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

sallypelt wrote:

jozi wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Joss wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Joss wrote:I also don't see a stranger abducting a deceased child from the McCann apartment to carry her away. That just wouldn't make any sense. But if GM was carrying a deceased child to some other destination for disposal then i still don't see him doing that by walking through the street and risking being seen either. But it could be that he did?

This all depends on when you think M died. Walking through the street is a bit different than hurriedly ridding the apartment of a body before the police arrive.  It's risky, it's desperate, but people get themselves in risky, desperate situations all the time.  Some criminals are known to hide a body in the attic, and hope and pray nobody looks there before they get a chance to move it.

pennylane, When Madeline died would be dependent on when she was last seen alive to when she went missing i would imagine. I agree with what you say about the desperation and risk some perpetrators will go to in trying to cover up a crime.

The McCann's and friends' dodgy version of events, the blood and cadaver dog alerts, the McCanns not waking the twins to check on their health when they were seemingly comatose, and the fact that the McCanns didn't search with everyone else on the night their 3 year old allegedly disappeared, for me eradicates any chance this was a stranger abduction!

Me too pennylane but how did they manage to clean the apartment,getting rid of all the DNA,blood and fingerprints of the children etc  plus washing the curtains in their blind panic ?

Within a week or two of Madeleine McCann going missing, I can distinctively remember reading that the McCann's had gone to the local supermarket to buy bleach and other cleaning materials. It was considered to be rather odd that someone who was on holiday,  would buy such "heavy" cleaning materials. I believe that receipts were shown of what was actually bought, but all this information has disappeared without trace, and I haven't been able to find it on the internet, although there are a few brief posts about them buying cleaning materials.

Woofer wrote:When doing such a deep clean, can this ever remove all traces?

Would the GNR have noticed the smell of cleaning fluids?

Were extra cleaning fluids bought at the supermarket?

p.s. Last query answered by Sallypelt.

sallypelt wrote:

Woofer wrote:When doing such a deep clean, can this ever remove all traces?

Would the GNR have noticed the smell of cleaning fluids?

Were extra cleaning fluids bought at the supermarket?

p.s. Last query answered by Sallypelt.

Woofer, I believe that the reason the DNA was "corrupted"? (was that the word that was used?) was because of the bleach or other chemicals.

whmon wrote:I believe that the Smith's are genuine. They would not have pin-pointed GM or any other named individual if they were lying, they would just have said that they saw 'a man' carrying a child. Also, there were too many of them to be lying. Surely Mr and Mrs Smith would not have trusted so many fake witnesses to stick to the story/keep mum, especially their young daughter who was at an age where best friends tell each other all their secrets. Why would they risk this? They could practically guarantee that their daughter would tell her best friend, who would tell her best friend, who would tell someone else etc, etc. It would have ended up on the internet within a few months. Perhaps the Smith's were possibly mistaken in their identification - but they were genuine.

Furthermore, I believe that 'somebody' could have left 5A, gone to the beach and then to the Tapas bar within the timeframe. It may have been risky but adrenaline and desperation are good motivators. Also (and very importantly), why did KM do her check immediately after GM returned from a check? She hadn't done that before. And what about the length of time of GM's check, easily time enough to get to the beach and back!

A few posters have suggested that 'somebody' would not be able to walk around the streets carrying a dead child. I disagree, the child would look as if she were asleep.

columbostogeys wrote:Do posts get removed? I answered someone on here and its gone.....seems very odd...

pennylane wrote:

columbostogeys wrote:Do posts get removed? I answered someone on here and its gone.....seems very odd...

You probably had a 'modify' or 'save' request because someone else had posted while you were typing your comment.  If you don't click on one or the other, you can lose your post.  

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:As another newbie (to this forum but certainly not others) it's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme, is this because they have a differing view from you?

'Hongkong Phooey', welcome to the forum.

I hope I may just call you 'Phooey' for short.

You have certainly made quite a big impact on the forum already in your three days here.

You wrote:  "It's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme..."

Of course!

The six I mentioned have all signed up just 'because of the Crimewatch programme'.

I don't know why I never thought of that.

Try visiting the sections of the forum that deal with the McCanns' choice of private investigators.

And then come back and tell us what you think about that.

galena wrote:

whmon wrote:I believe that the Smith's are genuine. They would not have pin-pointed GM or any other named individual if they were lying, they would just have said that they saw 'a man' carrying a child. Also, there were too many of them to be lying. Surely Mr and Mrs Smith would not have trusted so many fake witnesses to stick to the story/keep mum, especially their young daughter who was at an age where best friends tell each other all their secrets. Why would they risk this? They could practically guarantee that their daughter would tell her best friend, who would tell her best friend, who would tell someone else etc, etc. It would have ended up on the internet within a few months. Perhaps the Smith's were possibly mistaken in their identification - but they were genuine.

