soon afterwards, in part two of the plot line.

PeterMac wrote:Most murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence.
People spend their lives in prison, or in days gone by were hanged, purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

MikeH wrote:Hi everyone,

I've registered before, a year or more ago, but had my account deactivated because I didn't post. Like many of you, I've followed this case from the start, and don't intend to give up on it anytime soon.

Supporting the substitute theory....

I've just got to add that the use of the out of date picture supports the substitute Madeleine theory completely. They could not use a current photo of Madeleine because all of the nannies would notice that it was not the same child, hence the assortment of photos we see, all appearing to be almost different children. The nannies would have stated that the Madeleine they had looked after was a different child, similar perhaps, but not the same. Using a plethora of photographs of differently aged photos of Madeleine just clouded the issue.

The "photoshopped" iconic image of Madeleine which everyone now knows, was clearly prepared and printed in advance as this was the image that they had to get out there at the earliest opportunity, cute and marketable Madeleine, and following the admittance on the Piers Morgan show that this coloboma was nothing but a slight fleck, this image must have been enhanced, which all points to pre planning of the entire "abduction" scenario.

And... just where are all the loving family photographs, which normal families take frequently of their children, from this holiday which would show Madeleine as she really appeared at this time - in reality there are none, other than the one which mysteriously appeared several weeks later after a return visit to the UK.

Simply, if your child went missing, a child aged almost 4 years old, would you immediately have photos printed of how your child appeared almost two years ago so that people would know who to look for............ ?

Mike

tigger wrote:Hi, The timeline of events leading up to Maddie's disappearance comes courtesy of the key players. Therefore it is unreliable evidence imo. We have little independent evidence of events, so one is stuck with circumstantial evidence. That's all there is, barring a sudden attack of conscience on the part of the McCanns.
Gerry McCann himself has said that it is good there is so much confusion out there. Yet another strange thing to say if you want to find your daughter.

So putting circumstantial and recorded evidence together is always going to lead to various interpretations. We can surmise, we cannot know.
I do know however what happened if I find an empty canary cage, feathers on the floor and a satisfied cat. Circumstantial evidence at its best.