Furthermore, I believe that 'somebody' could have left 5A, gone to the beach and then to the Tapas bar within the timeframe. It may have been risky but adrenaline and desperation are good motivators. Also (and very importantly), why did KM do her check immediately after GM returned from a check? She hadn't done that before. And what about the length of time of GM's check, easily time enough to get to the beach and back!

A few posters have suggested that 'somebody' would not be able to walk around the streets carrying a dead child. I disagree, the child would look as if she were asleep.

Bold bit one: I doubt the children were paying any attention - if dad said - didn't we see someone they would probably agree.  Not a case in my mind of sitting down and agreeing to tell a false story more a case of discussing the sighting and adding on more details, perhaps some subconsciously gleaned from coverage of the McCann case. People are very suggestible. I'm not observant and if a friend said they had seen someone walking down the street with a child I'd probably agree if they seemed adamant.  I never notice people.

Bold point two: Why would they want to get to the beach?  It doesn't seem a great place to hide a body to me?

Bold point three - I think you missed the point - why be seen with a child at all when you could put the body in a sports bag or something similar so that witnesses would not remember seeing a man carrying a child? Way less suspicious, especially when to be seen carrying a supposedly sleeping child is not the best move when a big child abduction story is about to break!

aquila wrote:

dantezebu wrote:In many countries in Southern Europe they use alcohol/ ammonia for deep cleaning these leave no smell.

Cleaning with hydrogen peroxide gets rid of blood (unlike bleach) but can leave stains on fabric which look like tea stains.

sallypelt wrote:

Woofer wrote:When doing such a deep clean, can this ever remove all traces?

Would the GNR have noticed the smell of cleaning fluids?

Were extra cleaning fluids bought at the supermarket?

p.s. Last query answered by Sallypelt.

Woofer, I believe that the reason the DNA was "corrupted"? (was that the word that was used?) was because of the bleach or other chemicals.

DIBarlow wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

Woofer wrote:When doing such a deep clean, can this ever remove all traces?

Would the GNR have noticed the smell of cleaning fluids?

Were extra cleaning fluids bought at the supermarket?

p.s. Last query answered by Sallypelt.

Woofer, I believe that the reason the DNA was "corrupted"? (was that the word that was used?) was because of the bleach or other chemicals.

Or could the term "corrupted" be levelled at the FSS final (revised) report, even though it still contained reference to swab 286A/2007 CRL 3A "from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area."
Perhaps couched to create obfuscation, but leaving only two options, either it was from Maddie or from a mixture of both her parents.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:As another newbie (to this forum but certainly not others) it's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme, is this because they have a differing view from you?

'Hongkong Phooey', welcome to the forum.

I hope I may just call you 'Phooey' for short.

You have certainly made quite a big impact on the forum already in your three days here.

You wrote: "It's a bit strange that you are fixating on a group that probably signed up due to the Crimewatch programme..."

Of course!

The six I mentioned have all signed up just 'because of the Crimewatch programme'.

I don't know why I never thought of that.

Try visiting the sections of the forum that deal with the McCanns' choice of private investigators.

And then come back and tell us what you think about that.

galena wrote:
Bold point two: Why would they want to get to the beach?  It doesn't seem a great place to hide a body to me?

margaret wrote:

galena wrote:
Bold point two: Why would they want to get to the beach?  It doesn't seem a great place to hide a body to me?

Burying in sand 'mummifies' the body, fluids seep away and no smell escapes.  

http://news.sky.com/story/1155201/giant-oarfish-sea-serpent-found-off-california

Châtelaine wrote:Why the beach?
The Atlantic Ocean has 2 low tides and 2 high tides per day [actually 24 hours 50 minutes IIUC]. On May 3, 2007 low tide was at 10pm. That means that a body [IMO and  just a hypothesis] could easily have been buried without tools in wet sand and be safely covered for up to the next 12 hours. That would give time until [still a hypothesis] approx. 10am May 4 to try and find a second hiding place. At 6am it wouldn't have been to difficult to get to it.

ETA when did MW arrive in Portugal? And when were the pictures of him and GM at the seaside made? May 5?

ETA2 Mods Please remove if you feel so.

galena wrote:Sorry I don't believe that the McCanns would have been able to go down to the beach and retrieve a body on the 4th May not with the whole world watching them and press all over the place.  Nor do I believe that Gerry could bury a body in wet sand and return to the Tapas Bar without looking a state and attracting suspicion. 

There was no Press at 6am May 4.
In this scenario GM did not return to Tapes Bar but to apt 5A

I think the beach theory is attractive in some ways but I can't get my head round it. Way way too risky - to bury a body somewhere and come back the next day to retrieve it - especially after you have called the PJ and are under their scrutiny. It would be hard to mark the spot in a way that wouldn't be irradicated by the tide and I suspect it would take a lot of digging.

Exactly. that's why I asked when MW came to PT and when the photo of them two was taken on the beach side.
***
Bold = my answer.